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

[CA Steve]

So baptizing and performing Hitler's temple work is okay but comparing him to Trump isn't? 

[Raingirl]

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.  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 

No, you're not.

Your main participation here is to criticize the church, its leaders and members. You deliberately try to find things - "news", "leaks", what-have-you that (feebly) attempt to make the church look bad and then run here to post it.  And then make absurd claims of "embarrassment" or concern.

I left Orthodox Judaism to join the church. I see no need for embarrassment here and I find it absurd and bizarre that you would feel such, ostensibly on behalf of Jews everywhere.  I don't think you're embarrassed at all.  I think you're actually feeling rather gleeful about finding yet another way (as absurd and non-sensical as it is) to bash the church.

As I mentioned, I left Judaism.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who are so critical and hateful of the church (many of whom have left the church), spend any time - much less so much time - hanging around on discussion boards trying to get their licks in against the church.  When I try to imagine myself (or anyone else I know in the same situation) doing the same on Jewish message boards, it's all I can do to keep from laughing hysterically.  I mean, I have a life, you know?

[Johnnie Cake]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

For me it's self evident 

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm embarrassed for the church...they won't baptize the children of a legally married gay couples but they'll baptize Adolf Hitler and worse yet seal him to his wife Eva Braun

To be fair, it's fairly certain that Hitler didn't support the idea gay marriage.

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

No, you're not.

Your main participation here is to criticize the church, its leaders and members. You deliberately try to find things - "news", "leaks", what-have-you that (feebly) attempt to make the church look bad and then run here to post it.  And then make absurd claims of "embarrassment" or concern.

I left Orthodox Judaism to join the church. I see no need for embarrassment here and I find it absurd and bizarre that you would feel such, ostensibly on behalf of Jews everywhere.  I don't think you're embarrassed at all.  I think you're actually feeling rather gleeful about finding yet another way (as absurd and non-sensical as it is) to bash the church.

As I mentioned, I left Judaism.  For the life of me, I don't understand why people who are so critical and hateful of the church (many of whom have left the church), spend any time - much less so much time - hanging around on discussion boards trying to get their licks in against the church.  When I try to imagine myself (or anyone else I know in the same situation) doing the same on Jewish message boards, it's all I can do to keep from laughing hysterically.  I mean, I have a life, you know?

Ummm actually I am...and doubly surprised that with your claimed ancestry, you're not also

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church does not do the work, members do.

Well then, that makes it OK.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How do you stop some yahoo for doing what they are not supposed to do?

Hire LifeLock.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a non-issue.

Says the offending party.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Everyone has to have their temple work done.
Because all people must be judged on the same principles.

It doesn't alter the lack of efficacy in baptizing Hitler. 

[Jane_Doe]

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So baptizing and performing Hitler's temple work is okay but comparing him to Trump isn't? 

Well, that's because Trump is still living and already giving us WAY too many headaches. .  Better to compare dead people to dead people who aren't constantly already generating migranes.  

[Jane_Doe]

 

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Yep!   Isn't Christ' amazing power fantastic that it's possible for any sin to be washed away?   What I don't understand is why you think such magnificent love is "embarrassing".  

Edited February 22, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For me it's self evident 

It seems like, when push comes to shove, you don't actually know why the church should be embarrassed. 

Sometimes our gut reactions seem rational at first but then don't make as much sense when we try to think them through or explain them. 

[3DOP]

So some think there is a level of sinfulness beyond which the Gospel must be withheld? 

I don't what church teaches that. Mine doesn't. But supposing that it was Mormon doctrine that the Gospel cannot help everybody, who would want to presume to know who they were without revelation? I get that Hitler was quite bad, but believing there is a way to help the dead find forgiveness, is it being proposed that Mormons should refuse to try to help in the case of one person, or are there more bad people who Mormons should think are beyond the reach of God's mercy?

As a non LDS, I wouldn't be favorably impressed with an LDS Gospel that was limited to people who are actually not all bad anyway. I think you have to give Hitler a dunk of the dead along with other notorious figures. Is the Gospel for villains too, or just us good people?

3DOP

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by 3DOP

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems like, when push comes to shove, you don't actually know why the church should be embarrassed. 

Sometimes our gut reactions seem rational at first but then don't make as much sense when we try to think them through or explain them. 

Bluebell...actually I do...what I don't understand is why you can't 

[rpn]

I cannot tell if anyone has mentioned that the Albert Einstein ordinances were done in the 90, and Izack Rabin and Moshe?  were both done in 2005 --- looks like both predate the latest attempts by the church to stop it.   So they aren't a PR nightmare in the sense of keeping doing what they promised not to do unless they find something that is after the last time.   (And the records are very different and don't say who submitted them either.   So it could be someone intentionally trying to embarrass the church, like some of the jewish ones were.)

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are you really, now?

Oh.  

Okay.  

(Pee isn't rain.)

Attack the messenger.  That is always a class act.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Bluebell...actually I do...what I don't understand is why you can't 

In all these pages--and multiple requests--you haven't managed to explain it so you'll understand if I have trouble believing you do. 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

In all these pages--and multiple requests--you haven't managed to explain it so you'll understand if I have trouble believing you do. 

I've done so multiple times in this thread...reread my posts

[cipriano]

My opinion on this matter means nothing (except to me) but here are my thoughts:

There should be a lightly used "penalty box" for ordinance work. For those whose Earthly actions were so odious, their work might want to wait until The Millennium, when we can get more direct instructions from The Lord. This would include the obvious offenders (top Nazis, Mao, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, etc.)

As far as Native American and Jewish ancestors are concerned, as long as a descendant puts in for the work, go for it.

Robert Nesta Marley was one of the more discerning and wise figures of the 20th century. I'm sure he has accepted and is doing marvelous works. And if you know anything about Bob Marley, you know how many descendants he left behind, so it would be nigh impossible to stop anyways.   

Edited February 22, 2017 by cipriano

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Attack the messenger.  That is always a class act.

Right.  I hope you can find it in your heart, somehow, to pardon my unpardonable skepticism. I'm not sure what I was thinking.  Johnnie Cake's posting history and his interactions with others betray nary a hint of even skepticism, let alone animus, toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My bad.  

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled handwringing over the practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to Johnnie Cake's entirely sincere, heartfelt sense of deep, genuine embarrassment.  (Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "What you are stands over you, all the while thundering so loudly that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary.)  Of course, I don't have any idea why I'm throwing that in; irrelevant though it is, it just seemed like the right time to trot out some deep-sounding, philosophical-sounding crap.

Again, my bad.  

[Gray]

Here's a different perspective. Doesn't invoking Hitler's name in the temple in connection to a holy ordinance in some way befoul the sanctity of the temple? I mean we can't stop yahoos from doing dumb things - you can't pin that on the institution. But baptizing Hitler seems sacrilegious.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In all these pages--and multiple requests--you haven't managed to explain it so you'll understand if I have trouble believing you do. 

You don't understand, Bluebell!  It should need no explanation.  It's so self-evident that anyone who cannot grasp it is not only mentally deficient, but morally bankrupt, as well!  Shame, shame shame!  

Edited February 22, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Just now, Gray said:

Here's a different perspective. Doesn't involving Hitler's name in the temple in connection to a holy ordinance in some way befoul the sanctity of the temple? I mean we can't stop yahoos from doing dumb things - you can't pin that on the institution. But baptizing Hitler seems sacrilegious.

Extending someone the possibility of accepting whatever level of salvation he's capable of achieving and is willing to accept is sacrilegious?  I suppose that's simply another concept we mentally deficient, morally bankrupt types are incapable of grasping, alas.  Congratulations to you, though, on your superior level of enlightenment.  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

would be just another example of how the New York Times is one of the many purveyors of "fake" news.

It would be the first and only example.

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've done so multiple times in this thread...reread my posts

Yeah, Bluebell!  You're simply a dolt!

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Extending someone the possibility of accepting whatever level of salvation he's capable of achieving and is willing to accept is sacrilegious?  I suppose that's simply another concept we mentally deficient, morally bankrupt types are incapable of grasping, alas.  Congratulations to you, though, on your superior level of enlightenment.  

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

There seems to be some very reactionary defensiveness going on. Mormons should NOT feel ashamed that this happened - the church isn't responsible for every wacko who decides to submit a name, especially in the pre-digital era. But when you start defending the wackos, you start legitimizing the critics trying to pin this on the church. Not every hill is worth dying on.

[carbon dioxide]

6 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

Why?  Temple work will be eventually done for everyone. That does not mean it will benefit everyone.  Also for those who don't believe in the temple ordinances, why would they really care?  Perhaps they are scared there is something about it that might be legit? 

Edited February 22, 2017 by carbon dioxide