http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/03/147877754/mormon-leaders-warn-followers-to-stop-controversial-baptisms?sc=fb&cc=fp

the phrase "politically correct" comes to my mind, How about yours?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2012 04:28PM by guynoirprivateeye.

The words lawsuit comes to mind from the families they affected. That sounds to me like TSM is about to have "revelation" that the baptism by proxy ceremony is no longer necessary.

They can't give up dead-dunking entirely. What else is there to do in those ridiculously expensive Mormon temples? Can you say, tithing extortion?

They are just trying to take the heat off while they are under the Mitt-spotlight. Then they will go back to dead-dunking Holocaust victims and nobody will care (except the Jews).

Lawsuits wouldn't work. Can't prove anyone was actually harmed.

notamomo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lawsuits wouldn't work. Can't prove anyone was actually harmed.

Actually, that might work. The Mormons signed an agreement in 1995 to stop doing this. It's a contract law matter.

I don't think they could stop it all together. It would be hard to explain or make sense of. However, if they DID, it seems like it'd be a big step toward making mormons seem more mainstream.

blacksheep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think they could stop it all together. It
> would be hard to explain or make sense of.
> However, if they DID, it seems like it'd be a big
> step toward making mormons seem more mainstream.


But then nobody would need to "pay for" their temple recommend once they got married there. Unless they wanted to see family members weddings or for bragging rights.

Let's face it, without proxy baptisms, endowments, marriages and sealings, there wouldn't be a whole helluva a lot to do in there.

Arnt they already supposed to have been told sevral times already?

they had (at least) 2 editions of the non-polyg Wedding announcment; that's a precidence.

Do you have a copy of the letter's text, please?.!

Polyg: they're in 'the scriptures' as Declaration 1 & 2, I believe.

Dead-Dunking: the only info I have on this is the link at the top.

ChurchCo REFUSES to post its letters to the members, I can only imagine the 'Reason' is so members won't compare them to later events/instructions.

the 70's one about de-caf coffee is My Fav...

Just as an FYI.......the letter WAS NOT read in my sac meeting yesterday. Looks like they are going to wait until this is an old news story to get it done. I am 100% sure the bish has a copy of the letter in his possession, too.

Ut oh, time someone reminded your bish of the law of obedience. If you care about his salvation, please have a talk with him.

as my TBM daughter is right now taking a genealogy class at USU and had found a relative of my mother's and now is concerned she won't be able to do the work because she isn't a "direct" descendent. I told her I thought she would most likely be able to do the work. I don't believe them for one minute--that they are going to enforce this. MAYBE notable names and Jews for a while, but after this story dies off, they'll start doing at least all the unknowns again.

BUT because they sent off this letter, they can blame it on the members just like they did this time.

It didn't happen in my area.

No letter.

The letters were mailed out February 29 and depending on when each ward receives the letter, then it will be read.

Anonymous Guy 1000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The letters were mailed out February 29 and
> depending on when each ward receives the letter,
> then it will be read.

This is nice, but why wouldnt my bish read the letter that he had in his possession before sac meeting? It was posted in the Leader Resources section of lds.org by Sat night. maybe he thought a printed copy off the internet wasnt as valid as the one he will receive from SLC? inquiring minds want to know

The letter was read to us yesterday.

Members are only to research and baptize their own family members.

Do not baptize "celebrities and Holocaust Jews"

Those who continue to do so are in danger of having their NewFamilySearch privileges revoked.

That was pretty much it.

No more name extraction? No more baptizing a bunch of people off census records or church records, etc? Or does "unauthorized groups" mean just the ones who will give them bad PR? Individuals can only submit family names but they will continue to cull the names of thousands of other deceased people?

Can you imagine if they cut temple work down to only doing it for names of family that members submit? They'd shut all the temples down pretty quickly.

"They'd shut all the temples down pretty quickly."

What a nice picture you paint!!

And quietly on with the mind screw.

BFD can't stop or be stopped, only quieted down. We all know damn well that we are all one big happy family all the way back to Adam. If you believe that and TBM's certainly do as thats what has been taught, then there is no boundary whatsoever for limiting family geneologies. If the family has a ceb or holocost survivor in the "family", then they will feel justified to do the work. End of story.