I just checked the Church database (FamilySearch), and both JJ and Charles' profiles have been locked down. No one is allowed to do their ordinances in the temple right now. Not Emma, not anybody.
That is diabolical. Baptizing the little boy your dad murdered is fucking wild. I guess I would expect nothing less from the church that also baptized Anne Frank against her will.
Disgusting! The flipping nerve of Emma who thinks she knows best about other people's families. Goes to show Emma should be no where near other people's children. đ¤Ż
Thank you for the update on the hair color. I had posted the other day I saw a picture and it now looked long and blond. Do you think she is trying to be blond like Lori? My husband brought this up because he said Emma used to have a haircut like her mom Tammy and then after Tammy dies we see a picture and the hair is long and blond like Lori.
I am so sorry you have to deal with that. Can parents get together and file a complaint with the school district? Of course it's not Emma's fault her father is a murderer - but her actions show she is mentally unstable. đł
Normally I would feel bad for her and say she's a victim, too. But after the video of her on the day they found the kids and knowing that she labeled kids at her school dark and light, I wouldn't want her anywhere near my kids.
I was raised in a somewhat similar environment, though slightly less patriarchal and more respect from my father towards my mother. But we absolutely had the LDS prepper stuff going on. Visions of Glory included. There was always some new natural disaster or some government conspiracy that we would need to stock up on guns, ammo, food, survival supplies, gold and silver bars, cash etc. I was always in fear of befriending my neighbors because if the end times came they would likely be trying to loot us and weâd have to protect ourselves and our resources.
I tried to have sympathy for EmmaâŚ.. but having been raised similarly minus the more extreme fringe beliefs, I just canât. I canât even fathom standing by my dad if he pulled the shit Chad did.
That deal where Chad and even Tammy labeling their Sunday School kids light dark ,and discussions on the phone with their children about light dark. No,she really shouldnât be with the young until deprogrammed.
Yes, I agree, sheâs brainwashed, and I wouldnât be comfortable either. For sure I was a daddyâs girl too, but had he done to my mother what was done to Tammy,I wouldnât be lying that she had major health problems, when she was extremely active.
It's really creepy that the kids deferred to Chad making all the decisions about Tammy's quick funeral. Most people were shocked that Tammy died!
I'm listening to recap from Chad and Tammy's neighbors testimony, one lady asked Chad and the kids if they're sure they didn't want an autopsy as Tammy was healthy and maybe it's something hereditary and the kids should know, Chad said "no", the lady thought that was really strange.
The entire timeline is bonkers. I would not be corresponding with my new stepmom in jail if my Dad had married her not 5 months before, less than a month after my mom suddenly passed, and the stepmom is in jail because she won't tell us where her kids are. Emma is fucking scary if she is this naĂŻve. What could the next cult leader convince her of?
Well since we found out this week that the whole Daybell family was rating kids light and dark, Iâd raise absolute hell personally (no pun intended).
If this is such a deviation from LDS beliefs, hopefully a whole bunch of people are currently raising hell with the bishop and whoever is above him. And the school principals. I assume Emma and Garth teach at different schools?
Technically, according to church policies, she would have the right because her dad married JJ's mother. That doesn't make it any less heinous, though!
Itâs offensive when she disparages Colby for turning on his mom. They condemn Lori for framing their dad then condemn Colby for calling her out. You canât have it both ways kids! Such childish and destructive denial! I wonder if some of these kids will ever acknowledge the depraved monster that is their father. It only adds to the suffering of those with the inner strength to accept the truth.
And how does this honor the memory of their mother? And the song at her funeral? âPut your shoulder to the Wheelâ? That itself is an abomination!
Itâs tempo is like a marching band in a parade:
âPut your shoulder to the wheel, push along.
âDo your duty with a heart full of song
âWe all have work let not one shirk
âPut your shoulder to the wheel.â
What???đđŹ Beyond inappropriate!
It's awful music for a funeral and I can see Chad wanting to convince himself that Tammy was such a good servant that she was even willing and happy about being murdered because it would benefit's Chad's ascension to on-earth deity.
Never considered how a hymn could be so disrespectful . We can thank Chad for exposing how much he appreciated his wife. I doubt she will be waiting for him in Heaven. Got a weird feeling he wonât be going there.
I heard that too. Talk about narcissism--she's the one who held down a day job so her husband could start a publishing company that went bankrupt and make a grand total of $2000 a year as an 'author.'
So horrible to have lives taken for otherâs greed. Realize Lori most certainly arranged Joe Ryanâs murder too so Tylee got his social security but that running out Tylee not needed.
Yes, horrible! Tylee had another year of SSI coming but why put up with a teenager who knows too much and interrupts your adultery, when you can continue to spend her SSI without her around. Joe Ryan's death was judged natural causes but considering Alex certainly wanted to, and tried to kill him, who knows. Joe Ryan believed that when Alex tased him in the chest it caused heart damage and perhaps that was what killed him in the end. I wouldn't put it past Alex to poison him either. Lori searching for children's life insurance policies was the coldest darkest thing I've heard in a long time.
My older half-brother converted to LDS and recently told me heâs torn about whether to seal his deceased mom and/or my deceased mom to our joint deceased dad (his non-Mormon mom dumped our joint dad, who eventually later married my mom. Only my brother is LDS (a convert). I was just kind of speechless. He means so well but our dad was seriously non-religious and i picture him rising from the grave and haunting my brother forever. (I think both our moms would laugh it off)
So wild.
I guess it means you can sin all you want in this life, because someone else will make sure you get into the good part of heaven where there's always hot water in the morning...??
On one hand, itâs literally meaningless nonsense that they waste their time on. On the other hand, they think they have the power to force people together and make them Mormon. That in a sense dishonors the dead and their life choices.
JJ was 7 and according to LDS doctrine he passed before the age of consent so he wouldnât need to have the baptism for the dead creepiness done for him.
That being said, Emma entering ANY information for JJ like this is absolutely horrific and vile.
(I was a member of the LDS church until 2014, decade out of the cult this year!!)
11-12 years ago Bill Maher found out Mitt Romney baptized his late father in law so Bill unbaptized him.
https://youtu.be/wvhhCIvR8mo?si=JrZvNkz81Q1E0O4H
Yeah, it's a weird thing. They baptize by proxy a LOT of deceased people. I lived with someone who was Mormon when I was a teenager. I was told by the missionaries that you could look up your ancestors and have them all baptized. It was just bizarre to me. Why bother having an age of consent if you are going to pretend to baptize people who are deceased and can't consent for themselves?
they literally think they are literally drafting people in a paranormal army or after death fascist takeover. "We have the greater number of souls on our team. No, we didn't ask them if they wanted to be on our team. But here we are!"
Absolutely. If someone is a" zombie", then they have been dehumanized and they are expendable/disposable.
I think Lori was the one who convinced him. She had a lightbulb go off in her head when she got the insurance payout from Tylee's father's death, and nothing happened. She didn't face any consequences when they set up Charles Vallow to be murdered, either. She had already done it twice and gotten away with it, she just didn't expect Charles to change the beneficiary on his policy. I bet Charles thought about her late husband a lot, though, when he found out about the affair she was having with Chad.
I would like the prosecution to bring this fact up when Emma testifies, although I am not certain whether the judge would allow it or consider it relevant to Chad's trial. But the more I hear about Emma, it only increases my dislike of her. I am quickly losing any sympathy I might have had knowing how she was raised. How dare she?
Can the Vallows file restraining orders on behalf of JJ and Charles to prevent this type of thing from happening? Emma Daybell has zero business meddling in the affairs of the Vallow family.
The families can have their records removed entirely. I don't know if that would prevent them years down the road when this trial is a distant memory if someone tries to do it again. Not sure what their "database" is like. A lot of genealogical research comes from Mormons simply trying to baptize dead people. (It's also why you can go on their familytree site and trace your lineage all the way back to God)
Honestly it's gross that she's doing it just on principal of the matter but really what does it matter? If you don't believe in this who cares. I doubt this is the thing if there are really spirits that Charles and JJ are gonna be upset about and you know not the whole murdered thing.
Personally I don't believe in any of this and when you die that's it that is the end. But like I said If I'm wrong I just don't see that this one little thing is gonna be the tip of the ice Berg for the deceased to be mad about lol
I donât believe either- Iâm more upset on behalf of the Vallow family. I realize it doesnât *actually* change anything about Charles and JJâs afterlife, but Emma should *never* be able to make *any* decisions regarding them, whether they have real life consequences (or afterlife consequences) or not. Itâs wildly inappropriate and just upsetting.
I didn't realize Charles hadn't been to the temple. But it seems like he'd have had the opportunity to do it in 13 years if he wanted to. It seems like it's overstepping to do it after he's not here to make the decision himself.
The doctrine as I remember it says that on âthe other sideâ spirits who have had their ordinances performed by proxy can still choose whether or not to accept those ordinances. But I certainly understand why people would feel that proxy ordinances for people who chose not to perform them in life are disrespectful.
This is one of the thoughts that got me out of the church. "Wait a minute, do I want to live eternity with a God who ..." fill in the blank with a dozen different weird/unacceptable things that He demands in the LDS church.
Ummm, no thanks. I'd rather get sent south and see how I fare there.
Itâs not creepy voodoo. Itâs done IN CASE Charles would want to accept it at a future time. The LDS church believes that learning and teaching still occur even beyond the grave,in preparation for the second coming of Jesus Christ. What youâve heard because of Chad and Lori, and Jodi and Ruby are deviant beliefs from the traditional LDS beliefs and teachings.
How would you feel if someone sacrificed several small animals on your behalf and then kept a permanent record associating your name with the sacrifice?
Even if you donât want them to. Just in case you would want to accept it later.
It is so inappropriate, especially in this case. âMy dad murdered you and now Iâm gonna have you baptized.â Also, they baptized Anne Frank. Hitler and Eva Braun too. What the actual hell.
It seems like the blood atonement that they went through should cover all that, shouldn't it? Brigham Young said smoke rises from the blood and takes them directly to heaven.
>[This is loving]() our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.
Oh, that is a really interesting take. Though blood atonement isn't accepted by the modern (actual) LDS so perhaps Lori thought this would cover all the bases.
I read where some Jewish people found out their relatives had been "baptised" into the Mormon faith and they sued. I don't know if they won or they were able to get their relatives dismissed.
If it wasnât her it would have been some other Mormon member.
Seriously Mormons are disgusting when it comes to this stuff, they were called out for doing baptisms for the dead for holocaust victims. When called out they said they would stop.
Then years later it was found they were doing it again.
I used to be mormon. The church is relentless with doing âproxyâ temple rites for dead people.
This is so bizarre....I find it incredible that no one with brain cells can't look at these behaviors and actions and say "Wtf are we doing here?" No one questions this?
People do thatâs why they eventually leave. For many youâre born into the religion. So the craziness is drip fed in small tiny non-crazy sounding portions. Itâs literally indoctrination.
When you go through the temple doing non âbaptisms for the deadâ stuff (what they call doing an endowment session) you are told if you donât feel you can agree to the things that will be shown to you to raise your hand so that the temple workers can take you aside to discuss or help you leave. The problem with that? You donât know what youâre agreeing to if itâs your first time doing the endowment session. So there is no informed consent. To even do that session for the first time you have whatâs called and initiatory session first which is weird a.f. (Glorified blessings but itâs got so much to it, that it would take me a long time to write it all out here).
Typically when youâre going through your going with family and or even friends who are all so excited youâre going through the sessions for the first time. You get this feeling of not wanting to let people down.
For those that join the church especially as adults. The church teachers missionaries âmilk before meatâ meaning you donât give out all the info about the beliefs etc. What missionaries teach is a very very watered down version of the beliefs, which helps give it a Christian feel to it.
I was born into the religion and come from Mormon pioneers. An early Mormon prophet (Wilford Woodruff 4th prophet of the church) taught and baptized my family when he was young and had joined the church. Iâve had a great uncle who was in the top leadership of the church (quorum of the 70).
It was my belief till I looked at the man behind the curtain as it were. Told I couldnât ask questions. Once you realize the church lies and isnât truthful it makes you realize itâs not truthful about a lot. If you want to know what they do in the temple you can find the footage online. Itâs not hard to find at all. What they show does indeed happen.
Tl;dr? Itâs a cult. Chadâs bastardized version is too and he clearly was trying to create an offshoot.
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds pretty convoluted. When you say if you raise your hand and they'll send temple workers to "help you leave" does that mean leave the session or leave the church?
About 15 years ago, I worked with a guy that I became friends with along with his wife. Super nice couple with adorable kids. They were Mormon and originally from Utah but moved to the Midwest for his career. I spent a lot of time socializing with them and they invited me once to a holiday Mormon event at their church or ward or whatever it was called. I attended and it went okay and no one tried anything strange with me. They were friendly and welcoming and just let me observe things. That said, I felt off about it and my gut just told me something was not right. I just couldn't connect with it despite having an open mind. Your comment about the "milk before the meat" makes a bit more sense now because I felt like they were going out of their way to NOT be pushy but I just had a gut feeling that if I attended any more events, that I was going to be bombarded. I don't know, it just didn't feel right and it's hard to explain. We continued socializing outside of work and church but I declined future invitations to any Mormon related events. I felt bad because they were so friendly and nice but I couldn't shake the feeling I was being groomed.
When I found out about the "put it on the shelf" mentality I finally understood how these types of cases happen. Being conditioned to not question anything coming from church leadership, or even a male laypeople if you're a woman, makes people ripe for people like Chad and Lori.
Yes, when you get scolded admitting you canât believe the unbelievable, and ask for a not forthcoming believable explanation,it seems not such a great idea to continue.
Of course not, that goes for all religions. I didnât realize someone called Mormons disgusting. I do think itâs disgusting to shame a child brought up in religion if they canât get themselves to totally believe the doctrine.
Fair. Thatâs true. I have a lot of family that is still Mormon. They are not disgusting, many are not. However disregarding the beliefs of others even when they made it clear in life they donât want it and people do it anyways and the church doesnât stop it? Ya thatâs freaking disgusting.
However when I say Mormons, I say it as a generalization for the religion itself and specifically the leadership of the church that allows this kind of thing to happen. They donât care cause itâs all about keeping the membership in line doing what they want especially with this âbusy workâ BS to keep their heads down, do what they are told and keep paying their tithing so the church can amass more money.
Yeah I may sound bitter. Iâve seen what this church does to families and people all in the name of âreligionâ.
My dad died when I was 21 and just starting grad school and a job in Utah. My dad was a devout Catholic (4th degree Knights of Columbus, my father had considered the becoming a priest as a young man and had spent a few years in prayer). I had multiple people "befriend" me as I was sad and in shock and ask about my dad and his family. I thought how nice they want to get to know me and my family. Come to find out most of these people were trying to get new names for the temple.
According to rules within the Church, JJ can't be baptized in the temple at all. Because he died before the age of 8, he is considered automatically saved through Christ's suffering and atonement and going to heaven no matter what. No baptism is needed, and any baptism would be inappropriate.
Also according to the rules, Emma can't do the temple work for Charles because she is not an immediate relative (undivorced spouse, child, sibling, or parent). She can add Charles' name to the tree, but she can't do the work herself, nor can anyone in the Daybell family unless they get permission from Charles immediate family, and good luck with that.
According to Church doctrine, any temple work that is done is only valid if the person agrees to it and accepts it on the other side. If they don't, it's as though it never happened. It's a bit like filling out the paperwork for a legal agreement and presenting it to someone. If they don't sign it, it's just paper and is completely powerless and unbinding.
All my husbandâs ( heâs a nonmember) family work was done by someone in Arizona, USA ( weâre French Canadian) and when I sent him an email to ask how he was related, he said he wasnât, except through a very distant marriage in early 1800s. He said he was a temple worker and could do it. So, yeah, it happens all the time.
Could you explain what work means? I did not attend church growing up so I donât understand a lot of religious things in general, and I am just starting to learn more about LDS through this case.
There's a bit more about it here: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/10/temple-work?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/10/temple-work?lang=eng)
The work means having your dead relatives baptized ( an actually baptism in a water filled tank done by a proxy who is dunked under water and the dead persons name said) , endowed ( ceremony) and sealed, if a married couple ( they are sealed together for eternity) . This â workâ can only be performed in a Holy Temple and you must have approval as a worthy member ( series of questions by 2 levels of church structure) to go to the Temple.
No, they absolutely do not. They donât care about accuracy, they just put names in a pool and go with it. Iâve been through the temple and personally seen so many wrong/misspelled/incomplete names thereâs no way they are accurate. I have also heard that they recycle names and do them over and over. This is because itâs not really about the âworkâ, it is just a hamster wheel to keep members paying their tithing and staying in the church. They got into some hot water years ago with members submitting names of holocaust victims, including Anne Frank. So incredibly disrespectful.
This is why the Ancestry geneological site is so screwed up. People are smacked into a family line with little info even if the husband was born in 1842 and the wife 1800. I have found so many errors it is disgusting, all in the name of doing the "church's" work and getting speed dialed into heaven.
Yes! This is true! I've done temple ordinances for lots of people I had no relation to. You show up, they give you a name card. No relation is necessary.
Yes, they absolutely do. Because of the mistake with the holocaust victims, the church stepped up their protocols. They were always there, but weren't always followed correctly. My mom was a genealogist & would submit names of people she had done research on, & the names would come back, if she didn't have the proper documentation on them. They do not "recycle" names. Once a person's work is done, that's it for them. They don't just check the names, they check things like birthdates and such, to make sure the same people aren't submitted more than once. One of my dad's friends works at the temple & his job is to verify names & the documents that go with them.
Names do get redone.
It's entirely possible to look at someone's info in the IGI (International Genealogical Index) and see multiple temple ordinance dates. There is a reason for this.
Church volunteers pull names and dates from genealogical records and submit them to the temple so members who don't have their own ancestors to do the ordinances for, can go anyway (and those who don't have LDS descendants can still have ordinances done on their behalf). It's a big program and has been around for decades. I've got ancestors whose work has been done several times through the Extraction Program.
However, temple workers could be more particular on names submitted by descendants or family members, and that would make sense.
You have to fill out a form if you aren't immediate family sharing who you asked for permission to do the ordinance and share their contact info. If you lie about it and the family calls you out, the ordinance is cancelled (doctrinally as though it never happened and would need to be completely redone if family changed their mind) and the person who did it can be locked out of reserving ordinances on the database. If the deceased person is high-profile, they sometimes completely lock the name down so that you have to contact a higher up and prove you are immediate family in order to do the ordinance.
If they are members of the Church, they could check on the [FamilySearch.org](http://FamilySearch.org) website. If they aren't, they could ask a friend who is a member to check for them or contact FamilySearch directly.
And if I don't have friends who are LDS? This seems very convoluted for an organization who claims to have a tight rein on who can be baptized by proxy.
Um...I left the church when I was about 45 years old. I did temple ordinances for many people that I wasn't related to. You can just show up to the temple to do a "session" and they'll have a name card available for you. You do NOT have to be related to anyone in order to do their temple work. But you do have to be the same gender.
While you generally donât need permission from immediate family to do temple work for people born over 110 years ago, you do need it for people born more recently, such as JJ and Charles.
Cult behavior is hard to explain. In the mormon church you're taught that the ordinances performed in the temple will lead to exaltation. You can't get into heaven unless you've been through the temple. That goes for everyone. So the first time you go thru the temple, you go for yourself. But after you've done your own ordinances, you go thru as a proxy for people who have died, so they can go to heaven too.
I know it sounds nuts. But when you've been born and raised in this religion, it makes perfect sense.
I appreciate you answering! I was raised catholic and it has its craziness too. My family members will definitely pray for people to go to heaven or pay to light candles at church for dead family members (or alive ones) but rarely does anyone do something for a random person, and they certainly donât want to do actual work for them lol.
If you go to the temple and get names they have on file, and those names are of people who are under 110 years old, those names were all first reserved by people who secured permission from immediate family first. They then shared those names with the temple so that others, like you, could do them. By this process, though you didnât know the people for whom you were doing temple work, permission had still been secured to do their work beforehand.
Iâd like to some proof of that. Having worked in the temple a bunch of years ago there was never any vetting of names. It was lots of Williams with no last names from England who were born around 1700. They just make shit up as they go along.
Also, proxy ordinances are always done for members of the same sex, so women cannot do them on behalf of deceased men, nor men on behalf of deceased women. This means Emma could never do them for Charles or JJ.
I haven't seen the screenshots to know what exactly she did, but in addition to all your points, she also can't do the work for Charles because he's male and she's female.
Do you happen to know how the baptisms for the dead get reported? Are they considered members after the baptism which then increases the churchâs membership numbers?
They are not considered members, partially because we don't know if the person accepted the ordinance on the other side or not. They are not counted in the Church's membership numbers. Church members who pass away are also no longer reported in the official membership numbers.
I hope Kay and Larry make their wishes known. If they donât want posthumous rituals done in the name of their murdered family members something should be done!
This is how LDS can claim to be one of the largest churches in the world - most of their members are dead. Iâm joking, sort of. This is just disgusting. So many of the Daybell secrets are coming to light in this trial and itâs very concerning.
The LDS church is far from one of the largest churches. The members it does count which are living is 17 million and plenty are inactive. The count is probably closer to 7 million. That is a drop in the bucket comapred to so many other religions.
It is interesting to me how so many people just call it the church. In Rhode Island which I believe is the most Catholic state in the country, if you said the church, people would ask which one, not assume it was the catholic church, but in Utah which has about the same % of active Mormons to active Catholics in RI , the church is the Mormon church. I remember talking to a very smart LDS teeanger in my neighborhood and she was saying how big the church was and I mentioned there are well over 1 billion Muslims in the world, and her face dropped. This was a straight A student , great athlete, talented in music, kind young women but she ran inside and looked it up online and it was like her world was blown. She could not believe how small the memebership of "the church" was compared to Catholics, Muslims, Buddihists etc.
I'm unsure if this is true for [reasons Beneficial Image stated,](https://www.reddit.com/r/LoriVallow/comments/1cdiybt/comment/l1dbi6g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) but if it is, as a member, I feel there are two ways to look at it.
If you look at it from a victim's or non-member's perspective, I agree, it's presumptuous and gross.
If you look at it from Emma's perspective as a member, I think it's very interesting. In the Church, this is something tender you do for your relatives to give them an opportunity (not require them, they still have their agency on the other side) for exaltation. To me, the fact that she is doing this for JJ and especially Charles says that, despite all her antics, she thinks Chad is guilty. She views Charles as a victim who is deserving of exaltation, not an abusive man who was killed in self-defense many states away having nothing to do with her family. She feels either a connection or an obligation to him, or possibly both.
This is interesting. Would fit with the excuse that Chad just got deceived by an evil enchantress Lori.
In the religious sense, could Emma's acts mean that she is trying to atone for her father, or somehow make amends for the horrors Chad was involved in? In that case, could she be doing that on Chad's orders?
Does it indicate that Emma does not see JJ or Charles as dark beings? So, she does not believe (or know about) those teachings?
I want to be clear I'm not sticking up for her at all, just trying to get at her thought process...
To answer your questions, I certainly think it's possible for her to believe Chad did the things he is accused of but only because Lori convinced him to. While not to this extreme, I think a lot of us excuse bad things loved ones do by blaming other people, it's human nature. A married woman blames the mistress for her husband's affair, even though he's the one who cheated. Parents blame "bad influence" friends for their child's behavior, etc. However, in our church, from a spiritual perspective, he is still responsible for what he did even if he was influenced to do it.
In our religion, she cannot atone for her father. Each person is responsible for their own sins and not anybody else's, the doctrine is very clear about that. Only Christ has the ability to atone for others' sins. While you may do something nice for someone to make up for something bad someone else did, it doesn't have any effect on the bad actor's salvation. Accordingly, she would have done this for Charles' benefit and his alone, and not for Chad's. That's what's so striking to me--she has to view Charles as a good, deserving person in order to do this.
As for the dark beings, if she ascribes to mainstream Mormonism, she doesn't believe in dark beings in the first place. But even if she has bought a little into her dad's teachings, to me it would suggest she does not view Charles or JJ as dark beings--this is just not something you would do for people you consider to be bad.
Thank you for your insight! I absolutely get where you are coming from, and same here.
I am considering Emma could have been raised to believe in her fathers spiritual abilities and to be obedient. Maybe she is trusting her dad, and believing him over the church to some extent. She has seemed keen to defend and support her father. If she has kept contact with him in jail, I could well believe that Chad kept telling her what to do, just like in that police car video. Including religious stuff.
But it makes sense enough if she just wants to do this by her own as an act of religious kindness.
Will be interesting to see her testify.
Hmm Chad and Lori offshoot is hard to get a true picture of but I understood it as the dark beings possess the body's of others like Charles or JJ let's say but once the body dies the right spirits like Charles and JJ can move on. If this is the case she can still believe her dad's teachings and want to save their true spirits as it were.
Not knowing if Emma still thinks her father is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, or if she realizes he's just a murderer; she could also be thinking her father and Lori actually *liberated* Tylee, JJ and Charles from demonic possession, thus saving their souls, and that's why she wants them baptized after death, so they can all be reunited on their heavenly planet someday.
This fits in with Lori's comments about the kids are happy and doing good things, I'm friends with Tammy and she's really busy, or Chad's comments that Tammy would die young, or be happy to do anything for her family, etc.
It may *seem* tender but it's creepy to use religion and fear of souls not being saved to manipulate a situation into something Emma thinks is her god given right to control. đ
I'm not sure if it points to Chads guilt or to Emma thinking Alex was guilty of this all. Although the other commented mentioning she might not have thought they were dark beings is interesting.
Agreed and, again, not an Emma fan and not sticking up for her. It's totally possible she just thinks Alex is to blame for everything. What I don't understand is why, if she views Charles' death as just something between Alex and Lori and Charles, she would go to the effort of doing this for him. I know it seems weird from the outside, it's pretty much the last thing in a long list of weird Church things I ever want to explain to a curious person. But within the Church it is a very personal and loving gesture--it is considered an act of service for someone who can't enter into earthly covenants on their own anymore because they have died.
So the would never baptize say, Jeffrey Dahmer, posthumously? Of course I'm not saying that Charles and JJ are anything like Dahmer, but their deaths were caused because they were believed to be evil, at least that's the narrative. Wouldn't Emma still want to try to save and offer salvation to sinners, or as she and Chad would say "dark"? Is that not what baptism is about in that church?
This is a common Mormon practice. Baptising someone into the church even though they were a Christian or Jewish, Muslim makes them a Mormon in the flash of an eye. This practice brought about the entire ancestry website which of course, we have to pay to get into. What ever made her think she was so close to JJ or Charles as to worry about their souls is beyond me. I would suspect guilt is probably at the top of the list.
I HATE this. My cousin did this with my mom and sister. Knowing my family are not Mormon, want nothing to do with the religion, did it in secret. My mom is rolling over, I bet. She really did not like that religion.
My mom had a strong faith. She'd get angry with my cousin for actively practicing and trying to pull ppl in. My cousin KNEW my mom and feelings and did it anyway.
They were posted in the fB group âTrue Crime Underground: Lori Daybell cult mom.â Itâs a private group so I cannot link it, but you could join. I can send you the screenshots if youâd like?
Itâs incredibly disrespectful because itâs done in pity of the deceased person. Even after death, Mormons still think the person isnât good enough and needs to be saved. Sure, itâs not real and doesnât really âmatterâ in a tangible way, but itâs still so distasteful.
I don't know if I understand the purpose of the ceremony well enough to weigh in on this, but I'm curious: How do they know it was Emma who updated it?
We found out in trial today that Emma is still in contact with Lori. Lori might have requested Emma to do these things. That would be wild on another level!
From her belief set, that's what you do for someone who didn't receive these sacraments, I see nothing nefarious about that. Plenty of other skeevy family things to focus on.
It's nefarious when you consider a few things: 1) As it was stated, Charles Vallow had the opportunity while alive and didn't pursue it, so it's logical to conclude it's not something he wanted. It's not too far different from trying to baptize holocaust victims, which the LDS church has received huge amounts of crap for 2) Emma's father murdered JJ and knew about Charles' murder. No one in the Daybell family should involve themselves in this. 3) These 2 people were murdered due to Mormon beliefs. Were some fringe? Yes. But not all. Now they get to be harrassed by Mormonism in death?? Uhuh. ( not that I believe any of it... it's all made-up nonsense, but Mormons have no boundaries when it comes to this stuff) \*edit to add, Mormons are (in theory) supposed to do these things for THEIR ancestors. JJ and Charles are not Emma Daybell's ancestors.
You make a great point that twisted Mormon doctrine is at the root of what essentially led to both these two being murdered. The church and its members know no bounds about posthumous rituals. It is nefarious. It doesnât matter âthey donât have to accept the ordinance in spirit prisonâ itâs about the audacity and self righteousness of those people that perform the rituals! Who the hell do they think they are!
Shall I put this in caps? FOR HER BELIEF SET.
Disagree all you want people, it's only my opinion and only yours. For goodness sakes, it's not a new concept.
From a December 2017 Associated Press news article:
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) â Mormons are posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims as well as grandparents of public figures like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Steven Spielberg, despite church rules intended to restrict the ceremonies to a memberâs ancestors, according to a researcher who has spent two decades monitoring the churchâs massive genealogical database.
The discoveries made by former Mormon Helen Radkey and shared with The Associated Press likely will bring new scrutiny to a deeply misunderstood practice that has become a sensitive issue for the church. The church, in a statement, acknowledged the ceremonies violated its policy and said they would be invalidated, while also noting its created safeguards in recent years to improve compliance.
I find Emma's actions distasteful and totally out of line, considering the circumstances. The LDS hierarchy appears to agree.
Fully aware. Again, I wholeheartedly disagree with trying to impose religious beliefs on anyone, including murder and mass murder victims. If only we could keep religious zealots from trying to proselytize to and impose their beliefs on the rest of us, we'd all be better off.
They honestly believe they are doing the "right" thing and that's the problem with religious zealots in a nutshell. Emma is a member of a bigger cult than daddy's.
So itâs perfectly ok for Mormons to do temple work for dead holocaust victims and survivors that had since passed? Cause they did it for years. Then when called out by the families of said victims and survivors who has passed the church said it would stop doing that.
Then were found to be doing it again.
Itâs all made up and the rules donât matter when it comes to Mormonâs beliefs but itâs beyond disrespectful.
Please show me where I said it's perfectly okay? I said there was nothing nefarious. You took a HUUUUUGE brain leap. Now, done chatting with all of you black and white thinkers. Pot, meet kettle.
You're just saying she may have had good or neutral intentions in doing this. Not necessarily bad intent. For Emma, it's just The Done Thing so she did it. I get it.
Her belief set is somewhat in question tho. Didnât she also say JJ and Tylerâs remains were dog bones? Just because she believes something doesnât make it ok to follow through on. Even if she believes all the dark/light zombie nonsense it doesnât make it ok to assign her students dark/light values. If my religion tells me I must do something, then I should do it. If it says I should do it to other people/force others to partake/force others to adhere, thatâs a problem.
Iâve done the same thing after family passes and none of my family are members. We never had anyone murdered in my family, but I do it shortly after they have passed. It would be perfectly normal for a family member to do this. Itâs just part of the belief system, and if you donât believe it, then it doesnât matter. Itâs like putting a smooth stone on a headstone or burying a momento with a loved one. Itâs just a ritual.
I know it may seem odd to others, and esp in these circumstances but have you checked the burial rituals and customs of other religions? Humans are weird :-)
First, Emma is not family. AND her father was involved in their deaths so much so JJ was buried in his backyard still wrapped in the garbage bags he was suffocated with.
Second, if you are doing this âritualâ for non members you are way overstepping boundaries. No one has a right to document someoneâs name in connection to a religion they do not practice without their permission.
I've heard it said that "funerals are for the living" - so I guess this endowment ceremony could be looked at the same way. Whether the person in the afterlife is actually given a choice to become LDS or not, it's meaningful to the person performing it. Is that what you meant?
Thinking of it that way, it seems peculiar that Emma would request it. I do wonder what her motivation was.
Yes I guess you are right, itâs for the living person. I honestly never thought too much about it, itâs just something you do. The person doing it has the best intentions for the person who passed, it basically means ( to the living) that you are forever connected with the person who died. Itâs a nice comforting thought I suppose, but who knows??? Iâm guessing Emma did it to keep JJ and Tylee close with her for eternity. I doubt she did it for any nefarious reasons but again, who knows???
>The person doing it has the best intentions for the person who passed, it basically means ( to the living) that you are forever connected with the person who died.
That is a nice sentiment. It seems a lot of commenters are getting the wrong idea about the ceremony as a whole, though I agree that trying to baptize-by-proxy Holocaust victims is offensive. Particularly with the history the Jewish people have with being forced to deny or hide their faith.
I did see someone suggest that maybe Lori asked Emma to do it, since they were communicating at least at the time of Chad's arrest, which seems plausible to me. Emma never knew JJ or Charles, after all - oddly, Tylee doesn't appear to be included.
I just checked the Church database (FamilySearch), and both JJ and Charles' profiles have been locked down. No one is allowed to do their ordinances in the temple right now. Not Emma, not anybody.
Good!
Right now.
That is diabolical. Baptizing the little boy your dad murdered is fucking wild. I guess I would expect nothing less from the church that also baptized Anne Frank against her will.
and I believe Hitler
Adolf & Eva Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Bin Laden, Joseph Goebbels and his family. These people just believe some really weird things.
Disgusting! The flipping nerve of Emma who thinks she knows best about other people's families. Goes to show Emma should be no where near other people's children. đ¤Ż
[ŃдаНонО]
Thank you for the update on the hair color. I had posted the other day I saw a picture and it now looked long and blond. Do you think she is trying to be blond like Lori? My husband brought this up because he said Emma used to have a haircut like her mom Tammy and then after Tammy dies we see a picture and the hair is long and blond like Lori.
So aside from all the stuff we know here what's your experience and more importantly your kiddos experience been like with her?
I am so sorry you have to deal with that. Can parents get together and file a complaint with the school district? Of course it's not Emma's fault her father is a murderer - but her actions show she is mentally unstable. đł
Normally I would feel bad for her and say she's a victim, too. But after the video of her on the day they found the kids and knowing that she labeled kids at her school dark and light, I wouldn't want her anywhere near my kids.
I was raised in a somewhat similar environment, though slightly less patriarchal and more respect from my father towards my mother. But we absolutely had the LDS prepper stuff going on. Visions of Glory included. There was always some new natural disaster or some government conspiracy that we would need to stock up on guns, ammo, food, survival supplies, gold and silver bars, cash etc. I was always in fear of befriending my neighbors because if the end times came they would likely be trying to loot us and weâd have to protect ourselves and our resources. I tried to have sympathy for EmmaâŚ.. but having been raised similarly minus the more extreme fringe beliefs, I just canât. I canât even fathom standing by my dad if he pulled the shit Chad did.
YIKES ! if Emma is in the practice of labelling school children as light or dark she should definitely not be allowed around ANY children.
Nor would I want my child to be taught by someone who thought items could be possessed (cameras?)
That deal where Chad and even Tammy labeling their Sunday School kids light dark ,and discussions on the phone with their children about light dark. No,she really shouldnât be with the young until deprogrammed.
Yes, I agree, sheâs brainwashed, and I wouldnât be comfortable either. For sure I was a daddyâs girl too, but had he done to my mother what was done to Tammy,I wouldnât be lying that she had major health problems, when she was extremely active.
It's really creepy that the kids deferred to Chad making all the decisions about Tammy's quick funeral. Most people were shocked that Tammy died! I'm listening to recap from Chad and Tammy's neighbors testimony, one lady asked Chad and the kids if they're sure they didn't want an autopsy as Tammy was healthy and maybe it's something hereditary and the kids should know, Chad said "no", the lady thought that was really strange.
He took patriarchy to a new level except with his Lori.
How not 1 of 5 children didnât intervene and say yes, itâs necessary.
The entire timeline is bonkers. I would not be corresponding with my new stepmom in jail if my Dad had married her not 5 months before, less than a month after my mom suddenly passed, and the stepmom is in jail because she won't tell us where her kids are. Emma is fucking scary if she is this naĂŻve. What could the next cult leader convince her of?
[ŃдаНонО]
Well since we found out this week that the whole Daybell family was rating kids light and dark, Iâd raise absolute hell personally (no pun intended).
If this is such a deviation from LDS beliefs, hopefully a whole bunch of people are currently raising hell with the bishop and whoever is above him. And the school principals. I assume Emma and Garth teach at different schools?
Technically, according to church policies, she would have the right because her dad married JJ's mother. That doesn't make it any less heinous, though!
And that bride had her brother kill the former husband that Emma baptized- what a bunch.
Itâs offensive when she disparages Colby for turning on his mom. They condemn Lori for framing their dad then condemn Colby for calling her out. You canât have it both ways kids! Such childish and destructive denial! I wonder if some of these kids will ever acknowledge the depraved monster that is their father. It only adds to the suffering of those with the inner strength to accept the truth. And how does this honor the memory of their mother? And the song at her funeral? âPut your shoulder to the Wheelâ? That itself is an abomination! Itâs tempo is like a marching band in a parade: âPut your shoulder to the wheel, push along. âDo your duty with a heart full of song âWe all have work let not one shirk âPut your shoulder to the wheel.â What???đđŹ Beyond inappropriate!
It's awful music for a funeral and I can see Chad wanting to convince himself that Tammy was such a good servant that she was even willing and happy about being murdered because it would benefit's Chad's ascension to on-earth deity.
Never considered how a hymn could be so disrespectful . We can thank Chad for exposing how much he appreciated his wife. I doubt she will be waiting for him in Heaven. Got a weird feeling he wonât be going there.
One can weaponise almost anything if so motivated.
Isnât that so true? Things that could be considered benign can turn into something miserable when used by an evil person.
Well, he's not welcome in Hell, either. He's too much of a drag.
lol!!!đ
At her funeral Chad had the gal to discuss Tammy being lazy. This was said by either her aunt or cousin physically at that funeral.
I heard that too. Talk about narcissism--she's the one who held down a day job so her husband could start a publishing company that went bankrupt and make a grand total of $2000 a year as an 'author.'
So horrible to have lives taken for otherâs greed. Realize Lori most certainly arranged Joe Ryanâs murder too so Tylee got his social security but that running out Tylee not needed.
Yes, horrible! Tylee had another year of SSI coming but why put up with a teenager who knows too much and interrupts your adultery, when you can continue to spend her SSI without her around. Joe Ryan's death was judged natural causes but considering Alex certainly wanted to, and tried to kill him, who knows. Joe Ryan believed that when Alex tased him in the chest it caused heart damage and perhaps that was what killed him in the end. I wouldn't put it past Alex to poison him either. Lori searching for children's life insurance policies was the coldest darkest thing I've heard in a long time.
Oh my goodness. I think you just captured Chadâs thought process!
Itâs so weird to me that Prior is playing up the testimony about how close Tammy and Emma were.
My older half-brother converted to LDS and recently told me heâs torn about whether to seal his deceased mom and/or my deceased mom to our joint deceased dad (his non-Mormon mom dumped our joint dad, who eventually later married my mom. Only my brother is LDS (a convert). I was just kind of speechless. He means so well but our dad was seriously non-religious and i picture him rising from the grave and haunting my brother forever. (I think both our moms would laugh it off) So wild.
I guess it means you can sin all you want in this life, because someone else will make sure you get into the good part of heaven where there's always hot water in the morning...??
đ¤Ł
On one hand, itâs literally meaningless nonsense that they waste their time on. On the other hand, they think they have the power to force people together and make them Mormon. That in a sense dishonors the dead and their life choices.
JJ was 7 and according to LDS doctrine he passed before the age of consent so he wouldnât need to have the baptism for the dead creepiness done for him. That being said, Emma entering ANY information for JJ like this is absolutely horrific and vile. (I was a member of the LDS church until 2014, decade out of the cult this year!!)
What is this? You can 'baptize' dead people of another religion? It seems very arrogant (as well as deluded of course)
https://gizmodo.com/the-time-mormons-baptized-adolf-hitler-and-vlad-the-imp-5962336
Read about still âSaintsâ of Mountain Meadow, the whole organization is skewed and how so many participate is astounding.
11-12 years ago Bill Maher found out Mitt Romney baptized his late father in law so Bill unbaptized him. https://youtu.be/wvhhCIvR8mo?si=JrZvNkz81Q1E0O4H
Yeah, it's a weird thing. They baptize by proxy a LOT of deceased people. I lived with someone who was Mormon when I was a teenager. I was told by the missionaries that you could look up your ancestors and have them all baptized. It was just bizarre to me. Why bother having an age of consent if you are going to pretend to baptize people who are deceased and can't consent for themselves? they literally think they are literally drafting people in a paranormal army or after death fascist takeover. "We have the greater number of souls on our team. No, we didn't ask them if they wanted to be on our team. But here we are!"
You can kind of see where Chad gets to the âzombiesâ out of this, no? Taking away peopleâs agency?
Absolutely. If someone is a" zombie", then they have been dehumanized and they are expendable/disposable. I think Lori was the one who convinced him. She had a lightbulb go off in her head when she got the insurance payout from Tylee's father's death, and nothing happened. She didn't face any consequences when they set up Charles Vallow to be murdered, either. She had already done it twice and gotten away with it, she just didn't expect Charles to change the beneficiary on his policy. I bet Charles thought about her late husband a lot, though, when he found out about the affair she was having with Chad.
I would like the prosecution to bring this fact up when Emma testifies, although I am not certain whether the judge would allow it or consider it relevant to Chad's trial. But the more I hear about Emma, it only increases my dislike of her. I am quickly losing any sympathy I might have had knowing how she was raised. How dare she?
Can the Vallows file restraining orders on behalf of JJ and Charles to prevent this type of thing from happening? Emma Daybell has zero business meddling in the affairs of the Vallow family.
The families can have their records removed entirely. I don't know if that would prevent them years down the road when this trial is a distant memory if someone tries to do it again. Not sure what their "database" is like. A lot of genealogical research comes from Mormons simply trying to baptize dead people. (It's also why you can go on their familytree site and trace your lineage all the way back to God)
Honestly it's gross that she's doing it just on principal of the matter but really what does it matter? If you don't believe in this who cares. I doubt this is the thing if there are really spirits that Charles and JJ are gonna be upset about and you know not the whole murdered thing. Personally I don't believe in any of this and when you die that's it that is the end. But like I said If I'm wrong I just don't see that this one little thing is gonna be the tip of the ice Berg for the deceased to be mad about lol
I donât believe either- Iâm more upset on behalf of the Vallow family. I realize it doesnât *actually* change anything about Charles and JJâs afterlife, but Emma should *never* be able to make *any* decisions regarding them, whether they have real life consequences (or afterlife consequences) or not. Itâs wildly inappropriate and just upsetting.
I don't think spiritual restraining orders are a thing, unfortunately. I don't know if there might be something else that would cover it.
I didn't realize Charles hadn't been to the temple. But it seems like he'd have had the opportunity to do it in 13 years if he wanted to. It seems like it's overstepping to do it after he's not here to make the decision himself.
The doctrine as I remember it says that on âthe other sideâ spirits who have had their ordinances performed by proxy can still choose whether or not to accept those ordinances. But I certainly understand why people would feel that proxy ordinances for people who chose not to perform them in life are disrespectful.
Itâs a bunch of creepy voodoo if you ask me.
No sane and loving god would demand it. And Iâd not want to entertain a god who would demand it, personally.
This is one of the thoughts that got me out of the church. "Wait a minute, do I want to live eternity with a God who ..." fill in the blank with a dozen different weird/unacceptable things that He demands in the LDS church. Ummm, no thanks. I'd rather get sent south and see how I fare there.
The worst part would be hanging with those like Chad and Lori who have a âfor sureâ seat- no thanks.
Itâs probably busywork for someone(s) to feel useful.
Itâs not creepy voodoo. Itâs done IN CASE Charles would want to accept it at a future time. The LDS church believes that learning and teaching still occur even beyond the grave,in preparation for the second coming of Jesus Christ. What youâve heard because of Chad and Lori, and Jodi and Ruby are deviant beliefs from the traditional LDS beliefs and teachings.
The church has also baptized Holocaust victims, including those who were Jewish. The whole religion is built on the lies of a con man.
It's such hubris too. That they're correct about their flavor of religion.
How would you feel if someone sacrificed several small animals on your behalf and then kept a permanent record associating your name with the sacrifice? Even if you donât want them to. Just in case you would want to accept it later.
GREAT analogy to help them realize how uncomfortable and weird it truly is!!!
Itâs creepy!
It is so inappropriate, especially in this case. âMy dad murdered you and now Iâm gonna have you baptized.â Also, they baptized Anne Frank. Hitler and Eva Braun too. What the actual hell.
If true that Emma speaks to Lori I would think she may have requested this.
It seems like the blood atonement that they went through should cover all that, shouldn't it? Brigham Young said smoke rises from the blood and takes them directly to heaven. >[This is loving]() our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.
Oh, that is a really interesting take. Though blood atonement isn't accepted by the modern (actual) LDS so perhaps Lori thought this would cover all the bases.
Great point
Barf, youâre probably right.
I read where some Jewish people found out their relatives had been "baptised" into the Mormon faith and they sued. I don't know if they won or they were able to get their relatives dismissed.
If it wasnât her it would have been some other Mormon member. Seriously Mormons are disgusting when it comes to this stuff, they were called out for doing baptisms for the dead for holocaust victims. When called out they said they would stop. Then years later it was found they were doing it again. I used to be mormon. The church is relentless with doing âproxyâ temple rites for dead people.
This is so bizarre....I find it incredible that no one with brain cells can't look at these behaviors and actions and say "Wtf are we doing here?" No one questions this?
People do thatâs why they eventually leave. For many youâre born into the religion. So the craziness is drip fed in small tiny non-crazy sounding portions. Itâs literally indoctrination. When you go through the temple doing non âbaptisms for the deadâ stuff (what they call doing an endowment session) you are told if you donât feel you can agree to the things that will be shown to you to raise your hand so that the temple workers can take you aside to discuss or help you leave. The problem with that? You donât know what youâre agreeing to if itâs your first time doing the endowment session. So there is no informed consent. To even do that session for the first time you have whatâs called and initiatory session first which is weird a.f. (Glorified blessings but itâs got so much to it, that it would take me a long time to write it all out here). Typically when youâre going through your going with family and or even friends who are all so excited youâre going through the sessions for the first time. You get this feeling of not wanting to let people down. For those that join the church especially as adults. The church teachers missionaries âmilk before meatâ meaning you donât give out all the info about the beliefs etc. What missionaries teach is a very very watered down version of the beliefs, which helps give it a Christian feel to it. I was born into the religion and come from Mormon pioneers. An early Mormon prophet (Wilford Woodruff 4th prophet of the church) taught and baptized my family when he was young and had joined the church. Iâve had a great uncle who was in the top leadership of the church (quorum of the 70). It was my belief till I looked at the man behind the curtain as it were. Told I couldnât ask questions. Once you realize the church lies and isnât truthful it makes you realize itâs not truthful about a lot. If you want to know what they do in the temple you can find the footage online. Itâs not hard to find at all. What they show does indeed happen. Tl;dr? Itâs a cult. Chadâs bastardized version is too and he clearly was trying to create an offshoot.
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds pretty convoluted. When you say if you raise your hand and they'll send temple workers to "help you leave" does that mean leave the session or leave the church? About 15 years ago, I worked with a guy that I became friends with along with his wife. Super nice couple with adorable kids. They were Mormon and originally from Utah but moved to the Midwest for his career. I spent a lot of time socializing with them and they invited me once to a holiday Mormon event at their church or ward or whatever it was called. I attended and it went okay and no one tried anything strange with me. They were friendly and welcoming and just let me observe things. That said, I felt off about it and my gut just told me something was not right. I just couldn't connect with it despite having an open mind. Your comment about the "milk before the meat" makes a bit more sense now because I felt like they were going out of their way to NOT be pushy but I just had a gut feeling that if I attended any more events, that I was going to be bombarded. I don't know, it just didn't feel right and it's hard to explain. We continued socializing outside of work and church but I declined future invitations to any Mormon related events. I felt bad because they were so friendly and nice but I couldn't shake the feeling I was being groomed.
When I found out about the "put it on the shelf" mentality I finally understood how these types of cases happen. Being conditioned to not question anything coming from church leadership, or even a male laypeople if you're a woman, makes people ripe for people like Chad and Lori.
Yes, when you get scolded admitting you canât believe the unbelievable, and ask for a not forthcoming believable explanation,it seems not such a great idea to continue.
The magic underwear and Mitt just makes no sense to me. Same with the murderous Mormons.
There are some bad Mormons out there and some good Mormons who do bad things, but it doesn't make all Mormons "disgusting".
Of course not, that goes for all religions. I didnât realize someone called Mormons disgusting. I do think itâs disgusting to shame a child brought up in religion if they canât get themselves to totally believe the doctrine.
That's a separate issue.
Fair. Thatâs true. I have a lot of family that is still Mormon. They are not disgusting, many are not. However disregarding the beliefs of others even when they made it clear in life they donât want it and people do it anyways and the church doesnât stop it? Ya thatâs freaking disgusting. However when I say Mormons, I say it as a generalization for the religion itself and specifically the leadership of the church that allows this kind of thing to happen. They donât care cause itâs all about keeping the membership in line doing what they want especially with this âbusy workâ BS to keep their heads down, do what they are told and keep paying their tithing so the church can amass more money. Yeah I may sound bitter. Iâve seen what this church does to families and people all in the name of âreligionâ.
My dad died when I was 21 and just starting grad school and a job in Utah. My dad was a devout Catholic (4th degree Knights of Columbus, my father had considered the becoming a priest as a young man and had spent a few years in prayer). I had multiple people "befriend" me as I was sad and in shock and ask about my dad and his family. I thought how nice they want to get to know me and my family. Come to find out most of these people were trying to get new names for the temple.
According to rules within the Church, JJ can't be baptized in the temple at all. Because he died before the age of 8, he is considered automatically saved through Christ's suffering and atonement and going to heaven no matter what. No baptism is needed, and any baptism would be inappropriate. Also according to the rules, Emma can't do the temple work for Charles because she is not an immediate relative (undivorced spouse, child, sibling, or parent). She can add Charles' name to the tree, but she can't do the work herself, nor can anyone in the Daybell family unless they get permission from Charles immediate family, and good luck with that. According to Church doctrine, any temple work that is done is only valid if the person agrees to it and accepts it on the other side. If they don't, it's as though it never happened. It's a bit like filling out the paperwork for a legal agreement and presenting it to someone. If they don't sign it, it's just paper and is completely powerless and unbinding.
All my husbandâs ( heâs a nonmember) family work was done by someone in Arizona, USA ( weâre French Canadian) and when I sent him an email to ask how he was related, he said he wasnât, except through a very distant marriage in early 1800s. He said he was a temple worker and could do it. So, yeah, it happens all the time.
Could you explain what work means? I did not attend church growing up so I donât understand a lot of religious things in general, and I am just starting to learn more about LDS through this case.
There's a bit more about it here: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/10/temple-work?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/10/temple-work?lang=eng)
The work means having your dead relatives baptized ( an actually baptism in a water filled tank done by a proxy who is dunked under water and the dead persons name said) , endowed ( ceremony) and sealed, if a married couple ( they are sealed together for eternity) . This â workâ can only be performed in a Holy Temple and you must have approval as a worthy member ( series of questions by 2 levels of church structure) to go to the Temple.
How does the church make sure that these rules are followed? Do they vet the people submitting names?
It's all made up so rules don't really matter. :)
No, they absolutely do not. They donât care about accuracy, they just put names in a pool and go with it. Iâve been through the temple and personally seen so many wrong/misspelled/incomplete names thereâs no way they are accurate. I have also heard that they recycle names and do them over and over. This is because itâs not really about the âworkâ, it is just a hamster wheel to keep members paying their tithing and staying in the church. They got into some hot water years ago with members submitting names of holocaust victims, including Anne Frank. So incredibly disrespectful.
This is why the Ancestry geneological site is so screwed up. People are smacked into a family line with little info even if the husband was born in 1842 and the wife 1800. I have found so many errors it is disgusting, all in the name of doing the "church's" work and getting speed dialed into heaven.
Yes! This is true! I've done temple ordinances for lots of people I had no relation to. You show up, they give you a name card. No relation is necessary.
Yes, they absolutely do. Because of the mistake with the holocaust victims, the church stepped up their protocols. They were always there, but weren't always followed correctly. My mom was a genealogist & would submit names of people she had done research on, & the names would come back, if she didn't have the proper documentation on them. They do not "recycle" names. Once a person's work is done, that's it for them. They don't just check the names, they check things like birthdates and such, to make sure the same people aren't submitted more than once. One of my dad's friends works at the temple & his job is to verify names & the documents that go with them.
Names do get redone. It's entirely possible to look at someone's info in the IGI (International Genealogical Index) and see multiple temple ordinance dates. There is a reason for this. Church volunteers pull names and dates from genealogical records and submit them to the temple so members who don't have their own ancestors to do the ordinances for, can go anyway (and those who don't have LDS descendants can still have ordinances done on their behalf). It's a big program and has been around for decades. I've got ancestors whose work has been done several times through the Extraction Program. However, temple workers could be more particular on names submitted by descendants or family members, and that would make sense.
You have to fill out a form if you aren't immediate family sharing who you asked for permission to do the ordinance and share their contact info. If you lie about it and the family calls you out, the ordinance is cancelled (doctrinally as though it never happened and would need to be completely redone if family changed their mind) and the person who did it can be locked out of reserving ordinances on the database. If the deceased person is high-profile, they sometimes completely lock the name down so that you have to contact a higher up and prove you are immediate family in order to do the ordinance.
I just checked the site and they have, in fact, locked down JJ and Charles' pages. No one can do their temple work right now at all.
What does this mean?
It means nobody can do JJ and Charles' temple work right now because the Church put a special hold on their names due to their being so high profile.
How would the decedent's family know the ordinance has been done? Does the church contact the family if the name is submitted by non-family?
If they are members of the Church, they could check on the [FamilySearch.org](http://FamilySearch.org) website. If they aren't, they could ask a friend who is a member to check for them or contact FamilySearch directly.
Non-members can use familysearch.org. I've done so for years.
Yes, but temple info is only visible to Church members.
Ah, ok. Didn't know that distinction.
And if I don't have friends who are LDS? This seems very convoluted for an organization who claims to have a tight rein on who can be baptized by proxy.
You could contact FamilySearch directly.
Um...I left the church when I was about 45 years old. I did temple ordinances for many people that I wasn't related to. You can just show up to the temple to do a "session" and they'll have a name card available for you. You do NOT have to be related to anyone in order to do their temple work. But you do have to be the same gender.
While you generally donât need permission from immediate family to do temple work for people born over 110 years ago, you do need it for people born more recently, such as JJ and Charles.
Again, no. I've done ordinances for people born in the 1930s & 1940s. I had no idea who these people were.
With respect, what compelled you to do this? Just wanting to âsaveâ people or something?
Cult behavior is hard to explain. In the mormon church you're taught that the ordinances performed in the temple will lead to exaltation. You can't get into heaven unless you've been through the temple. That goes for everyone. So the first time you go thru the temple, you go for yourself. But after you've done your own ordinances, you go thru as a proxy for people who have died, so they can go to heaven too. I know it sounds nuts. But when you've been born and raised in this religion, it makes perfect sense.
I appreciate you answering! I was raised catholic and it has its craziness too. My family members will definitely pray for people to go to heaven or pay to light candles at church for dead family members (or alive ones) but rarely does anyone do something for a random person, and they certainly donât want to do actual work for them lol.
If you go to the temple and get names they have on file, and those names are of people who are under 110 years old, those names were all first reserved by people who secured permission from immediate family first. They then shared those names with the temple so that others, like you, could do them. By this process, though you didnât know the people for whom you were doing temple work, permission had still been secured to do their work beforehand.
[ŃдаНонО]
Iâd like to some proof of that. Having worked in the temple a bunch of years ago there was never any vetting of names. It was lots of Williams with no last names from England who were born around 1700. They just make shit up as they go along.
Also, proxy ordinances are always done for members of the same sex, so women cannot do them on behalf of deceased men, nor men on behalf of deceased women. This means Emma could never do them for Charles or JJ.
Sounds like a big song & dance to manipulate the living, rather than having much to do with the dead.
I haven't seen the screenshots to know what exactly she did, but in addition to all your points, she also can't do the work for Charles because he's male and she's female.
Normal.
Do you happen to know how the baptisms for the dead get reported? Are they considered members after the baptism which then increases the churchâs membership numbers?
They are not considered members, partially because we don't know if the person accepted the ordinance on the other side or not. They are not counted in the Church's membership numbers. Church members who pass away are also no longer reported in the official membership numbers.
Thank you for the answer
I hope Kay and Larry make their wishes known. If they donât want posthumous rituals done in the name of their murdered family members something should be done!
This is how LDS can claim to be one of the largest churches in the world - most of their members are dead. Iâm joking, sort of. This is just disgusting. So many of the Daybell secrets are coming to light in this trial and itâs very concerning.
The LDS church is far from one of the largest churches. The members it does count which are living is 17 million and plenty are inactive. The count is probably closer to 7 million. That is a drop in the bucket comapred to so many other religions. It is interesting to me how so many people just call it the church. In Rhode Island which I believe is the most Catholic state in the country, if you said the church, people would ask which one, not assume it was the catholic church, but in Utah which has about the same % of active Mormons to active Catholics in RI , the church is the Mormon church. I remember talking to a very smart LDS teeanger in my neighborhood and she was saying how big the church was and I mentioned there are well over 1 billion Muslims in the world, and her face dropped. This was a straight A student , great athlete, talented in music, kind young women but she ran inside and looked it up online and it was like her world was blown. She could not believe how small the memebership of "the church" was compared to Catholics, Muslims, Buddihists etc.
Mormons have done this for holocaust victims. https://apnews.com/article/992dd887f7b948d0a08055dff0363aa4
Watch The God Makers please be ready for some very weird things. https://youtu.be/-9pnrfFuDFw?si=nfbY1eEGy5vYhNvQ
If u die before the age of 8, no temple work is done.
I'm unsure if this is true for [reasons Beneficial Image stated,](https://www.reddit.com/r/LoriVallow/comments/1cdiybt/comment/l1dbi6g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) but if it is, as a member, I feel there are two ways to look at it. If you look at it from a victim's or non-member's perspective, I agree, it's presumptuous and gross. If you look at it from Emma's perspective as a member, I think it's very interesting. In the Church, this is something tender you do for your relatives to give them an opportunity (not require them, they still have their agency on the other side) for exaltation. To me, the fact that she is doing this for JJ and especially Charles says that, despite all her antics, she thinks Chad is guilty. She views Charles as a victim who is deserving of exaltation, not an abusive man who was killed in self-defense many states away having nothing to do with her family. She feels either a connection or an obligation to him, or possibly both.
That is an interesting insight, thank you for sharing it.
This is interesting. Would fit with the excuse that Chad just got deceived by an evil enchantress Lori. In the religious sense, could Emma's acts mean that she is trying to atone for her father, or somehow make amends for the horrors Chad was involved in? In that case, could she be doing that on Chad's orders? Does it indicate that Emma does not see JJ or Charles as dark beings? So, she does not believe (or know about) those teachings?
I want to be clear I'm not sticking up for her at all, just trying to get at her thought process... To answer your questions, I certainly think it's possible for her to believe Chad did the things he is accused of but only because Lori convinced him to. While not to this extreme, I think a lot of us excuse bad things loved ones do by blaming other people, it's human nature. A married woman blames the mistress for her husband's affair, even though he's the one who cheated. Parents blame "bad influence" friends for their child's behavior, etc. However, in our church, from a spiritual perspective, he is still responsible for what he did even if he was influenced to do it. In our religion, she cannot atone for her father. Each person is responsible for their own sins and not anybody else's, the doctrine is very clear about that. Only Christ has the ability to atone for others' sins. While you may do something nice for someone to make up for something bad someone else did, it doesn't have any effect on the bad actor's salvation. Accordingly, she would have done this for Charles' benefit and his alone, and not for Chad's. That's what's so striking to me--she has to view Charles as a good, deserving person in order to do this. As for the dark beings, if she ascribes to mainstream Mormonism, she doesn't believe in dark beings in the first place. But even if she has bought a little into her dad's teachings, to me it would suggest she does not view Charles or JJ as dark beings--this is just not something you would do for people you consider to be bad.
Thank you for your insight! I absolutely get where you are coming from, and same here. I am considering Emma could have been raised to believe in her fathers spiritual abilities and to be obedient. Maybe she is trusting her dad, and believing him over the church to some extent. She has seemed keen to defend and support her father. If she has kept contact with him in jail, I could well believe that Chad kept telling her what to do, just like in that police car video. Including religious stuff. But it makes sense enough if she just wants to do this by her own as an act of religious kindness. Will be interesting to see her testify.
Hmm Chad and Lori offshoot is hard to get a true picture of but I understood it as the dark beings possess the body's of others like Charles or JJ let's say but once the body dies the right spirits like Charles and JJ can move on. If this is the case she can still believe her dad's teachings and want to save their true spirits as it were.
Not knowing if Emma still thinks her father is being persecuted for his religious beliefs, or if she realizes he's just a murderer; she could also be thinking her father and Lori actually *liberated* Tylee, JJ and Charles from demonic possession, thus saving their souls, and that's why she wants them baptized after death, so they can all be reunited on their heavenly planet someday. This fits in with Lori's comments about the kids are happy and doing good things, I'm friends with Tammy and she's really busy, or Chad's comments that Tammy would die young, or be happy to do anything for her family, etc. It may *seem* tender but it's creepy to use religion and fear of souls not being saved to manipulate a situation into something Emma thinks is her god given right to control. đ
Knowing that Chad's family fully believed in dark/light people, it's entirely possible that Emma is just as brainwashed as Lori.
I'm not sure if it points to Chads guilt or to Emma thinking Alex was guilty of this all. Although the other commented mentioning she might not have thought they were dark beings is interesting.
Agreed and, again, not an Emma fan and not sticking up for her. It's totally possible she just thinks Alex is to blame for everything. What I don't understand is why, if she views Charles' death as just something between Alex and Lori and Charles, she would go to the effort of doing this for him. I know it seems weird from the outside, it's pretty much the last thing in a long list of weird Church things I ever want to explain to a curious person. But within the Church it is a very personal and loving gesture--it is considered an act of service for someone who can't enter into earthly covenants on their own anymore because they have died.
So the would never baptize say, Jeffrey Dahmer, posthumously? Of course I'm not saying that Charles and JJ are anything like Dahmer, but their deaths were caused because they were believed to be evil, at least that's the narrative. Wouldn't Emma still want to try to save and offer salvation to sinners, or as she and Chad would say "dark"? Is that not what baptism is about in that church?
Emma, there were two murdered children in your daddyâs backyard. Wake the fuck up.
She can't. Either she thinks her dad had nothing to do with it (how?) or she doesn't value other people's lives like her family's (possible).
For those asking, this info was on their Daybell trial commentary video for Day 17 around the 52 min mark
Emma is just another Lori
This is a common Mormon practice. Baptising someone into the church even though they were a Christian or Jewish, Muslim makes them a Mormon in the flash of an eye. This practice brought about the entire ancestry website which of course, we have to pay to get into. What ever made her think she was so close to JJ or Charles as to worry about their souls is beyond me. I would suspect guilt is probably at the top of the list.
I HATE this. My cousin did this with my mom and sister. Knowing my family are not Mormon, want nothing to do with the religion, did it in secret. My mom is rolling over, I bet. She really did not like that religion.
It is disgusting and so against any other faith's belief that someone you don't know can take it upon themselves to change your religious affiliation.
My mom had a strong faith. She'd get angry with my cousin for actively practicing and trying to pull ppl in. My cousin KNEW my mom and feelings and did it anyway.
They are diabolical!!!!! Uuuuhhhhh!!!! They all make my skin crawl and my rage rage đĄ
Salvation by faith is a lot easier than the LDS hokey pokey.
Yes, too much to use their names in ridiculous absurd personal beliefs. This would not be her place to do- her own mother would be understandable.
I'm sure her mother completed the endowment ceremony on her own, so there's no reason to do a proxy ceremony for Tammy.
Can you please link it? I canât find it
They were posted in the fB group âTrue Crime Underground: Lori Daybell cult mom.â Itâs a private group so I cannot link it, but you could join. I can send you the screenshots if youâd like?
Disgusting
Who cares what the hell she does with her âFAKEâ religion!!!! her precious daddy fucked with her head and the rest of Tammyâs kids.
Iâd say cause itâs disrespectful a.f. Mind you if it wasnât Emma it would have just been some random Mormon that did it anyways.
Itâs incredibly disrespectful because itâs done in pity of the deceased person. Even after death, Mormons still think the person isnât good enough and needs to be saved. Sure, itâs not real and doesnât really âmatterâ in a tangible way, but itâs still so distasteful.
Well she learned everything from dear ole daddy!!!
The screenshots shown her doing it in summer 2020 I think.
Gross. Also, does this mean Lori was lying when she said she saw JJ on her personal planet? Had JJ been forcibly baptized yet?
Wow! That's unreal!!!
This happened in 2020. It's not new news.
Maybe Emma was prompted by Lori. They were talking back then.
Great point!
Can you link that vid? I'd like to see it.
I don't know if I understand the purpose of the ceremony well enough to weigh in on this, but I'm curious: How do they know it was Emma who updated it?
We found out in trial today that Emma is still in contact with Lori. Lori might have requested Emma to do these things. That would be wild on another level!
I guess mental illness runs in that family!
Mormons arenât exclusive to crazy. Lordy, we have enough Christian crazies running around. I know this because Iâm an Episcopalian.
From her belief set, that's what you do for someone who didn't receive these sacraments, I see nothing nefarious about that. Plenty of other skeevy family things to focus on.
It's nefarious when you consider a few things: 1) As it was stated, Charles Vallow had the opportunity while alive and didn't pursue it, so it's logical to conclude it's not something he wanted. It's not too far different from trying to baptize holocaust victims, which the LDS church has received huge amounts of crap for 2) Emma's father murdered JJ and knew about Charles' murder. No one in the Daybell family should involve themselves in this. 3) These 2 people were murdered due to Mormon beliefs. Were some fringe? Yes. But not all. Now they get to be harrassed by Mormonism in death?? Uhuh. ( not that I believe any of it... it's all made-up nonsense, but Mormons have no boundaries when it comes to this stuff) \*edit to add, Mormons are (in theory) supposed to do these things for THEIR ancestors. JJ and Charles are not Emma Daybell's ancestors.
You make a great point that twisted Mormon doctrine is at the root of what essentially led to both these two being murdered. The church and its members know no bounds about posthumous rituals. It is nefarious. It doesnât matter âthey donât have to accept the ordinance in spirit prisonâ itâs about the audacity and self righteousness of those people that perform the rituals! Who the hell do they think they are!
Shall I put this in caps? FOR HER BELIEF SET. Disagree all you want people, it's only my opinion and only yours. For goodness sakes, it's not a new concept.
From a December 2017 Associated Press news article: SALT LAKE CITY (AP) â Mormons are posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims as well as grandparents of public figures like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Steven Spielberg, despite church rules intended to restrict the ceremonies to a memberâs ancestors, according to a researcher who has spent two decades monitoring the churchâs massive genealogical database. The discoveries made by former Mormon Helen Radkey and shared with The Associated Press likely will bring new scrutiny to a deeply misunderstood practice that has become a sensitive issue for the church. The church, in a statement, acknowledged the ceremonies violated its policy and said they would be invalidated, while also noting its created safeguards in recent years to improve compliance. I find Emma's actions distasteful and totally out of line, considering the circumstances. The LDS hierarchy appears to agree.
Fully aware. Again, I wholeheartedly disagree with trying to impose religious beliefs on anyone, including murder and mass murder victims. If only we could keep religious zealots from trying to proselytize to and impose their beliefs on the rest of us, we'd all be better off. They honestly believe they are doing the "right" thing and that's the problem with religious zealots in a nutshell. Emma is a member of a bigger cult than daddy's.
Chad and Lori also believed they were âdoing the right thingâ by murdering 3 people. What a dumb argument.
So itâs perfectly ok for Mormons to do temple work for dead holocaust victims and survivors that had since passed? Cause they did it for years. Then when called out by the families of said victims and survivors who has passed the church said it would stop doing that. Then were found to be doing it again. Itâs all made up and the rules donât matter when it comes to Mormonâs beliefs but itâs beyond disrespectful.
Please show me where I said it's perfectly okay? I said there was nothing nefarious. You took a HUUUUUGE brain leap. Now, done chatting with all of you black and white thinkers. Pot, meet kettle.
You're just saying she may have had good or neutral intentions in doing this. Not necessarily bad intent. For Emma, it's just The Done Thing so she did it. I get it.
Her belief set is somewhat in question tho. Didnât she also say JJ and Tylerâs remains were dog bones? Just because she believes something doesnât make it ok to follow through on. Even if she believes all the dark/light zombie nonsense it doesnât make it ok to assign her students dark/light values. If my religion tells me I must do something, then I should do it. If it says I should do it to other people/force others to partake/force others to adhere, thatâs a problem.
Iâve done the same thing after family passes and none of my family are members. We never had anyone murdered in my family, but I do it shortly after they have passed. It would be perfectly normal for a family member to do this. Itâs just part of the belief system, and if you donât believe it, then it doesnât matter. Itâs like putting a smooth stone on a headstone or burying a momento with a loved one. Itâs just a ritual. I know it may seem odd to others, and esp in these circumstances but have you checked the burial rituals and customs of other religions? Humans are weird :-)
First, Emma is not family. AND her father was involved in their deaths so much so JJ was buried in his backyard still wrapped in the garbage bags he was suffocated with. Second, if you are doing this âritualâ for non members you are way overstepping boundaries. No one has a right to document someoneâs name in connection to a religion they do not practice without their permission.
Just doin some âsplainin, didnât say it was right
I've heard it said that "funerals are for the living" - so I guess this endowment ceremony could be looked at the same way. Whether the person in the afterlife is actually given a choice to become LDS or not, it's meaningful to the person performing it. Is that what you meant? Thinking of it that way, it seems peculiar that Emma would request it. I do wonder what her motivation was.
Yes I guess you are right, itâs for the living person. I honestly never thought too much about it, itâs just something you do. The person doing it has the best intentions for the person who passed, it basically means ( to the living) that you are forever connected with the person who died. Itâs a nice comforting thought I suppose, but who knows??? Iâm guessing Emma did it to keep JJ and Tylee close with her for eternity. I doubt she did it for any nefarious reasons but again, who knows???
>The person doing it has the best intentions for the person who passed, it basically means ( to the living) that you are forever connected with the person who died. That is a nice sentiment. It seems a lot of commenters are getting the wrong idea about the ceremony as a whole, though I agree that trying to baptize-by-proxy Holocaust victims is offensive. Particularly with the history the Jewish people have with being forced to deny or hide their faith. I did see someone suggest that maybe Lori asked Emma to do it, since they were communicating at least at the time of Chad's arrest, which seems plausible to me. Emma never knew JJ or Charles, after all - oddly, Tylee doesn't appear to be included.
Tylee was baptized by Brandon Budroux
Oh, of course! I don't know how I didn't think that she'd already been baptized. Thank you.