Calm Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 4 hours ago, saemo said: Well aren't I all put in my place. I wonder if 3DOP will ever tire of being the Mormon bludgeon against Christians? We're back then to conditional treatment where Hitler fares better than the living. The vast majority of the dead are faring better than the living, imo. Thankfully this life continues beyond the grave where God heals all wounds. 1
JulieM Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: My next sentence, from what you just quoted from me, answered that question. Our responsibility is to do the work for everybody, correctly, AND THOSE WITH THE KEYS ARE THE ONES TO DECIDE WHETHER TO BIND OR LOOSE. No, not for "everybody" if you're being obedient to what we've been instructed to do. Unless you have further instructions from a Prophet (or church leader), we are still following what JFS taught. Do you have an update or different statement?
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, JulieM said: Where did he state that? He was very specific about not turning names of murderers in or performing saving ordinances for them. But I didn't see where he stated that murder was an unpardonable sin. I don't think he ever stated it. I think he inferred that murderers could never be completely forgiven. I should have been more clear and precise though because the way i worded my reply definitely accused him of that and I shouldn't have. Again though, JFS taught a lot of things very specifically that the LDS church does not agree with. He was very specific about not allowing suicides to have their temple work done, for example, and yet I know multiple people who have submitted and had temple work done for family members who committed suicide. In fact, there is no way for the church to even know if someone had committed suicide because there is no place in the submission process where the church even asks the manner of death. So given that, i don't think his specific teachings alone, regardless of the topic, can be used to argue what the church currently does and doesn't believe or do. 3
Calm Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Gray said: I'm not sure how not baptizing Hitler in the temple would make us vigilantes? 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. 2
Calm Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: No, not for "everybody" if you're being obedient to what we've been instructed to do. Unless you have further instructions from a Prophet (or church leader), we are still following what JFS taught. Do you have an update or different statement? Was the quote in the current manual of JFS' teachings? Curious as that is one way to determine how likely it is considered Church policy/doctrine.
Ahab Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: No, not for "everybody" if you're being obedient to what we've been instructed to do. Unless you have further instructions from a Prophet (or church leader), we are still following what JFS taught. Do you have an update or different statement? Maybe I missed something. Who said it's okay to totally skip over somebody by never ever doing their temple work if they didn't do their own ordinances before they died?
Calm Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 2 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: Very good find. Thank you.
Thinking Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Thanks. I'm going to cover my bases. If being LDS is going to seal me to an eternity in hell, I might as well get posthumously resigned, after I die, just in case. I just posthumously resigned every member of the church - past, present, and future.
Calm Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: And why did this take 20+ years to come to complain about it? It hasn't. It comes up every five years or so.
JulieM Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't think he ever stated it. I think he inferred that murderers could never be completely forgiven. I should have been more clear and precise though because the way i worded my reply definitely accused him of that and I shouldn't have. Again though, JFS taught a lot of things very specifically that the LDS church does not agree with. He was very specific about not allowing suicides to have their temple work done, for example, and yet I know multiple people who have submitted and had temple work done for family members who committed suicide. In fact, there is no way for the church to even know if someone had committed suicide because there is no place in the submission process where the church even asks the manner of death. So given that, i don't think his specific teachings alone, regardless of the topic, can be used to argue what the church currently does and doesn't believe or do. I disagree. No leader had issued a statement changing his teaching that members are not to do saving ordinances for known murderers. Have they? I know they've softened their teachings regarding suicides but wasn't aware they were ok with baptizing or doing saving ordinances for murderers (living or proxy). If so, can you provide a quote specific to this change? I'm grateful they nullified this work done for Hitler. It was the right thing to do. Edited February 22, 2017 by JulieM 1
Atheist Mormon Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 21 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 Why are you emphasizing/singling out Adolf Hitler? Isn't he also God's Creation after all?
stemelbow Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, JulieM said: Joseph Fielding Smith doesn't agree with your suggestion to "do one large ordinance for everyone": "I cannot imagine a murderer like Nero, for example, having the work done for him and being entitled to the blessings of the celestial kingdom along with Isaiah who laid down his life for the truth." I know. They like members to be busybodies, doing it individually, painfully pretending like it'll all get done for everyone eventually. Honestly I'm not sure I'm worried that any given name is used to go through the ordinances and rituals. I dont' think it means everyone will be exalted, and/or whatever.
Calm Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: . When masses of names come through it's likely no one paid attention. Of course this is old news though. People made a fuss about it and provoked the letter that's been linked. it happened. Temple workers are taught not to interfere with someone's experience as much as possible if I understand the descriptions correctly. Some workers may take this to mean they shouldn't question names. Others may just assume it was knowingly approved of (I can imagine there are a number of temple workers who are completely unaware of the process that occurs before the name gets to them which allows for things to slip through the past). Others may be so invested in the experience, they do not want to disrupt it and they are aware that such things lead to nullification. Maybe they even start the process at the end of their shift. What the letter shows is the Church has not allowed Hitler to receive baptism, that it and others' names have been nullified where appropriate. Unless the Mormon leak shows a later date of submission than the letter along with an approval of it, then we have evidence that no ordinances have been approved by the Church and any attempts were personal and unauthorized. So what is there for the Church to be embarrassed about? We have some foolish members? This is a given with the size of the Church. Their privileges were suspended iirc from the letter. What else needs to be done that hasn't been done? Edited February 22, 2017 by Calm 1
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, JulieM said: Not really. Joseph Fielding Smith was very specific regarding his teachings and instructions of passing over names of murderers and that we are not to perform their ordinances. So as far as we know, that part of the policy hasn't changed? That's what my CFR was for (any statements correcting what JFS directed us to do or not do when we come upon a name of a known murderder). As far as i know, there is no church current doctrine, teaching, or practice prohibiting someone from presenting an ancestor's name to have their temple work done, regardless of what sins the person committed while they were alive, including murder. If it is currently a policy it's not one that the church tells anyone about nor enforces. It's not written about in any church manuals that I can find, nor is it mentioned in any way on Family Search for patrons to be aware of. There is no point during the submission process where the church asks if the person who is about to have their temple work done has ever committed murder. If the church decides to make a statement about this whole Hitler thing, hopefully they'll also clarify their policies on murderers and the temple at the same time. 1
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Calm said: Temple workers are taught not to interfere with someone's experience as much as possible if I understand the descriptions correctly. Some workers may take this to me they shouldn't question names. Others may just assume it was knowingly approved of (I can imagine there are a number of temple workers who are completely unaware of the process that occurs before the name gets to them which allows for things to slip through the past. What the letter shows is the Church has not allowed Hitler to receive baptism, that it and others' names have been nullified where appropriate. Unless the Mormon leak shows a later date of submission than the letter along with an approval of it, then we have evidence that no ordinances have been approved by the Church and any attempts were personal and unauthorized. So what is there for the Church to be embarrassed about? We have some foolish members? This is a given with the size of the Church. Their privileges were suspended iirc from the letter. What else needs to be done that hasn't been done? It would be interesting to know if the church nullified the work because leaders believed it was inappropriate or if it was because the submitters had no right to submit the names. Hitler does have descendants. I'm wondering what the church would do if an actual descendant tried to submit his name. As far as i am aware, the church has never not allowed an actual descendant to present the name of an ancestor, regardless of who they were. Maybe Hitler is an exception to that rule. 1
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, JulieM said: I disagree. No leader had issued a statement changing his teaching that members are not to do saving ordinances for known murderers. Have they? I know they've softened their teachings regarding suicides but wasn't aware they were ok with baptizing or doing saving ordinances for murderers (living or proxy). If so, can you provide a quote specific to this change? I'm grateful they nullified this work done for Hitler. It was the right thing to do. No leader has issued a statement changing his teachings that suicides are not to have their saving ordinances done, yet the church allows them to have their temple work done. So no, i can't find any specific quote that it's been changed, but as our teachings on suicide show, that pretty much means nothing. It certainly might not have been formally changed, even if the church is doing absolutely nothing to enforce it. Hopefully the church will clarify now that this issue is being discussed. 1
Buckeye Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 22 minutes ago, Thinking said: I just posthumously resigned every member of the church - past, present, and future. Bill Maher already unbaptized one person (CAUTION -LANGUAGE): 1
JAHS Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 2 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: Perhaps someone already asked and answered this, but just because the baptisms were removed from the church databases and nullified, does that mean that the ordinance has been nullified in heaven? The baptisms were performed for them by proxy already, so I don't see what good removing them from the data bases does, except to verify that they should not have been done in the first place.
stemelbow Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Temple workers are taught not to interfere with someone's experience as much as possible if I understand the descriptions correctly. Some workers may take this to mean they shouldn't question names. Others may just assume it was knowingly approved of (I can imagine there are a number of temple workers who are completely unaware of the process that occurs before the name gets to them which allows for things to slip through the past). Others may be so invested in the experience, they do not want to disrupt it and they are aware that such things lead to nullification. Maybe they even start the process at the end of their shift. What the letter shows is the Church has not allowed Hitler to receive baptism, that it and others' names have been nullified where appropriate. Unless the Mormon leak shows a later date of submission than the letter along with an approval of it, then we have evidence that no ordinances have been approved by the Church and any attempts were personal and unauthorized. So what is there for the Church to be embarrassed about? We have some foolish members? This is a given with the size of the Church. Their privileges were suspended iirc from the letter. What else needs to be done that hasn't been done? It seems people are saying it's embarrassing to be connected with Hitler. It's embarrassing to promote a display of piety and in that process have Hitler's name find some sort of association. It seems like it loses it's embarrassment if you respond by saying, "eh...everyone's getting it, anywho. Nothing to see here. He's just one of 10s of billions who'll eventually get the same thing done". But the Church's messages has been different than that. It seems they don't want certain "types" associated.
JulieM Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: No leader has issued a statement changing his teachings that suicides are not to have their saving ordinances done, yet the church allows them to have their temple work done. So no, i can't find any specific quote that it's been changed, but as our teachings on suicide show, that pretty much means nothing. Well, I disagree. I doubt they've softened their policy on doing saving ordinances for cold blooded murderers. That's quite different from suicide. I'm sure some slip through, but Hitler's was hard to miss and they corrected that by nullifying it. Again, I believe they did the right thing here.
stemelbow Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: It would be interesting to know if the church nullified the work because leaders believed it was inappropriate or if it was because the submitters had no right to submit the names. Hitler does have descendants. I'm wondering what the church would do if an actual descendant tried to submit his name. As far as i am aware, the church has never not allowed an actual descendant to present the name of an ancestor, regardless of who they were. Maybe Hitler is an exception to that rule. yeah...or they could have just known a descendants and asked, politely for permission. "I know you don't want to be baptized and all that, but it'd be kind cool if we could get your grandpappy baptized. I mean, not your grandpappy Johnson, course. You know who I mean." "sure. Couldn't hurt anyone. I'm sad I'm related to the monster, but might as well do it, if you intend to get everyone. thanks btw. No one has brought him up to me for years. It's always kind of awkward, people knowing I'm related but no one dares say anything even if they're thinking and wondering..."
Calm Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 I did not realize he had children. How did I miss that? Thanks for the correction.
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 39 minutes ago, Calm said: Was the quote in the current manual of JFS' teachings? Curious as that is one way to determine how likely it is considered Church policy/doctrine. I can't find anything. I skimmed over the chapter in his manual on Sealing Power and Temple Blessings and it is never mentioned. Here's a link if someone wants to double check. I could have missed something. And it could be in another chapter possibly. I have tried searching that specific quote on lds.org and it says zero results, but sometimes their search function is a little wonky.
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 14 minutes ago, JulieM said: Well, I disagree. I doubt they've softened their policy on doing saving ordinances for cold blooded murderers. That's quite different from suicide. What are they doing to stop if from happening?
bluebell Posted February 22, 2017 Posted February 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, Calm said: I did not realize he had children. How did I miss that? Thanks for the correction. He had no children, but he had a half brother who had children.
Recommended Posts