Ancestry.com and the Mormon Church

[TruthLiving]

Mormons apologize for baptizing parents of Nazi hunter Wiesenthal

latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/mormon-church-apologizes-for-posthumous-baptism-of-simon-wiesenthals-parents.html

I mentioned this to my Mormon friends since I heard about this as well.

They said to me this member should not have done what has happened. The church has outstanding agreement about respecting those who lose loved ones during this period of time.

It was a error — not a intentional act. My guess some folks here are going to say it should not have happen for anyone regardless because they have issues with baptism for the dead. Your issues are personal — I am certain it will be part of your usual hatred for the LDS church, why LDS members should stop doing this, dismiss their convictions of what they believe, run to Catholicism, be baptized, and live happily ever after.

Again this was a error – not a intentional act as I am sure some are going to say that it was. Drop your hatred of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints before giving what I expect to come — this is why the LDS church should be dismissed and destroyed.

 

[mkarzon]

There’s an article on this same subject at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/15/mormons-apologize-for-posthumous-jewish-baptism/?test=latestnews

In that Foxnews article, there is the following:

“Wiesenthal died in 2005 after surviving the Nazi death camps and spending his life documenting Holocaust crimes and hunting down perpetrators who remained at large. Jews are particularly offended by an attempt to alter the religion of Holocaust victims, who were murdered because of their religion, and the baptism of Holocaust survivors was supposed to have been barred by a 1995 agreement.”

As I first read the part where I underlined and bolded, it made me wonder about Edith Stein, who was killed because of her race, not her Catholic religion.

 

[sallybutler]

I mentioned this to my Mormon friends since I heard about this as well.

They said to me this member should not have done what has happened. The church has outstanding agreement about respecting those who lose loved ones during this period of time.

It was a error — not a intentional act. My guess some folks here are going to say it should not have happen for anyone regardless because they have issues with baptism for the dead. Your issues are personal — I am certain it will be part of your usual hatred for the LDS church, why LDS members should stop doing this, dismiss their convictions of what they believe, run to Catholicism, be baptized, and live happily ever after.

Again this was a error – not a intentional act as I am sure some are going to say that it was. Drop your hatred of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints before giving what I expect to come — this is why the LDS church should be dismissed and destroyed.

Perhaps the best way for the LDS church to prevent this from happening in the future is to stop accepting post-humus marriages or baptisms. Then it wouldn’t be an issue.

I’m sure you agree that sealing Pope John Paul II or any other pope to a ‘wife’ that he didn’t have while alive is not acceptable. As long as the LDS church allows sealing & baptisms of the dead to occur, these mistakes will continue to pop up. Until and unless the LDS church puts a stop to it, ‘mis-guided’ members will violate the policy of the LDS church.

I propose this is because it is really not against the policy of the LDS church. Publically they may say they are ‘shocked, shocked’ that this is happening. But just between you and me, they support it.

 

[agnes_therese]

Because, just as among non-Mormon genealogists, there are those who are just what we call “name-gatherers.” Their only interest is in adding to the number of names in their “family tree,” with no regard for accuracy. Look, there’s a tree with John Jones! I have a John Jones in my tree – they must be the same! I’ll add this tree to mine and have 2000 more names!
Never mind that one John Jones was born in 1800, and one in 1936. On separate continents. Of different races . . .

Wrong date, wrong declension on the spouse’s family name, why a spouse…?

 

[KathleenGee]

Twopekings…

Thanks…you confirmed my suspicions…they will continue to access records…to use for baptisms in the temples…so then when temples are established everywhere…then Mormonism is number one religion.

Compulsive as well.

Adding a spouse insures celestial heaven’s purpose.

And I would doubt very much…and report…that one cannot be traced back to ancient Rome…

May the truth set us free…and intelligent.

 

[Marie5890]

.to use for baptisms in the temples…so then when temples are established everywhere…then Mormonism is number one religion.

.

Point of fact—most temples across the world are only open a few hours each week or by appointment.

They arent busy, not by a long shot. They dont have the membership to keep 'em open for long periods of time.

More idle than not

 

[jjdjrwildcat]

Do they? If so, and any descendant of mine “baptizes” me in 150 years, I’m sending a lightning bolt down on 'em.:ehh:

 

[Marie5890]

Do they? If so, and any descendant of mine “baptizes” me in 150 years, I’m sending a lightning bolt down on 'em.:ehh:

Yes, they do baptize their ancestors, by proxy, in their temples.

It’s part of the 3 fold mission of the LDS church, proxy temple work being referred to as “redeeming the dead”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I heard in the news yesterday a Jewish holocaust survivor took legal channels against the Mormon Church to remove his family members name from Mormons baptism lists. And they complied. I found that very interesting, how Mormons are able to comly their spiritual faith to secular laws?

 

[Marie5890]

I heard in the news yesterday a Jewish holocaust survivor took legal channels against the Mormon Church to remove his family members name from Mormons baptism lists. And they complied. I found that very interesting, how Mormons are able to comly their spiritual faith to secular laws?

Im not clear what you are trying to say in the bold.

What secular law is keeping then from their faith.

What happened in the news was an individual used the legal system to oppose what was being done.

The whole baptizing of Holocaust victims and survivors has been a PR nightmare for the LDS church and several years ago they made an agreement with Jewish leaders.

 

[blueadept]

I heard in the news yesterday a Jewish holocaust survivor took legal channels against the Mormon Church to remove his family members name from Mormons baptism lists.** And they complied. I found that very interesting, how Mormons are able to comly their spiritual faith to secular laws?**

The part you didn’t mention was the the LDS church and Jewish leaders made an agreement in 1995 that the LDS church agreed to not do proxy baptisms for Holocaust Victims provided that the LDS member wasn’t a descendant.

So the backlash is due to the LDS church not following their agreement.

 

[runningdude]

I heard in the news yesterday a Jewish holocaust survivor took legal channels against the Mormon Church to remove his family members name from Mormons baptism lists. And they complied. I found that very interesting, how Mormons are able to comly their spiritual faith to secular laws?

Well, in Mormon eyes, all they did was remove the family’s name from a website. It really wouldn’t change the fact that the person’s ancestors were “baptized” in the Mormon manner. If they pressed the issue, the Mormons would probably win the legal argument, but would get so much bad press it wouldn’t be worth it.

 

[Marie5890]

Well, in Mormon eyes, all they did was remove the family’s name from a website. It really wouldn’t change the fact that the person’s ancestors were “baptized” in the Mormon manner. If they pressed the issue, the Mormons would probably win the legal argument, but would get so much bad press it wouldn’t be worth it.

That’s accurate.

If the work has been done, it’s been done, in LDS theology.

Similar to how Catholics view baptism. It cant be “un-done” …Look at the France legal ruling on a similar situation.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes…they do so without the consent of anyone. I did many of them when I was LDS…

 

[blueadept]

Yes…they do so without the consent of anyone. I did many of them when I was LDS…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Im not clear what you are trying to say in the bold.

What secular law is keeping then from their faith.

What happened in the news was an individual used the legal system to oppose what was being done.

The whole baptizing of Holocaust victims and survivors has been a PR nightmare for the LDS church and several years ago they made an agreement with Jewish leaders.

Well for starters the LDS complied to the ruling of having the names removed.

That is an admission that their faith of baptism of the dead is not binding on anyone. If secular rulings can dictate to ones faith what is binding and what is not by God, their baptism of the dead is not recognized by God, as far as secular law.

I understand the ruling does not change the LDS belief system of baptizing the dead. But the ruling caused the LDS church to respond to the secular ruling regarding what was already done and future actions by the LDS church. States alot to me that secular ruling can dictate LDS baptism of the dead. So much so that it would appear to lower the baptism of the dead undertakings by the LDS church as not being ordered or recognized divinely but by human standards, which are subject to secular laws and not by divine law.

The secular ruling or objection to the LDS baptism of the dead makes it invalid.

Baptism comes by freedom of Choice not because the LDS makes it so. Man is not forced into the kingdom of God, as the LDS appears to baptize with any consent of the dead person being baptized. This violation of freedom alone makes the LDS baptism of the dead invalid. Because it was never consented by their ancestors or anyone else dead.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That’s accurate.

If the work has been done, it’s been done, in LDS theology.

Similar to how Catholics view baptism. It cant be “un-done” …Look at the France legal ruling on a similar situation.

No, I disagree the LDS baptism has not similar characteristics of Catholic baptism.

For one the Catholic baptism is a sacrament, divinely instituted and made efficacious by Jesus himself who is present in the sacrament.

Secondly the Catholic baptism saves you now, those who are living not dead.

Thirdly one comes to the baptism waters freely, by faith.

If one changes his mind later in life, can only reject the graces of baptism and fall from communion with God, but no can never remove his/her name from the book of life.

No secular court or ruliing can remove the salvation a Catholic baptism gives. Only the individual has the freedom to reject this salvation, even in the rejection of the baptism, the graces remain there, should the person repent.

 

[SteveVH]

I could really care less whether the Mormons “baptize” me after I die. I have already been baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and an indelible mark has been placed upon me. Mormon baptism is invalid anyway, according to my Church. I’m really not sure what all the hoopla is about. Basically, it has no effect.

 

[JustaServant]

On CNN right now. Professor Elie Weisel asks Ropmney to denounce proxy baptisms by Mormons.

 

[Marie5890]

No, I disagree the LDS baptism has not similar characteristics of Catholic baptism.

For one the Catholic baptism is a sacrament, divinely instituted and made efficacious by Jesus himself who is present in the sacrament.

Secondly the Catholic baptism saves you now, those who are living not dead.

Thirdly one comes to the baptism waters freely, by faith.

If one changes his mind later in life, can only reject the graces of baptism and fall from communion with God, but no can never remove his/her name from the book of life.

No secular court or ruliing can remove the salvation a Catholic baptism gives. Only the individual has the freedom to reject this salvation, even in the rejection of the baptism, the graces remain there, should the person repent.

You are missing the point that I was trying to make.

But that is ok.