Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Was there temple work done for Jews after the leaders agreed not to?

That is a question I have...

Maybe this has been answered, and I missed it, but . . .

How do we (any of us) know that temple work done for Jews wasn't done by authentic LDS descendants of their ancestors? It seems to me that people are losing their minds about the mere thought of work done for Jews/Holocaust victims, without considering whether the work was legitimately done (in the Church's eyes). I'm not even sure how we could even determine that, one way or another.

When do these rounds of leaks date from? It is not physically possible (now, and for quite some time now) to print out and do the work for anyone but one's own ancestors. I know, because my kids and my wife and I try to get and do as many ancestors as possible, and it can be really tough panning for gold. If we got seized by the "let's do Holocaust victims!" fever, we wouldn't be able to do it. So my question is: just who is it who is doing it?

Or, again, is this really, really, really old news?

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, cdowis said:

AS mentioned above,  this is not a leak but very old news.  

A Trib journalist investigated the Hitler ordinance submission, and discovered that the submitter gave a fake name.  It was such ordinances that caused the church to tighten down the security protocols to go thru familysearch for submissions.  Other submissions included fictional characters such as Mickey Mouse.  Eventually several individuals were denied permission to submit names because of abuse..

This was clearly an an attempt to embarrass the church.

CFR please

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, rongo said:

How do we (any of us) know that temple work done for Jews wasn't done by authentic LDS descendants of their ancestors? It seems to me that people are losing their minds about the mere thought of work done for Jews/Holocaust victims, without considering whether the work was legitimately done (in the Church's eyes). I'm not even sure how we could even determine that, one way or another.

The past is the past, and I can't read into a crystal ball for that answer.

Nowadays, if you are a direct descendent of a Holocaust victim, you must request special permission and your genealogy to the First Presidency for review and their approval. 

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

When do these rounds of leaks date from? It is not physically possible (now, and for quite some time now) to print out and do the work for anyone but one's own ancestors. I know, because my kids and my wife and I try to get and do as many ancestors as possible, and it can be really tough panning for gold. If we got seized by the "let's do Holocaust victims!" fever, we wouldn't be able to do it. So my question is: just who is it who is doing it?

Or, again, is this really, really, really old news?

It is REALLY old news, like ~30 years.  The records are also available for anyone to see this entire time. 

 

Link to comment

I'm honestly surprised by the push back over my angst of the contents of this leak.  This "the church can do no wrong" mentality is utter group think.  That few are embarrassed or ashamed by the fact that Adolf Elizabeth Hitler has been baptized a Mormon should make your head explode but instead all I hear is justification for his proxy work. Once again this board has surprised me and I'm left gobsmacked 

Edited by Johnnie Cake
Link to comment
3 hours ago, 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

 

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017-02-21-mormonleaks-releases-records-documenting-temple-ordinances-of-seventeen-public-figures/

 

the church agreed to stop doing temple work for holocaust victims in 1991...and yet it continues 

 http://www.jewishgen.org/InfoFiles/ldsagree.html

This is really old story.  Yeah, the same people will be offended by the same story regardless of how many times it repeated.  I wonder if Jews should be offended when a Christian prays for Israel?  I wonder if a Muslim could pray for Israel and be deemed acceptable?  Could an animist pray for a Christian or should they be persecuted for having the temerity to pray for a Christian friend?  

Obviously, I don't get hung up on the hurt feelings of others - regardless of their religious persuasion - when an individual of another faith does anything - pray, vicarious ordinance, etc. for their eternal welfare.  If some zealot wants to take offense then go for it and be offended as much as you possibly can be offended.  As for me and my house, I will still pray for my Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu friends.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm honestly surprised by the push back over my angst of the contents of this leak.  This "the church can do no wrong" mentality is utter group think.  That few are embarrassed or ashamed by the fact that Adolf Elizabeth Hitler has been baptized a Mormon should make your head explode but instead all I hear is justification for his proxy work. Once again this board has surprised me and I'm gobsmacked 

I agree.  There is no way the church or others can spin this in a positive light.

If it was a joke or a way to show the church in a bad way, then that means Hitler was baptized in the temple, received endowments, married/sealed to his wife and sealed to his parents without anybody raising a red flag.  And this might have occurred more than once by some accounts.  But there are better security procedures in place now...no big deal that there was 0% power of discernment at any level.  

If it is legitimate, we are talking about Hilter here.  No words to describe my disgust for those who think Hitler's temple baptism/sealing/endowment are valid...

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Always happy to entertain you. Hitler was not baptized a Mormon; no proxy baptisms make anyone a Mormon; it only means the ordinance was performed for them should they later decide to become a member of God's church. We cannot pass judgment on anyone regarding their eternal life; that's why we do it for anyone and everyone.

So when the New York Times headline tomorrow reads "Hitler baptized in Mormon Temple" I'm guessing you and other posters here have no problem and will continue to defend his proxy work. Unbelievable 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So when the New York Times headline tomorrow reads "Hitler baptized in Mormon Temple" I'm guessing you and other posters here have no problem and will continue to defend his proxy work. Unbelievable 

Read for comprehension, please.

Hitler may or may not accept the ordinance of baptism when it is done for him, if it hasn't been done already, and for the New York Times to publish a story with a headline saying "Hitler was baptized" would be just another example of how the New York Times is one of the many purveyors of "fake" news.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You are not embarrassed by any of this?  Whoa ok

I'm willing to stand in the gap for 30 seconds and feign embarrassment, if that helps....? ;-)

Edited by notHagoth7
Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not embarrassed that Hitler's work has been done.  If you care to know why we've been discussing it on the other thread specifically about it.  I have no idea why i should be embarrassed about Native American work being done.  I'm part cherokee myself (great great great grandmother was full blooded cherokee).  If i wanted to do the work for some of my ancestors, why should that embarrass anyone?  Why should the church be embarrassed by it?

As for Jews, members who have ancestors who are Jewish are allowed to do their work (which seems like it should be pretty obvious) and anyone who doesn't have an ancestor that is Jewish who does the work is doing it after being expressly forbidden by the church.  Again, what exactly about that should be embarrassing to the church?

Can you outline what you specifically think is embarrassing about all of this?  

 

Let's be clear and reiterate that according to the Agreement, only people who are direct descendants of Jewish individuals are allowed to do their temple work just as they do for any other of their ancestors, regardless of whether those individuals just happened to be caught up in the Holocaust... thousands of Holocaust survivors immigrated to the U.S. and other countries... As members of the Church do their family genealogy, they may or may not be knowledgeable about which of their Jewish ancestors were victims of the Holocaust.  But it doesn't matter because as direct descendants they have every right under the Agreement to include them in their family genealogy and perform their temple ordinances as they would any other ancestor.  And, as pointed out above, anyone not a direct descendant is forbidden from doing such work...

BTW bluebell, my great grandmother was Cherokee...

GG 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, 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. :D

It was Johnnie who keeps bringing up the embarrassment.  Why not tell him to stop?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure.  I wouldn't be surprised since people are dumb. Since the whole system rests completely on people regulating themselves, if some has been i don't see how it could be embarrassing to the church.  Embarrassing to the stupid person who broke the rules, absolutely.

Not completely.  They have put into place some regulation as technology has allowed and probably will continue to do so as tech improves, but a lot does depend on personal integrity and not thinking that somehow one's own desire to help or be somehow attached to a famous person trumps instruction from the Church (assuming those who do it are sincere, I find it hard to believe that whoever did Mickey Mouse was sincere).

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

A Trib journalist investigated the Hitler ordinance submission, and discovered that the submitter gave a fake name. 

Would love to see the reference for this.  It is more or less a given for me for the Mickey Mouse, not so much Hitler.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So when the New York Times headline tomorrow reads "Hitler baptized in Mormon Temple" I'm guessing you and other posters here have no problem and will continue to defend his proxy work. Unbelievable 

So what should we do, change our doctrines just so no one will be embarrassed? I think we are stronger than that. 

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm honestly surprised by the push back over my angst of the contents of this leak.  This "the church can do no wrong" mentality is utter group think.  That few are embarrassed or ashamed by the fact that Adolf Elizabeth Hitler has been baptized a Mormon should make your head explode but instead all I hear is justification for his proxy work. Once again this board has surprised me and I'm left gobsmacked 

As an ex member you should be aware that having your work done in the temple does not make you a Mormon. 

And you've yet to actually explain what we are supposed to be embarrassed about?

what exactly has the church done that is wrong?

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Always happy to entertain you. Hitler was not baptized a Mormon; no proxy baptisms make anyone a Mormon; it only means the ordinance was performed for them should they later decide to become a member of God's church. We cannot pass judgment on anyone regarding their eternal life; that's why we do it for anyone and everyone.

More than just baptism -- received endowments, sealing to wife and parents. 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If it is legitimate, we are talking about Hilter here.  No words to describe my disgust for those who think Hitler's temple baptism/sealing/endowment are valid...

Assuming the document is valid, the ordinances are only valid if Hitler makes them valid in the next life. Unlikely to happen, but God will be the judge not us. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So what should we do, change our doctrines just so no one will be embarrassed? I think we are stronger than that. 

I don't fault the doctrine of proxy work at all...in fact I find it somehow loving in its connecting members with their ancestors...what I do get embarrassed and shocked over is that no one through the multiple temple work steps stopped to ask "this can't be right"

Edited by Johnnie Cake
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

More than just baptism -- received endowments, sealing to wife and parents. 

It doesn't matter. There's no difference between the baptism and the endowment being done.  If the Holy Ghost does not ratify the ordinance it means nothing. If Hitler isn't redeemable it means nothing. 

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As an ex member you should be aware that having your work done in the temple does not make you a Mormon. 

And you've yet to actually explain what we are supposed to be embarrassed about?

what exactly has the church done that is wrong?

Bluebell...if you find nothing wrong with doing proxy work for Adolf Elizabeth Hitler I really have nothing more to say

Link to comment

Suggested humans still in need for their temple work.  Stalin, Pol Pot, Ghenhis Khan, Jack the Ripper, Jeffery Dhamer. I mean why stop with Hitler ... in a China shop they say if you break it you own it...I think it's fair to say if you baptize him you own him. I can't see how this is a positive for the church

Edited by Johnnie Cake
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Because Hitler can get baptized by mistake or intentionally; however, innocent kids with gay parents are not allowed baptism.  

I have several Jewish friends, so I really don't need to explain why this is exactly embarrassing do I?  Or I think you get my point...

the best Bishop i've ever had was born Jewish, guess who one of his pals is? my German born member dad, that's embracing love if ever i've seen it. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't matter. There's no difference between the baptism and the endowment being done.  If the Holy Ghost does not ratify the ordinance it means nothing. If Hitler isn't redeemable it means nothing. 

 

Well, it would seem the Holy Ghost wasn't in the temple to warn anybody that Hitler was receiving temple ordinances.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Bluebell...if you find nothing wrong with doing proxy work for Adolf Elizabeth Hitler I really have nothing more to say

Why?  Are you not able to articulate your thoughts on the matter?  

Can you explain to me what is so horrible (and embarrassing) about believing that only God has the authority to declare that someone is unredeemable?   

I'm tired of all the hysteria with no one actually able to give a reason for it.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm honestly surprised by the push back over my angst of the contents of this leak.  This "the church can do no wrong" mentality is utter group think. ..

Not really. All churches are full of humans. So mistakes/differences of opinion. sometimes happen. Unfortunate...or not...but part of life...for now at least.

Edited by notHagoth7
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...