20.9.10

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Mary Magdelen all "bapstised into the Mormon Church"

Researcher Helen Radkey has discovered what she believes to be records for proxy temple ordinances performed on behalf of Mary (Jesus’ mother), Jesus Christ, and Mary Magdalene. Ms. Radkey writes,

“’Mary Mother of Jesus,’ the spouse of ‘Joseph’ ‘of the House of David…’ was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on December 9, 2009 in the Idaho Falls Idaho (LDS) Temple. She was subjected to initiatory temple ordinances on December 16, 2009; an endowment ceremony on December 26, 2009; and a sealing to parents on January 7, 2010—all rites occurred in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple.”

While Ms. Radkey found “Joseph” listed as Mary’s spouse, the submission form indicated Mary’s “Husband #1″ was “God the Father.”

Ms. Radkey says her research also turned up recent proxy temple ordinances on behalf of Jesus Christ, though he is identified in the records as “Jesus Christian” and “Jesus Cristian.” Ms. Radkey explains the records show that Jesus was baptized by proxy on April 8, 2010, and after initiatory and endowment ordinances, was finally sealed to his “spouse” “Mary Magdelena” on April 9, 2010 – all at the Salt Lake City Temple. The same proxy ordinances were performed for “Mary Magdelena” on the same dates in the same LDS temple.

Ms. Radkey found a record for “Heavenly Father” as well:

“There was a separate listing in New Family Search, on March 2, 2010, for ‘Heavenly Father’ with his ‘personal identifier’ given as 21JV-899. Details of any marriage sealing of ‘Heavenly Father’ to ‘[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin]‘ were marked ‘Not available.’ Individual LDS ordinances for ‘Heavenly Father,’ like baptism, confirmation, initiatory and endowment rituals, were tagged ‘Needs more information.’

“By March 10, 2010, roughly a week later, the name of ‘Heavenly Father’ had vanished from record 21JV-899, and ‘Heavenly Father’ was no longer listed as Mary’s spouse on record 9HFF-PVQ for ‘[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin].’ …

“Record 21JV-899 for ‘Heavenly Father’ now shows ‘[Unknown Name] (-) Living.’ The LDS ordinance section of this entry currently reads: ‘This individual is living, and his or her ordinances cannot be displayed. To obtain this information, have the person contact his or her ward or branch clerk.’”

I would be surprised if the LDS Church approved (or would ever approve) proxy temple ordinances for Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ, so please don’t misunderstand me to be suggesting that these records and ordinances had official sanction. However, doesn’t this make you wonder?

■What led any Mormon to think and act on the notion that Jesus Christ needs proxy temple ordinances like baptism by the “proper authority,” endowments, and temple marriage? According to Mormonism, if Jesus is a god he’s already obtained those essential requirements for exaltation, hasn’t he?
■Why would Jesus’ mother need proxy ordinances performed on her behalf? If temple ordinances were part of the early Christian church (as the LDS Church claims) wouldn’t Mary have participated in her own ordinances while she was living?
■What would cause someone to identify Mary’s “husband #1″ as God the Father? Is this the logical conclusion to which a Mormon has come based on the teachings of Brigham Young and other early LDS leaders?
■As Ms. Radkey asks, “Why was ‘Heavenly Father’ listed in New FamilySearch—not only as the spouse of Mary—but as a living being who could possibly need LDS ordinances?

Does LDS doctrine naturally lead to this kind of thinking about God?


When someone takes a brick out of the teachings of the Church, one has to remove also the brick which supported that removed brick. Eventually you no longer have a church teaching because all the bricks have been removed. When that happens you just make it up as you go along.

This is some pretty shakey theology. I'm pretty sure that Jesus got Baptised by John the Baptist. I read that... in Scripture.

Jhesu+Marie,
Priez per nous.
Brantigny

This article is from a non-Catholic non Mormon site, owned by a former member of the LDS, called Mormon Coffee

No comments: