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

[Jude2]

I thought this was going to be some sort of horrible deep dark secret, silly me!  

[Calm]

2 hours 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

Are you embarrassed by the US constitution and government requiring due process for people like Dahmer?  Do you think police and prosecutors should be embarrassed because they follow the law?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

01. Adolf Hitler <--- enough said

02. Baptizing Jews after agreeing to stop

03. Baptizing Native American Chiefs...an affront to native Americans (yes they will be offended)

04. Baptizing Bob Marley (an affront to Bob Marley fans :-)

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

Is there a any indication from God that we are allowed to select which individuals can have their work done and others we can say no?  Anyone who understand the ordinance knows that it will be done for EVERYONE eventually. All Jews will have their work done eventually.  All bad guys will also have their work done.  Our job is to do the temple work.  It is the Lord's job to decide whom to forgive and whom that will receive the blessings of the ordinances in the temple.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours 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...

Do you think the temple work will somehow save Hitler?  Those innocent kids will also get their temple work done eventually.  Even the individual gay  parents will get most of their temple work done. The only thing that will not be done is their relationship be sealed. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

We honor God's Law more than we despise Hitler.  Would you turn us into vigilantes?

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

 

 Satan makes regular appearances in every one of the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Or had you forgotten that?)  I'm told that President Hinckley even saw one of the workers portraying the devil in the live endowment as the worker got into an elevator at the Salt Lake Temple once, and said, "Well, hello there, Satan!"  Don't misunderstand: I'm not defending Hitler in any way, but saying he is evil removes responsibility for his actions from where it rightly belongs and places it on someone else.  It's the equivalent of saying, "The devil made me do it."  Hitler's actions were evil, and he will be held to account for them. I've got horse thieves, cattle rustlers, and maybe even a murderer or two in my ancestry. Should I pretend I know enough to decide that they don't deserve whatever level of salvation they desire and are capable of achieving, or should I give them the benefit of the doubt, do the ordinances that are required according to the LDS paradigm, and let God sort it out?

[Kenngo1969]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Do you think the temple work will somehow save Hitler?  

To whatever extent he desires and is capable of being saved, yes.  

[Johnnie Cake]

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.  

Perhaps I've overstayed what I perceived as a welcome... I was only sharing what I believed was a timely topic sorry you view my activity as irrelevant and insincere.  

Edited February 22, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Is there a any indication from God that we are allowed to select which individuals can have their work done and others we can say no?  Anyone who understand the ordinance knows that it will be done for EVERYONE eventually. All Jews will have their work done eventually.  All bad guys will also have their work done.  Our job is to do the temple work.  It is the Lord's job to decide whom to forgive and whom that will receive the blessings of the ordinances in the temple.

I'll never understand the need to defend this...

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Perhaps I've overstayed what I perceived as a welcome... I was only sharing what I believed was a timely topic sorry you view my activity as irrelevant and insincere 

Oh you are welcome here.  You don't need to leave.  I for one actually like your style of criticism (far more than some who have passed through here).  It seems more honest and much less preachy.

But I think the idea that someone did the temple work for Hitler is a silly thing to get up in arms over.  The ordinances have to be performed for every man woman and child that ever lives on the earth.  Doesn't mean everyone will magically receive the blessings regardless of action.

[Johnnie Cake]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you embarrassed by the US constitution and government requiring due process for people like Dahmer?  Do you think police and prosecutors should be embarrassed because they follow the law?

Huh? 

[Calm]

God's Law commands us to baptize everyone.  We act as agents of that Law just as police and prosecutors act as agents for constitutional and legislative laws.

Do you believe police should be embarrassed when they seek to arrest mass murderers because that is the law they have sworn to obey rather than just kill them on their own judgment?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

God's Law commands us to baptize everyone.  We act as agents of that Law just as police and prosecutors act as agents for constitutional and legislative laws.

Do you believe police should be embarrassed when they seek to arrest mass murderers because that is the law they have sworn to obey rather than just kill them on their own judgment?

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 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Duncan]

Just now, 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

wasn't his work done years ago? haven't people known about it for a long time, I figure if they haven't done so already why start now? I think........he was raised Roman Catholic so I assume he would have been baptized as a baby 

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, 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

So what do you suggest we do about it?  People have been criticizing the church for decades for all kinds of things. This is no different. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, 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 am defending all proxy work.

You are using it as a club to beat the Church and its members with, so I don't think anyone is clueless that this will be used in such a way.

If we are going to determined whether or not we are going to obey God based on how embarrassed we get, then we may as well give up now.

No one is saying it is a good PR move that I can see.  I only say if it was authorized by the proper authority, it is acceptable.  If it was not, it will be removed.

I have been through two other episodes of announcing Hitler got proxy dunked to the world.  It didn't change much the last two times, why should it change it now?

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, Duncan said:

wasn't his work done years ago? haven't people known about it for a long time, I figure if they haven't done so already why start now? I think........he was raised Roman Catholic so I assume he would have been baptized as a baby 

Rumored. Now confirmed

[saemo]

4 hours 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?

Gosh, baptized Hitler in the same font as those whose murders he is responsible for, were baptized. Victims who have living relatives to this day. Where's the empathy for them?

Maybe too soon? Maybe wait until the milllenium for special cases, to get permission from God himself? Until then he can rot in spirit prison?

Maybe the oft told Mormon anecdotal story of the spirits of the dead hanging around temples to applaud their proxy work, sounds like a penny dreadful paperback, when it comes to Hitler.  My folk most likely would phone up an exorcist.

There's two, I probably could think of more if you like. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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

 

We believe that all will have the option to accept the gospel or reject it in the spirit world

Those arguing about it are just ignorant in doctrine, and we know that even Catholics have 1 or 2 of those as well.  .

Social pressure causes the church to attempt to regulate this activity so as not to offend people who are offended by such things.

As for me, if I keel over tomorrow, and you want to offer a few masses for me, I would be highly pleased.  I have had funeral and other masses offered for my people because I know that is what they would like.

I will take all the prayers I can get.  Know any Buddhists?   

Your purgatory and our spirit prison are about as close to being identical as they could be looking at the big picture.

We can help our dead to move along the line of progression.  THAT is identical in both churches.  I have no idea why anyone would object to that.

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We believe that all will have the option to accept the gospel or reject it in the spirit world.

So, if Hitler accepts the gospel in the spirit world, his baptism is a done deal and so are his temple ordinances?  

How is it that he wouldn't have been worthy in life for these ordinances, but because he's dead, it's ok for him to receive them?

People here are posting that these ordinances need to be done in case he chooses to accept them now....but again, why is that ok to perform them for him when it wouldn't have been ok when he lived?

Edited February 22, 2017 by JulieM

[Freedom]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You are not embarrassed by any of this?  Whoa ok

No I am not and I suspect no active member is. People perform ordinances, and all people require them to be done. 

[Calm]

15 hours ago, saemo said:

Maybe wait until the milllenium for special cases, to get permission from God himself? Until then he can rot in spirit prison?

I would not be unhappy if this were to take place.  We also don't know what measures were taken, if any, against the person who submiited and those who performed the ordinances.  But I can't judge the person/people who did it until I know who it was and why they did it and that isn't going to happen.  I suspect it was most likely someone who wanted to make doing proxy work more exciting for himself.  Less likely someone who was trying to embarrass the Church.  Another unlikely possibility is someone whose family was harmed by Hitler and saw it as a way to work through personal issues, to help himself forgive.  I might not condemn the last person in the ways I would the first two, but the ordinance would still be unauthorized in any case, I believe, if done anytime since the policy of only submitting names of family members has been put into place.  I need to doublecheck that.  Been a few years (probably since the last time this made a splash in the media) since I read about it.

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

So, if Hitler accepts the gospel in the spirit world, his baptism is a done deal and so are his temple ordinances?  

How is it that he wouldn't have been worthy in life for these ordinances, but because he's dead, it's ok for him to receive them?

If the First Presidency cleared him (if he had not died obviously, somehow was not jailed for war crimes, and somehow later applied for baptism) he could receive it in this life, but I think they would be waiting for a clear revelation to allow it.

OTOH, since it is God doing the judging in the next life, he will be able to tell if .Hitler actually accepts the Atonement or not...just like everyone else.

Do people really want a two tiered system of judgment in the next life?  For God to not judge all people by the same standard?  To withhold mercy from someone who has repented?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So what do you suggest we do about it?  People have been criticizing the church for decades for all kinds of things. This is no different. 

We obviously do not care about political correctness come hell or high water.

And still more are coming into the church exactly for our tough stances.  The great sifting has begun.

I think we can afford to lose Johnny if that is his desire.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, if Hitler accepts the gospel in the spirit world, his baptism is a done deal and so are his temple ordinances?  

How is it that he wouldn't have been worthy in life for these ordinances, but because he's dead, it's ok for him to receive them?

People here are posting that these ordinances need to be done in case he chooses to accept them now....but again, why is that ok to perform them for him when it wouldn't have been ok when he lived?

Awaking dead is a learning experience you can look forward to.

You might change your mind.

Learn some doctrine.  You were LDS why don't you know that?  Why leave the church if you do not even know fundamental doctrine?  Try it, you might like it. 

[saemo]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

01. Adolf Hitler <--- enough said

02. Baptizing Jews after agreeing to stop

03. Baptizing Native American Chiefs...an affront to native Americans (yes they will be offended)

04. Baptizing Bob Marley (an affront to Bob Marley fans :-)

 

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

Apostates, are worse off than Hitler! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.