I remember this day and when the towers fell, I was on quora and asked does the Mormon church do baptism of the dead for 9\11 terrorists? And got we don't know and we are all children of heavenly father and it is their free agency



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 06:23PM by crazyhorse.

And I said so you baptize those who kill innocent people? And got we don't know but anyone who hasn't accepted our message is in a spirit prison and will be taught again. Yeah except Muslim terrorists think they are going to heaven and are doing Allah a favor! They are not interested in Mormon beliefs

I didn't get a yes we baptize 9\11 terrorists! What a bunch of cowards Mormons are!

Many of them think there are rules that must be followed about wait times and getting permission from next of kin. Also, some of them don't know that names are often used multiple times.

if they baptized Hitler they will baptize anyone.

No they won't baptize anyone. Hitler yes! He has his free ticket
To the Celestial kingdom but if my son and partner had a little
Boy or girl, well that's an entirely different story now. They
Are apostates, although,they probably couldn't spell it. To the church they are dog meat. No kind words have I ever heard for
These little people from same sex parents.

Wait a minute, how will that work for Hitler to be in the Celestial Kingdom along with Jesus who is a Jew, especially
Since Jesus will be in charge, awkward!!!

Stop trying to think logically about it.

You are so right. It defies logic and I can see I need to quit over Thinking things.

here is MORmON logic in action. when certain MORmONS that knew I had a membership were mad at me, they demanded that I get ex commed AS IF I should care what they thought on that matter after decades of their abuse and mistreatment. JFTR I am talking about LD$ Inc's resident enforcement agent my super asshole MORmON male parent.

other MORmONS in other places that did not know I had a membership who were upset because I said something bad ( I told the truth) about their crappy MORmON cult told me that they would make sure that I was dead baptized into their crappy religion.

Funny you should mention that - in the 80's a very TBM friend I was having an argument, I mean discussion, with, said "Do you think they'd let Hitler be a member?"

Should I ... update her?

In the 80’s I was a dedicated Mormon
People change! If she uses her head for something besides a hat rack maybe,now,she will listen to you. Go for it.
You can’t win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket. LOL

Yep and don't even care!

These guys are radical Muslims and prayed 5 times a day and knew what they would be doing, I can't even watch about 9\11, the Mormon church is pathetic and baptize anyone they want

They used to be very lax about this... but the last few months have become a lot more restrictive. See below.

What was the case five/ten years ago is no longer the case now.

Sometimes they wait a year. Sometimes a name is temporarily rejected for some reason. But eventually they baptize all of them and often they do it several times.

Older ancestors, yes, but if born less than 110 years ago they are now very restrictive.

There has never been anyone excommunicated for baptizing anyone. This restrictiveness is all up to whoever decides to harvest a name from an obit or a local TV report. The mormon church has paid for names and dunked them. They don't have oversight or discipline for those who do not know or care about rules. That's one reason the Jewish community has called them to task.

They've clamped down on the Jewish thing big time. You have to be related. We did have one or two Jews in our ward in the last few years and they are allowed, but anyone else...hmmm...

I think it may be to do with BYU Jerusalem. Whatever you think about the Israeli government (which does many questionable things), they are very defensive about Jews being converted on their soil and the Holocaust is something they use to justify many of their actions. I can imagine Netanyahu & Co may have leaned very heavily on the LDS.

There was a great deal of controversy when they wanted to build the Jerusalem center. Suddenly it fizzled out and the center went ahead. Shortly after the mayor of Jerusalem was thanking the church for their huge donation to the building of the holocaust museum in Washington.

That is sick! Everything is so secret in the Mormon church

The answer is no. The church has become very restrictive about this. No celebs, no holocsust victims and if you want to bap someone born within tbe last 110 years you need to be either closely related or have written permission.

This change has happened in the last six months.

When I say written permission etc, it has to be available to the church online along with the contact details of close relatives... they've really tightened up on this recently.

How do I know all this? Trying to baptise first cousins and they wouldn't allow it as they were born too recently.

The church got horrible publicity off previous baptisms like this so I can understand why they don't want Hitler etc baptised again.

Does anyone have evidence of this change? Does the general membership know about it? How do they discipline those who don't follow the new rules? What exact rules do they now follow?

What if the deceased had one relative who wants to do the dunking and dozens who are doggedly opposed? What if the one who favors it leaves the church and realizes they made a mistake after the dunking is done?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 04:47AM by Cheryl.

Cheryl, it's right in your face if you use Family Sesrch.

You can add names. If they're living they don't display to other people... but if they're dead, then you get a checklist - like before... but then if the person was born less than 110 years ago, you automatically get asked for evidence of permission, contact details of close relatives and so on. And they won't let you do it unless you have these.

Like I say, I wanted to baptise first cousins and they wouldn't let me do it, because I wssn't closely related enough. In both cases the parents are dead. In one case she hadn't spoken to her living sibling in years....

Now if it's like that for relatives within a few degrees, what's it like for more famous people?

Others have said they had trouble baptizing cousins in the past. Then policies loosen up and they can do it. If regulations are tight now, we'll have to see how long that lasts.

I haven't had trouble with aunts and uncles, but that was before this change. This looks to be permanent and more restrictive.

You can't baptize anyone from the 16th century (1500s and back) nor anyone within the last 110 years now without permission. This basically gives you a bit over three centuries to play with, although the 1900-1908 range is available.

Add to that the fact that in many places records before the early 19th century are poor and you have a very restricted range.

It has played havoc, since I'd already done work for some twentieth century people and they're now frozen.

WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! You have been submitting names for temple work and you are on the RfM board????

It might amaze you but there are people who are still in the church who come on this board. Some are thinking of leaving or disgruntled. Others have more complex reasons for not leaving just now involving family etc. I could easily give you a laundry list of things I'm not happy with. The church attitude to LGBT is disgusting in my view.

It is a long story. However I can give you details about current temple work because I have been active recently. It's not always a case of just in or out - there are folk in the church right now with issues. For other folk it takes years for them to exit not just overnight.

You can even submit names for the temple if you DON'T have a temple recommend.

Suffice to say my relationship with the church has been complicated, and it is too long to go into complete detail I went inactive for nearly a decade because I was being bullied into a mission and my depression and anxiety would have made that completely unsuitable... and would have probably caused ne a breakdown.

However after those years, I did come back after a bit of persuasion. Some parts of the church never sit right with me. Others I can put up with and I enjoy the social side to some extent. Right now I have loved ones and friends in the church. A couple of them have been needing my help, and one of them is ij hospital so that's a part of it. So I do some church stuff right now. I know a lot of the dirt on the early church... it's complicated.

Did they really baptise hitler? Jesus christ.

But they don't want you to know about it.

The church has never made it a secret that their intention is to perform proxy baptisms for EVERYONE who was not baptized while living. No secret there.

Why would they differentiate between Hitler or Mother Theresa? They are DEAD aren't they? Hence, baptism for the DEAD. I was always taught that being baptized (either while living or dead) didn't guarantee ANYTHING in the hereafter. Just an ordinance that needed to be performed to provide potential opportunities...but no guarantees.

What is the big deal? If there is a God, I'm sure he will deal with the likes of Hitler, Dahmer, etc, appropriately.

It's because doing this ritual for Hitler gives credence to one of the worst human beings ever born on the face of the earth. That's reprehensible!

So the church should pick and choose who to do saving ordinances for? If the ordinance is for EVERYONE, saying "Yep, yep, yep, nope, nope, yep, nope, yep...." doesn't make any sense at all. And just who (and what) exactly would determine eligibility? Anything over 1 million being slaughtered is a "nope"? Who makes that call? How about if there is a god...he makes it.

Actually, they should not proxy dunk anyone, none, zero, nil.

It's just that some dunkings are more offensive than others.

Couldn't agree with you more. But that is not the discussion here since there is no indication that the church plans on ending proxy baptisms anytime soon.

And yes, some baptism considerations are more offensive than others. But last I heard, everyone means EVERYONE. Sometimes life is a shit sandwich...

The only names they won't use are the ones that might cause embarrassment.

Exactly. I love how the Jewish community BLASTS the church for proxy baptisms of holocaust victims. The church has been caught doing so two or three times AFTER agreeing not to. Because of this though, as a poster above pointed out, it appears that AT LEAST the church has attempted to put in safeguards on name submissions. That's a start.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, they should not proxy dunk anyone, none,
> zero, nil.
>
> It's just that some dunkings are more offensive
> than others.

I agree they should leave the whole dead dunking thing alone. Its an offense to the dead in my opinion.

And they knew it was the actual Hitler when they did it? This organization never ceases to amaze me.

Hell, if I were still involved I'd make a SPECIAL REQUEST for Hitler, Dahmer, Bin Laden, Gacy, Saddam, etc.

They are going to be dunked anyway (since they belong in the EVERYONE category) so it might as well be me who did it for them. Would make for some interesting dinner conversation.

More than once as well! And sealed to Eva Braun. All I can say is that it must have been a busy temple and no one looked at the names! I can't see it being allowed in my local temple as most people despise Hitler round here... It would have certainly never got past me if I was a recorder/witness/baptizer/confirmer, that's for sure.

This stuff has been ridiculously bad PR for the church. I can kind of understand the dead Jews. Few of them are famous so no one would notice, and LDS think they are doing them some good. But Hitler is widely considered one of the biggest monsters of the modern era.

The LDS have clamped down on this recently. Rightly so, but s bit late. But as I say it has had the side effect of not being able to do temple work for certain relatives.

He was shocked but went along with it as he thought it would all be worked out in the hereafter.

There comes a point when you can say no. Even as an active member, I've turned down certain callings and requests in the past.

And if anyone queries, mention free agency!

I was asked at one point to give one of the Young Women a ride back to their home one night. The sister running the YW was there, so there were three people in the car but it was very obvious the girl was very uncomfortable with me as she didn't know me. And I'm an unmarried man. So I refused to do it again. If she was uncomfortable, that made me uncomfortable and I don't get a kick out of scaring young women. If I had daughters it might be different, but still.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did they really baptise hitler? Jesus christ.

Yea, they probably think they baptised him too. lol

M@t

The LDScULT doesn't baptise DEAD PEOPLE. Only names.

M@t

Yes they absolutely do and traumatize the living kids in the process.

That's how my book begins with a child who is worried about being a dead dunk-ee stand-in down in the bowels of the Salt Lake temple.

that when you perfom baptism for a deceased person it is really a person who you are being baptised for. They are teaching them that there is no difference going to the temple for yourself or for another person. Each ordinance is for a person who is living or has lived. They are trying to get rid of the word proxy so as to give temple work more meaning to young people under this new program of letting them do baptizing in the temple.

Seems weird but they say it is well accepted by the young people who are now working in the baptismal area of the Edmonton Temple. They are to think of each person they have a name for as someone who lived, enjoyed life, etc.

Looked at from a purely outsider viewpoint the fact the LDS Church has backed off baptizing holocaust victims because of pressure from Jewish lobbies does put a dent in their claim to be directed directly by god. If baptism for the dead is a god desired process that would surely trump any other view. Either it is an essential part of the Mormon gospel or it is not.