A church can use its money for whatever it wants, so that is not the point (the money).

The point remains the unethical nature of the transactions by the Church leadership, buying documents that injure the image of the Church and deep-sixing said documents.

I am sure any corporation would do the same, but that is not the issue.

The issue is that leaders of the church they proclaim to the "one true church" engage in unethical actions that distort the image of their church.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
And as I said, just because one's temple work is done, really means nothing.

Then why is temple work such a big priority in the religion?

Because we all want to be exalted together as families. The "means nothing" comes into play if the proxy temple work is not accepted by those who have died. They have a choice.

So if Adolf Hitler accepts it he'll be good to go?

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
And as I said, just because one's temple work is done, really means nothing.

Then why is temple work such a big priority in the religion?

Because we all want to be exalted together as families. The "means nothing" comes into play if the proxy temple work is not accepted by those who have died. They have a choice.

So if Adolf Hitler accepts it he'll be good to go?



Mercy, no! Hitler will still have to answer for his life choices. . .we all will, of course.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
And as I said, just because one's temple work is done, really means nothing.

Then why is temple work such a big priority in the religion?

Because we all want to be exalted together as families. The "means nothing" comes into play if the proxy temple work is not accepted by those who have died. They have a choice.

So if Adolf Hitler accepts it he'll be good to go?



Mercy, no! Hitler will still have to answer for his life choices. . .we all will, of course.

Seriously doesn't anyone else find it disturbing that, they would even do his temple work? Is it really just all about the numbers? Seems like a serious lack of judgment to me. You hand someone Hitlers name and, they just shrug their shoulders and say OK we'll take care of it?

It certainly violated good common sense.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
And as I said, just because one's temple work is done, really means nothing.

Then why is temple work such a big priority in the religion?

Because we all want to be exalted together as families. The "means nothing" comes into play if the proxy temple work is not accepted by those who have died. They have a choice.

So if Adolf Hitler accepts it he'll be good to go?




Wow, another example of a guy who never got in bed far enough. It always amazes me the simple doctrine the apostates never learned.