Ancestry and the LDS

[iepuras]

I personally could care less. They might as well turn around three times and throw salt over their left shoulder. It would have about the same affect on my soul. They believe they are doing a good thing; saving souls, so to speak. I do have to admit that it gripes me a little bit when I hear of them baptizing the pope, for instance. But in reality, they’re doing nothing so its pretty harmless.

It’s one thing for Mormons to waste their time performing baptisms for the dead. If that’s what they want to do, they can go for it. It has zero effect, so I don’t care.

The problem is when Mormons claim they are Christian and then a Mormon goes to the temple and performs a proxy baptism for Jesus Christ and marries Mary Magdalene and Martha to Him because for some reason, His baptism by John the Baptist wasn’t valid. They even claim that the Aaronic priesthood that gives them the authority to baptize was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by a RESURRECTED JOHN THE BAPTIST! And even though Mormons say they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of the world and part of their Godhead, He still needs His Mormon temple work done. This is beyond ridiculous. By the way, this happened not just once, but twice that we know of.

Granted, once this was noticed by Salt Lake, the records were removed from Family Search. Here’s the thing. Names of the dead are checked numerous times in the temple and no one stopped to think about it. Numerous fails on their part.

1. Names are run through a database before approving them for ordinance work in the temple. FAIL
2. Name is said out loud when the baptism is performed. There are a minimum of 5 men who are involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
3. Name is said out loud when the confirmation is performed. There are a minimum of 4 men involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
4. Name is said out loud 3-4 times when performing the washing and annointing ordinance, which also includes the ordination to the priesthood. There are a minimum of 3 men involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
5. Name is said out loud when receiving the new name prior to the endowment ceremony. There are two men involved who should be paying attention. Another FAIL
6. Name is checked by a temple worker at the door to the chapel prior to the endowment session to make sure all prior ordinances have been performed. FAIL
7. Name is said out loud at the veil ceremony at the end of the endowment session. At least 3 men are involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
8. Name is said out loud for the sealing ceremony where Mary Magdalene is sealed to Jesus Christ as husband and wife. Five people at a minimum are involved if there is no one else sitting and observing in the sealing room. Yet another FAIL

Finally, after each of the ordinances are performed (5 times), a recorder scans the ordinance name card into the computer to officially record the ordinance. The fact that this happened twice indicates an epic fail. By the way, I was a temple worker for 2 years so I know how the temple operates.

It makes me wonder how accurate their databases are. How much made up stuff is in their databases just so that Mormons have enough names to perform temple proxy ordinances?

 

[debbie_h]

It’s one thing for Mormons to waste their time performing baptisms for the dead. If that’s what they want to do, they can go for it. It has zero effect, so I don’t care.

The problem is when Mormons claim they are Christian and then a Mormon goes to the temple and performs a proxy baptism for Jesus Christ and marries Mary Magdalene and Martha to Him because for some reason, His baptism by John the Baptist wasn’t valid. They even claim that the Aaronic priesthood that gives them the authority to baptize was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by a RESURRECTED JOHN THE BAPTIST! And even though Mormons say they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of the world and part of their Godhead, He still needs His Mormon temple work done. This is beyond ridiculous. By the way, this happened not just once, but twice that we know of.

Granted, once this was noticed by Salt Lake, the records were removed from Family Search. Here’s the thing. Names of the dead are checked numerous times in the temple and no one stopped to think about it. Numerous fails on their part.

1. Names are run through a database before approving them for ordinance work in the temple. FAIL
2. Name is said out loud when the baptism is performed. There are a minimum of 5 men who are involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
3. Name is said out loud when the confirmation is performed. There are a minimum of 4 men involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
4. Name is said out loud 3-4 times when performing the washing and annointing ordinance, which also includes the ordination to the priesthood. There are a minimum of 3 men involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
5. Name is said out loud when receiving the new name prior to the endowment ceremony. There are two men involved who should be paying attention. Another FAIL
6. Name is checked by a temple worker at the door to the chapel prior to the endowment session to make sure all prior ordinances have been performed. FAIL
7. Name is said out loud at the veil ceremony at the end of the endowment session. At least 3 men are involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
8. Name is said out loud for the sealing ceremony where Mary Magdalene is sealed to Jesus Christ as husband and wife. Five people at a minimum are involved if there is no one else sitting and observing in the sealing room. Yet another FAIL

Finally, after each of the ordinances are performed (5 times), a recorder scans the ordinance name card into the computer to officially record the ordinance. The fact that this happened twice indicates an epic fail. By the way, I was a temple worker for 2 years so I know how the temple operates.

It makes me wonder how accurate their databases are. How much made up stuff is in their databases just so that Mormons have enough names to perform temple proxy ordinances?

Now I’m wondering if they have attempted to have God himself (the Mormon belief of God) baptised, sealed to his wife(s)???

 

[iepuras]

Now I’m wondering if they have attempted to have God himself (the Mormon belief of God) baptised, sealed to his wife(s)???

I wonder if they sealed Mary to him.

 

[Millie123]

Reading the responses in this thread has been very interesting, and has been truly educational about of the Mormon Church.

I understand that these proxy baptisms don’t mean anything, and I have respect for people here who say that they wouldn’t care if this happened to one of their family members, but I honestly think I would feel offended if these people were to proxy baptize a family member of mine. Not because I think that these baptisms do anything, but because I would feel that this would be an attack on my Catholic faith and beliefs.

Take my grandmother for example, she was an extremely devout, and fervent Catholic woman. Attended daily mass in the mornings and prayed the Rosary every evening before going to bed. Had a very strong devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as well as our Blessed Mother. To my Grandmother her Catholic faith was everything and even as she suffered from the end stages of Alzheimers, she could no longer recognize her grandkids, but she new the image of the sacred heart of Jesus and immaculate heart of Mary.

My Grandmother LOVED her Catholic faith, and I definitely was able to grow in my love for the faith from her example. I think that if an outside person were to look at the faith of someone as my Grandmother and feel like they needed to take her religion away from her after her death, even though that is impossible, I would definitely feel offended at such blatant disrespect to her Catholic beliefs. I don’t think the Mormon intentions are malicious, I do think that it is extremely poor theology.

A poor example would be me chasing an Atheist/Jew/Muslim/Budhist down the street with a bucket of water to baptize them, and tell them “you are now a Catholic”…A majority of them would feel offended for me getting them wet, some of them would shrug their shoulders and say “I don’t care, your words mean nothing to me.” I also think that many of them would feel gravely offended that I violated their beliefs (or lack of belief) against their will.

With that said Proxy Baptising Jesus and then making him a polygamist is Craaaazzzy…

 

[Country_Gal]

Reading the responses in this thread has been very interesting, and has been truly educational about of the Mormon Church.

I understand that these proxy baptisms don’t mean anything, and I have respect for people here who say that they wouldn’t care if this happened to one of their family members, but I honestly think I would feel offended if these people were to proxy baptize a family member of mine. Not because I think that these baptisms do anything, but because I would feel that this would be an attack on my Catholic faith and beliefs.

Take my grandmother for example, she was an extremely devout, and fervent Catholic woman. Attended daily mass in the mornings and prayed the Rosary every evening before going to bed. Had a very strong devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as well as our Blessed Mother. To my Grandmother her Catholic faith was everything and even as she suffered from the end stages of Alzheimers, she could no longer recognize her grandkids, but she new the image of the sacred heart of Jesus and immaculate heart of Mary.

My Grandmother LOVED her Catholic faith, and I definitely was able to grow in my love for the faith from her example. I think that if an outside person were to look at the faith of someone as my Grandmother and feel like they needed to take her religion away from her after her death, even though that is impossible, I would definitely feel offended at such blatant disrespect to her Catholic beliefs. I don’t think the Mormon intentions are malicious, I do think that it is extremely poor theology.

A poor example would be me chasing an Atheist/Jew/Muslim/Budhist down the street with a bucket of water to baptize them, and tell them “you are now a Catholic”…A majority of them would feel offended for me getting them wet, some of them would shrug their shoulders and say “I don’t care, your words mean nothing to me.” I also think that many of them would feel gravely offended that I violated their beliefs (or lack of belief) against their will.

With that said Proxy Baptising Jesus and then making him a polygamist is Craaaazzzy…

You make a great point. As Catholics we are only allowed to baptize in an emergency situation, and a priest would never do so without permission.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s one thing for Mormons to waste their time performing baptisms for the dead. If that’s what they want to do, they can go for it. It has zero effect, so I don’t care.

The problem is when Mormons claim they are Christian and then a Mormon goes to the temple and performs a proxy baptism for Jesus Christ and marries Mary Magdalene and Martha to Him because for some reason, His baptism by John the Baptist wasn’t valid. They even claim that the Aaronic priesthood that gives them the authority to baptize was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by a RESURRECTED JOHN THE BAPTIST! And even though Mormons say they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of the world and part of their Godhead, He still needs His Mormon temple work done. This is beyond ridiculous. By the way, this happened not just once, but twice that we know of.

Granted, once this was noticed by Salt Lake, the records were removed from Family Search. Here’s the thing. Names of the dead are checked numerous times in the temple and no one stopped to think about it. Numerous fails on their part.

1. Names are run through a database before approving them for ordinance work in the temple. FAIL
2. Name is said out loud when the baptism is performed. There are a minimum of 5 men who are involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
3. Name is said out loud when the confirmation is performed. There are a minimum of 4 men involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
4. Name is said out loud 3-4 times when performing the washing and annointing ordinance, which also includes the ordination to the priesthood. There are a minimum of 3 men involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
5. Name is said out loud when receiving the new name prior to the endowment ceremony. There are two men involved who should be paying attention. Another FAIL
6. Name is checked by a temple worker at the door to the chapel prior to the endowment session to make sure all prior ordinances have been performed. FAIL
7. Name is said out loud at the veil ceremony at the end of the endowment session. At least 3 men are involved who should be paying attention. FAIL
8. Name is said out loud for the sealing ceremony where Mary Magdalene is sealed to Jesus Christ as husband and wife. Five people at a minimum are involved if there is no one else sitting and observing in the sealing room. Yet another FAIL

Finally, after each of the ordinances are performed (5 times), a recorder scans the ordinance name card into the computer to officially record the ordinance. The fact that this happened twice indicates an epic fail. By the way, I was a temple worker for 2 years so I know how the temple operates.

It makes me wonder how accurate their databases are. How much made up stuff is in their databases just so that Mormons have enough names to perform temple proxy ordinances?

Yeah, I didn’t say that their practices weren’t bizarre. just that they are ineffective.

 

[runningdude]

…
I’m certain the Jews actually just feel like it’s disrespectful to the memory of the victims.

“It’s important to say that in some ways it’s meaningless,” Rabbi Baum said. “But it’s also religiously arrogant. I think words matter. Their doing their rituals could be insulting to the families of people whose relatives are being baptized.** In the case of people who died during the Holocaust, they were killed because of their religious identity, and now another group is confusing the story.
**

nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/jews-take-issue-with-posthumous-mormon-baptisms-beliefs.html?_r=0

 

[Brandon_Cal]

The questions in the OP have been asked and answered. I just popped in to clear up a misconception about the posthumous baptism of LDS apostates. Whether the practice is officially sanctioned by the LDS Church or even actively encouraged, apostates have been baptized posthumously. My great uncle who was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1915 for taking a plural wife post-Manifesto, and who never reconciled with the Church prior to death was baptized in the Los Angeles Temple in the 1960s. Upon learning this I was inspired to be baptized on behalf of an apostate cousin who suffered a sudden death in 1983. The posthumous baptism occurred in the San Diego temple in 1995. I’m currently abroad so if I remember to do so once I return home I’ll scan the relevant genealogical documents showing that this has been the case.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

What they fear is that the Mormon records of the Holocaust survivors may be the only surviving records in 10,000 years. This would create a purposefully flawed archeological record that 6 million Mormons were slaughtered in the gas chambers.* The Mormons already make many unsubstantiated archeological claims already regarding ancient Christians in North America. It would be tragic for their fudged records became the only documentation of our times available in the distant future.

The Catholic Church will certainly still exist to dispute their claims, but its not inconceivable that over 10,000 years, the vast majority of documents could be lost due to failing hard drives and natural disasters consuming the paper trail. (We have certainly lost the birth certificates for Cain and Abel, born in a similar time frame ago!) All that is needed is one surviving Mormon vault to potentially cause a crisis of faith sometime in the future, based on wholly fabricated history.

• (Slaughtered by a man who himself ultimately repented and received a Mormon baptism, as they have posthumously baptized Adolph Hitler).

I find this very hard to believe. For such a fear to be warranted one would have to assume that 10,000 years from now nearly every secular record was destroyed while LDS records somehow came out unscathed. Furthermore, the LDS records in question would have to fraudulently state (or at least imply) that an historical individual was LDS in mortal life. LDS genealogical records do no such thing.

There is no rewriting of history such that a person is seen to have been LDS in life, otherwise the LDS Church would have to find some way to explain how individuals who have been posthumously baptized and predate the founding of the LDS Church could logically have been Mormon in life. Family History records not only don’t try to pretend that a historical person was LDS, but they often will state where the primary sources of the records came, including but not limited to the Sacramental Records of non-LDS churches. My own family history records provided to me by the LDS Church list dates of “Christenings” at various Catholic and Protestant churches in Europe. It’s also important to note that when LDS posthumous ordinances are performed on someone’s behalf, the date of said ordinances are also recorded.

I’ve always understood the Jewish objection to LDS Baptisms for the Dead as a matter of disrespect rather than some hypothetical world in which only LDS records remain. Indeed, if you read various editorials on the Internet from secular papers, these objections are often articulated as a “slap in the face” to the victims of the Holocaust.

 

[debbie_h]

Reading the responses in this thread has been very interesting, and has been truly educational about of the Mormon Church.

I understand that these proxy baptisms don’t mean anything, and I have respect for people here who say that they wouldn’t care if this happened to one of their family members, but I honestly think I would feel offended if these people were to proxy baptize a family member of mine. Not because I think that these baptisms do anything, but because I would feel that this would be an attack on my Catholic faith and beliefs.

Take my grandmother for example, she was an extremely devout, and fervent Catholic woman. Attended daily mass in the mornings and prayed the Rosary every evening before going to bed. Had a very strong devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as well as our Blessed Mother. To my Grandmother her Catholic faith was everything and even as she suffered from the end stages of Alzheimers, she could no longer recognize her grandkids, but she new the image of the sacred heart of Jesus and immaculate heart of Mary.

My Grandmother LOVED her Catholic faith, and I definitely was able to grow in my love for the faith from her example. I think that if an outside person were to look at the faith of someone as my Grandmother and feel like they needed to take her religion away from her after her death, even though that is impossible, I would definitely feel offended at such blatant disrespect to her Catholic beliefs. I don’t think the Mormon intentions are malicious, I do think that it is extremely poor theology.

A poor example would be me chasing an Atheist/Jew/Muslim/Budhist down the street with a bucket of water to baptize them, and tell them “you are now a Catholic”…A majority of them would feel offended for me getting them wet, some of them would shrug their shoulders and say “I don’t care, your words mean nothing to me.” I also think that many of them would feel gravely offended that I violated their beliefs (or lack of belief) against their will.

With that said Proxy Baptising Jesus and then making him a polygamist is Craaaazzzy…

This!!

 

[TexanKnight]

I find this very hard to believe. For such a fear to be warranted one would have to assume that 10,000 years from now nearly every secular record was destroyed while LDS records somehow came out unscathed. Furthermore, the LDS records in question would have to fraudulently state (or at least imply) that an historical individual was LDS in mortal life. LDS genealogical records do no such thing.

There is no rewriting of history such that a person is seen to have been LDS in life, otherwise the LDS Church would have to find some way to explain how individuals who have been posthumously baptized and predate the founding of the LDS Church could logically have been Mormon in life. Family History records not only don’t try to pretend that a historical person was LDS, but they often will state where the primary sources of the records came, including but not limited to the Sacramental Records of non-LDS churches. My own family history records provided to me by the LDS Church list dates of “Christenings” at various Catholic and Protestant churches in Europe. It’s also important to note that when LDS posthumous ordinances are performed on someone’s behalf, the date of said ordinances are also recorded.

I’ve always understood the Jewish objection to LDS Baptisms for the Dead as a matter of disrespect rather than some hypothetical world in which only LDS records remain. Indeed, if you read various editorials on the Internet from secular papers, these objections are often articulated as a “slap in the face” to the victims of the Holocaust.

slice it however you want…it is disrespectful, presumptuous, and rude to baptize people without permission. It is the kind of conduct js was famous for and it got him killed while in jail for being just as disrespectful and presumptuous. You would think lds would learn

 

[debbie_h]

slice it however you want…it is disrespectful, presumptuous, and rude to baptize people without permission.

I agree

 

[CarolNoel]

slice it however you want…it is disrespectful, presumptuous, and rude to baptize people without permission. It is the kind of conduct js was famous for and it got him killed while in jail for being just as disrespectful and presumptuous. You would think lds would learn

I agree! I have found quite a few members of my very Catholic family as having been having received baptism after death by some Mormon.
It offended me then and still does. My two priest uncles and three aunts that were nuns were part of the listing.

 

[JHow]

This LDS practice is why I do not subscribe to ancestry dot com despite an interest in genealogy. I don’t want to fill in information on family members only to end up “nominating” them for LDS endowments.

 

[agnes_therese]

This LDS practice is why I do not subscribe to ancestry dot com despite an interest in genealogy. I don’t want to fill in information on family members only to end up “nominating” them for LDS endowments.

Then I hope you don’t have your genealogy posted anywhere on the internet, or published in any other form. If someone is going to grab your ancestors for Mormon baptism, it won’t matter how they find them. This has nothing to do with ancestry.com.

 

[JHow]

Then I hope you don’t have your genealogy posted anywhere on the internet, or published in any other form. If someone is going to grab your ancestors for Mormon baptism, it won’t matter how they find them. This has nothing to do with ancestry.com.

Of course I don’t have my genealogy posted anywhere. I wasn’t born yesterday - check my genealogy!

Ancestry dot com is relevant given their connections to the LDS church as well as being a (the) major player in this arena.

 

[agnes_therese]

Of course I don’t have my genealogy posted anywhere. I wasn’t born yesterday - check my genealogy!

Ancestry dot com is relevant given their connections to the LDS church as well as being a (the) major player in this arena.

So you have some proof that they’re collecting all those family trees for Mormon baptism?

 

[TexanKnight]

This LDS practice is why I do not subscribe to ancestry dot com despite an interest in genealogy. I don’t want to fill in information on family members only to end up “nominating” them for LDS endowments.

I do…because my love to know my past ranks higher than my disgust at their practice.

It is fun and surprising.

One night, I was thrilled to discover I am related to William the Conqueror who lived in about 1000 AD, if I remember correctly. I told my wife, all excited.

She looked at me and went to her paperwork. She pulled out a page and showed where she, too, is related to William the Conqueror. I opened my arms to hug her and exclaimed “Give me a kiss, Cousin!”

 

[Brandon_Cal]

slice it however you want…it is disrespectful, presumptuous, and rude to baptize people without permission. It is the kind of conduct js was famous for and it got him killed while in jail for being just as disrespectful and presumptuous. You would think lds would learn

I’m not trying to sugarcoat Baptisms for the Dead at all. In fact if you reread the last paragraph of my post I acknowledge the perceived disrespect. I’m just skeptical that a highly unlikely information-apocalypse which would affect everyone but the Mormons is a real concern.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

So you have some proof that they’re collecting all those family trees for Mormon baptism?

Ancestry.com is not affiliated with the LDS Church. That being said, its headquarters is in Provo, Utah, and it was founded by two BYU graduates, so I think this is where a lot of the unease comes from. The thing is, Ancestry.com is essentially nothing more than an information database that collects readily public information and streamlines it for ease of use. The same sources Ancestry.com uses (government census data, immigration records, public notices, obituaries, etc.) is available to everyone including the LDS Church, so I don’t see how refusing to use its services in any way protects the identities of the deceased from the LDS Church.