LDS Baptizes and Seals St. Damien to a "wife"

[kimmielittle]

Some say, here " What harm?".

With all do respect to LDS’ beliefs:

I find great harm.
I am a professed Catholic. I want my future generations to know that I chose to be a Catholic. I do not want some person 20-30 - - years down the line… deciding to change that.

My concerns aren’t out of some far fetched paranoia, on my part. But, based on testimony presented here.

While I respect the rights of The LDS to their beliefs, they should not overshadow mine. Nor should their rights / beliefs overshadow the rights and beliefs of my future generations.

I do not want nor should they have to ] future generations to have to petition to the Administration of LDS…to stop…OR change my professed faith. I do not want to have a future generation of mine to have to wonder on where I stood religiously.

The “Secrecy” surrounding these LDS Rites “Ordinances”, is of grave concern. As it means the chance of this not being corrected - could be for generations.

In short: If my great niece wants to ‘bind’ me to her…come to the Catholic Cemetery where I’m buried.

As Always, just my thoughts. .

 

[why_me]

Some say, here " What harm?".

With all do respect to LDS’ beliefs:

I find great harm.
I am a professed Catholic. I want my future generations to know that I chose to be a Catholic. I do not want some person 20-30 - - years down the line… deciding to change that.

As Always, just my thoughts. .

On the other hand the lds are very much into geneaology. Most likely your family tree is done and you can find your relatives pretty far back in time. This is what makes their genelaogy base so desirable for many people searching their roots. In most lds wards, there is a genealogical library where records can be searched. For the lds, it does not matter what faith ones belong to, it is important for people to do their genealogy.

And if somewhere you have a mormon relative unknown to you, most likely they are at this moment doing their genealogical research on your family.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree that their proxy baptisms have no effect whatsoever, but I do believe that it can be misleading to people doing geneological research.

No it isn’t. I don’t know any genealogist who doesn’t understand the idea behind the dates.

Most of all, I agree that it is disrespectful in the highest degree.

To whom?

Ok, let’s say that you and your family live in a ‘compound’ of sorts: that is, your parents live in one home, you live a block down, and your brothers and sisters live in varous houses between you.

One day a couple of Mormon missionaries (or Baptists, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the local Brownie Scout troup selling cookies…whatever.) walk down the street, knocking on all the doors.

Kindly tell me how it is disrespectful to YOU for them to knock on your parent’s door?

How is it disrespectful to THEM for the missionaries or the girl scouts to mark their names on a list that says the offer was made?

Because, m’friend, that’s what proxy baptism IS, for us. It isn’t a fait accompli. Only those who don’t know what it is think that it does anything at all that the folks for whom it is done don’t want done. Nor do we assume that 'of course they’ll WANT it."

If we are the ones doing it, then you kinda have to go with what we think it actually does, don’t you? How logical is it to think it has more effect than WE think it does?

I have never quite figured that out.

 

[zaffiroborant]

“Radkey said research into the LDS Church’s FamilySearch database indicates that Damien, born in 1840 in Belgium, was baptized by proxy, given his “endowments” and sealed to his parents for eternity Oct. 22, 1983, in the Los Angeles Temple.
More recently, Damien was sealed to a wife, which Radkey calls “bogus,” on March 15, 2000, at the Jordan River Temple in South Jordan.”

Wouldn’t all these things have to be done to his parents in order for him to be sealed to them?

 

[SkinnyJay]

Naturally, Mormons and Non-Mormons will clash on the effusiveness of grace from such practices. What also clashes is the definition of ownership that various religious groups have over the dead. Though we live in an information age, there is always the possibility that 1000 years from now, the ancestry records kept (and collected) by the LDS will be a window into the past age. These “baptisms” and these records could effectively skew history as a Mormon narrative. It is (despite well intentions) proselytizing as forced conversion. Which it is, though a difference of degree, a forced conversion that helps propagate the Mormon Church.

I agree, however very few people trust in the accuracy in Mormon records today (eh I should say the religion of individuals in records) and if Mormon records survive 1000 years so will the evidence of inaccuracy. How can one trust an organization that adds people to the rolls at anytime, from anytime.

They say history is written by the victors so I have no worries about history being skewed into a Mormon narrative.

A function much like a no-call list for this issue would be nice.

 

[dianaiad]

Some say, here " What harm?".

With all do respect to LDS’ beliefs:

I find great harm.
I am a professed Catholic. I want my future generations to know that I chose to be a Catholic. I do not want some person 20-30 - - years down the line… deciding to change that.

OK, how would a proxy baptism, done over a year after your passing, change that? I mean, after all, the dates make it rather obvious.

My concerns aren’t out of some far fetched paranoia, on my part. But, based on testimony presented here.

While I respect the rights of The LDS to their beliefs, they should not overshadow mine. Nor should their rights / beliefs overshadow the rights and beliefs of my future generations.

They do neither. As I mentioned, the dates make it obvious, if nothing else does. WE do not believe they would, and since we are the ones performing the ordinances, doesn’t what we believe they do count? Why are you giving them more power than we are?

I do not want nor should they have to ] future generations to have to petition to the Administration of LDS…to stop…OR change my professed faith. I do not want to have a future generation of mine to have to wonder on where I stood religiously.

Why is it any of their business what decision YOU made? You really want your great grandchild to have more say in your religion than you do?

The “Secrecy” surrounding these LDS Rites “Ordinances”, is of grave concern. As it means the chance of this not being corrected - could be for generations.

In short: If my great niece wants to ‘bind’ me to her…come to the Catholic Cemetery where I’m buried.

As Always, just my thoughts. .

Yes, and I’m asking you to rethink. We are not forcing anything upon you by performing these ordinances. WE absolutely believe that you have the right to say ‘no.’ It is only effective if you accept it. If you don’t, it has no effect. The choice is utterly yours. All the time. In fact, it is just the last ‘knock on the door,’ after which you will be left alone. In the meantime, your descendents get the benifit of the genealogical work, and actually get to know who you are. With out us, your name may very well just disappear from their history completely.

I’m asking you to do a 180 in thinking here. Just consider this: who DO you want making your decisions for you? You? Or some great grandkid?

WE think you have the right to make this choice. You. Not your grandkids. You.

…and we believe that you do not lose the ability to choose in the afterlife.

I guess that’s what gets to me the most. It seems to me that those who object to proxy work (by anybody) are showing a lack of faith in an afterlife, and in the religious commitment of their ancestors. It’s almost as if y’all are afraid that these baptisms might actually work or something, or (gasp) that your ancestors might actually LIKE the idea. Heaven forbid!

(shrug)

Of course, in that case…who is doing the forcing then?

Perhaps I am blind, but I have NEVER been able to see the problem. It wouldn’t bug me if someone decided to do a proxy Catholic baptism on me after I died. It wouldn’t bug me if someone did proxy work for me after my death–and they honestly believed that such work forced me to change my faith/allegience in a way that we do not. I wouldn’t be insulted in any way.

Bemused, perhaps, but insulted?

No. I just don’t see it.

 

[kimmielittle]

It seems some are talking apples and oranges.

Genealogy is quite different than “Ordinances”.

In the genealogy collection process…how hard is it to put under “faith”…a tick mark indicating.i.e…Cath…Pres…Luth…Jew…Bud…Bapt…etc etc etc…???

How hard when submitting names…to include the source…i.e…Dioceses of Saint Micheal’s Records …Saint Marys Cemetery…SSDI…Concentration Camp Name…International War Records…Temple of Jordan…etc???

Isn’t this respect?

 

[Dettingen]

A Mormon friend explained the doctrine to me. They believe that when they “baptize” the dead, the dead’s soul has the opportunity to ratify or reject the ‘baptism’.

It’s offensive to me because it smacks of arrogance: “Our religion is correct and yours is not.” It is also politically insensitive toward believers in other faiths, especially those who, like the Jews, were persecuted for their faith.

I would have thought the Mormon Church was sufficiently politically savvy to avoid this sort of controversy, but they have instead kindly supplied me with yet another example of religious idiocy. Another brick in the wall of my distrust of organized religion.

From a practical perspective, the rite is irrelevant to me. But I’m not being persecuted for my religious views.

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[dianaiad]

A Mormon friend explained the doctrine to me. They believe that when they “baptize” the dead, the dead’s soul has the opportunity to ratify or reject the ‘baptism’.

Yes. Since that is so, what’s the problem?

It’s offensive to me because it smacks of arrogance: “Our religion is correct and yours is not.”

I would hope that everyone believes that about his or her own faith. Any other view is called “hypocrisy.”

It is also politically insensitive toward believers in other faiths, especially those who, like the Jews, were persecuted for their faith.

How could offering an honest choice POSSIBLY be called persecution? It’s not like the choices the early Catholics offered, or the choices the early Muslims offered…that is, ‘convert or lose your head,’ or 'convert or you pay more taxes than anybody else, and, oh yeah, you don’t have any civil rights" or any other form of the 'convert or else" methods so beloved by so many.

I would have thought the Mormon Church was sufficiently politically savvy to avoid this sort of controversy, but they have instead kindly supplied me with yet another example of religious idiocy. Another brick in the wall of my distrust of organized religion.

I would think it would do quite the opposite. After all, we are doing what we say we do.

From a practical perspective, the rite is irrelevant to me. But I’m not being persecuted for my religious views.

No, you aren’t, and nobody who has had proxy work done for them is being so persecuted, either. We aren’t taking anything from them; not their choices, not thier faith, nothing. It’s an offer. No more, no less. No force involved. No intimidation. No sword points or threats. Just…an offer that is easily refused.

 

[Dettingen]

How could offering an honest choice POSSIBLY be called persecution? It’s not like the choices the early Catholics offered, or the choices the early Muslims offered…that is, ‘convert or lose your head,’ or 'convert or you pay more taxes than anybody else, and, oh yeah, you don’t have any civil rights" or any other form of the 'convert or else" methods so beloved by so many.

Perhaps a better way to express the idea is to say that it can be interpreted by some as disrespectful of the identity a person voluntarily embraced during his/her lifetime, as Kimmie Little wrote above.

Did I explain the doctrine correctly? For I take it that was the main part of the originating post.

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[Janet1983]

It seems some are talking apples and oranges.

Genealogy is quite different than “Ordinances”.

In the genealogy collection process…how hard is it to put under “faith”…a tick mark indicating.i.e…Cath…Pres…Luth…Jew…Bud…Bapt…etc etc etc…???

How hard when submitting names…to include the source…i.e…Dioceses of Saint Micheal’s Records …Saint Marys Cemetery…SSDI…Concentration Camp Name…International War Records…Temple of Jordan…etc???

Isn’t this respect?

Really, I don’t advocate the LDS church and those who look at my history see that pretty easily.
I need to say one thing however:
There is absolutely nothing dramatic or bad about them researching genealogy. A good genealogy sheet gives dates like birthday, day of baptism etc. It also gives the information where the person is buried if found.
My father in law even directly distinguishes between other ordinances and LDS ordinances in his genealogy. That way it is easy to identify who has been dealt with posthumously and what they considered themselves to be before they passed.
The genealogy is first of all collection of information. What is done with that information is something completely different (even though it is then afterwards remarked in the Family Group Record).
Due to the fact that all dates are filled in you can easily identify who has really been a Mormon during their lifetime and who hasn’t: Just compare the date of their LDS baptism with the date of their death. If they died before they were baptized it has to have been by proxy. And if they then are also buried on a Catholic cemetery you’ll know what they were: Catholic.

 

[dianaiad]

How could offering an honest choice POSSIBLY be called persecution? It’s not like the choices the early Catholics offered, or the choices the early Muslims offered…that is, ‘convert or lose your head,’ or 'convert or you pay more taxes than anybody else, and, oh yeah, you don’t have any civil rights" or any other form of the 'convert or else" methods so beloved by so many.

Perhaps a better way to express the idea is to say that it can be interpreted by some as disrespectful of the identity a person voluntarily embraced during his/her lifetime, as Kimmie Little wrote above.

Did I explain the doctrine correctly? For I take it that was the main part of the originating post.

Pax,

Dettingen

Ok, another question…

Is it disrespectful to the identity one embraces in one’s life to knock upon the door and offer to teach someone a different faith?

Is it disrespectful to the Muslim to offer him a Bible? Is it disrespectful to the Christian to offer him a Quran? Is it really disrespectful to the homeowner for a Jehovah’s Witness to knock on the door?

Was it disrespectful of the Catholics to send the missionaries to the native Americans? (well, Ok, never mind that one…we may be back to ‘sword point’ there, I’m afraid…)

If so, then yes, what we do is disrespectful…but only to that extent. If the above is NOT disrespectful, then neither is what we do.

I guess the paradigm is so different that neither one of us is getting the other. Y’see, we really DO believe in an afterlife, and that those who die retain their ability to think, to reason, and to make their own decisions. We do not believe that death made them the property of their descendents, or subject to their rules and opinions.

Those who take offence at what we do, I think, seem to believe that death somehow confers a conservatorship upon the living…as if the dead cannot, after all, think, or feel, or make decisions for themselves in this area–really, as if they truly do not exist any longer; even those who claim to believe in an afterlife.

Anyway, those are MY thoughts on the matter.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Geneology is fine to a point, but birth records do not really tell a story and hopefully there isn’t any fudging on this. (Family history should be kept alive through the family, with stories and photos if possible, also keeping the names in the family Bible is a good idea.)

The Mormon preoccupation with history can get them into hot water though. In the 1980’s they bought a bogus letter from Hoffman about Smith and the giant salamander. I just hope that the research they are doing for their records is accurate.

As for baptism of the dead, seems so so silly really. We are baptised in our lives for a new life following Christ. After we are dead, the card are laid, so to speak. What we receive in the afterlife is a result of what we did during our lives.

 

[twopekinguys]

No it isn’t. I don’t know any genealogist who doesn’t understand the idea behind the dates.

To whom?

Ok, let’s say that you and your family live in a ‘compound’ of sorts: that is, your parents live in one home, you live a block down, and your brothers and sisters live in varous houses between you.

One day a couple of Mormon missionaries (or Baptists, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the local Brownie Scout troup selling cookies…whatever.) walk down the street, knocking on all the doors.

Kindly tell me how it is disrespectful to YOU for them to knock on your parent’s door?

How is it disrespectful to THEM for the missionaries or the girl scouts to mark their names on a list that says the offer was made?

Because, m’friend, that’s what proxy baptism IS, for us. It isn’t a fait accompli. Only those who don’t know what it is think that it does anything at all that the folks for whom it is done don’t want done. Nor do we assume that 'of course they’ll WANT it."

If we are the ones doing it, then you kinda have to go with what we think it actually does, don’t you? How logical is it to think it has more effect than WE think it does?

I have never quite figured that out.

I have to say, you come up with some of the silliest analogies of any person on this planet.

First of all, both of my parents are deceased. But, when they were living, they had no trespassing, and no soliciting signs at the entrance to their property, which was quite frequently ignored by lds, jw’s, and a whole bunch of others individuals.

Knocking on their door showed a blatant disrespect. While my parents were good natured people, enough soon becomes enough, and my father, (God love him) gave more than one missionary a reading lesson by marching him back to the sign, and making him read it out loud. But you know what? It happened again, and again, and again. Ultimately, my father ended up calling the local jw’s, and lds, and a few other groups, and told them that if any of their missionaries showed up on their property again, he would prosecute for criminal trespass. He also sent a certified letter putting them on notice.

The same applies to these proxy baptisms. People are telling you to quit soliciting, and yet you keep on doing it? What part of don’t do it do these people not get.

Now, as far as familsearch.org goes, look up Abraham Lincoln, one of the most famous Presidents of the US. Not to mention being a well known figure world wide.

They have him born in several places in Kentucky, born in Indiana, and the best one has him born in Colorado… At least 2 entries have him married to Ann Rutledge. WRONG!!

This is just one example of misinformation being provided. How many thousands of others are there? With that said, many people researching their families could in fact get wrong information, therefore skewing their view of their family history.

Also, why aren’t they showing what “ordinances” have been done? Why isn’t that available to the general public? What is there to hide? Why not a disclamer saying “Hey, if your family is on here, we’ve sent them a mormon baptism”?

If what you are doing is offending others than no, we don’t have to go with what you are doing. Just like the trespassing example I gave you above.

Not to mention, I believe there is a stipulation for name submissions that persmission from the closest living relative is to be obtained. Obviously this isn’t being followed.

Also, since templeready is supposed to have filters to check multiple submissions for the same person, certain names (jewish), and other things, don’t you think the title “Father” would have been a big ol flag somewhere?

 

[Murdock]

CHRISTINE 77

"The Mormon preoccupation with history can get them into hot water though. In the 1980's they bought a bogus letter from Hoffman about Smith and the giant salamander. I just hope that the 	research they are doing for their records is accurate."

The “Salamander Letter” was a hoax and the Church was fooled for a while. However, the Church’s genealogical archives and resources are an altogether different matter. I believe that there is a consensus, among professional genealogists and ordinary people interested in their ancestry, that the Church’s genealogical archives, and the (partly) computerized system that makes family history available to anyone at all, free of charge, is the best that exists. It is, in fact, a collection of collections (from myriad sources all over the world) and is accurate or inaccurate as people of many centuries, in many lands, have made it.

"As for baptism of the dead, seems so so silly really. We are baptised in our lives for a new life ollowing Christ. After we are dead, the card are laid, so to speak. What we receive in the afterlife is a result of what we did during our lives. "

Mormons do not disagree that what we do during this mortal life is important to our lives in the next world. However, give some consideration to those who lived and died in times and places where they never had the chances that you and I have had to accept the gospel. Are these people, through absolutely no fault of their own, given no choice as to their afterlife? What would a loving God say?

Baptism for the dead is an OPPORTUNITY and nothing more. If a pair of Mormon missionaries comes to your door in this mortal life, you are free to say “no thanks” and send them on their way. It is the same with baptism for the dead. After death, anyone is free to refuse, just as they were while alive. But it is a chance. Do you think God would love all people enough to give them that chance?

Murdock

 

[twopekinguys]

A Mormon friend explained the doctrine to me. They believe that when they “baptize” the dead, the dead’s soul has the opportunity to ratify or reject the ‘baptism’.

It’s offensive to me because it smacks of arrogance: “Our religion is correct and yours is not.” It is also politically insensitive toward believers in other faiths, especially those who, like the Jews, were persecuted for their faith.

I would have thought the Mormon Church was sufficiently politically savvy to avoid this sort of controversy, but they have instead kindly supplied me with yet another example of religious idiocy. Another brick in the wall of my distrust of organized religion.

From a practical perspective, the rite is irrelevant to me. But I’m not being persecuted for my religious views.

Pax,

Dettingen

Try checking out this article. It is another thread all together.

sltrib.com/lds/ci_13552589

 

[twopekinguys]

(snip to here

However, give some consideration to those who lived and died in times and places where they never had the chances that you and I have had to accept the gospel. Are these people, through absolutely no fault of their own, given no choice as to their afterlife? What would a loving God say?

Baptism for the dead is an OPPORTUNITY and nothing more. If a pair of Mormon missionaries comes to your door in this mortal life, you are free to say “no thanks” and send them on their way. It is the same with baptism for the dead. After death, anyone is free to refuse, just as they were while alive. But it is a chance. Do you think God would love all people enough to give them that chance?

Murdock

Using your example of a person saying no thanks in this life, then why bug them in the afterlife?

Do we need a Do Not Baptize.com website like we have for telemarketers?

Actually that isn’t such a bad idea when you think about it.

Now, about your comment above, “give some consideration to those who lived and died in times and places where they never had the chances that you and I have had to accept the gospel”. Do you think that Fr. Damien didn’t have a chance to accept the Gospel?

 

[Harpazo]

Using your example of a person saying no thanks in this life, then why bug them in the afterlife?

Do we need a Do Not Baptize.com website like we have for telemarketers?

Actually that isn’t such a bad idea when you think about it.

Now, about your comment above, “give some consideration to those who lived and died in times and places where they never had the chances that you and I have had to accept the gospel”. Do you think that Fr. Damien didn’t have a chance to accept the Gospel?

I would completely endorse this!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dianaiad]

I have to say, you come up with some of the silliest analogies of any person on this planet.

First of all, both of my parents are deceased. But, when they were living, they had no trespassing, and no soliciting signs at the entrance to their property, which was quite frequently ignored by lds, jw’s, and a whole bunch of others individuals.

OK, that was their choice. Again, the question is, how is it disrespect to YOU that people ignored their signs?

Knocking on their door showed a blatant disrespect. While my parents were good natured people, enough soon becomes enough, and my father, (God love him) gave more than one missionary a reading lesson by marching him back to the sign, and making him read it out loud. But you know what? It happened again, and again, and again. Ultimately, my father ended up calling the local jw’s, and lds, and a few other groups, and told them that if any of their missionaries showed up on their property again, he would prosecute for criminal trespass. He also sent a certified letter putting them on notice.

The same applies to these proxy baptisms. People are telling you to quit soliciting, and yet you keep on doing it? What part of don’t do it do these people not get.

So, it was done, and now nobody is going to do it again. I repeat. How is it disrespect to YOU that anybody knocked on their doors?

Now, as far as familsearch.org goes, look up Abraham Lincoln, one of the most famous Presidents of the US. Not to mention being a well known figure world wide.

They have him born in several places in Kentucky, born in Indiana, and the best one has him born in Colorado… At least 2 entries have him married to Ann Rutledge. WRONG!!

This is just one example of misinformation being provided. How many thousands of others are there? With that said, many people researching their families could in fact get wrong information, therefore skewing their view of their family history.

Also, why aren’t they showing what “ordinances” have been done? Why isn’t that available to the general public? What is there to hide? Why not a disclamer saying “Hey, if your family is on here, we’ve sent them a mormon baptism”?

Make your mind up. I understand that one of the biggest objections here is that people don’t want to see references to LDS baptisms on the family records. It’s 'disrespectful." So which is it? If you don’t SEE the references there, then there is no insult, is there–especially if you believe that nothing we do is effective in any way.

If what you are doing is offending others than no, we don’t have to go with what you are doing. Just like the trespassing example I gave you above.

Ok, so your dad can tell the missionaries one last time to get off his lawn, and this time it will stick. How is anything that goes on between the missinaries and your father disrespect to YOU?

Not to mention, I believe there is a stipulation for name submissions that persmission from the closest living relative is to be obtained. Obviously this isn’t being followed.

That’s a lot of supposition there.

Also, since templeready is supposed to have filters to check multiple submissions for the same person, certain names (jewish), and other things, don’t you think the title “Father” would have been a big ol flag somewhere?

I don’t know. I have no idea about this issue, or whether St. Damien’s birth records would HAVE him listed as “Father” something or other. It would be amazingly prescient of his parents if they did.

 

[Harpazo]

To all LDS: How would you feel if Orthodox priests went with their parishioners to cemeteries and prayed over the tombstones of individual Mormons that their souls would be released from Hell? Honestly.

In Christ,
Andrew