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

[kimmielittle]

How do you find out if these people have taken your relatives’ name and added it to their list? My family comes up on their site, but only in the death records, as far as I know, that are available on every geneology site. I don’t subscribe to their geneology pages–would I be able to find out if they’ve taken my relatives’ names without paying a fee?

Will they remove the name if requested to? Would I have to get a lawyer to draft a letter to get them to remove the names from anything Mormon? Court?

That is the grave concern here; their lack of transparency. Their, apparent, disregard of others…i.e talks between the Jewish Community…the conversation here. ALL in the name of THEIR Religious beliefs.

It makes it seem, to me, they think it is right…the analogies used are that they are “merely knocking”…“giving another chance to hear their message”…but it is evident they don’t care about the harm. Their total disregard in honoring the Religious lives of others. The vows they other religious ] took in life can be overturned…via someone within THEIR Church…AND listed FOREVER… as part / party to LDS teachings / theology.

It isn’t a matter of “knocking” or “praying” for my soul, as suggested here and elsewhere. That is quite different. Than making it seem…I’m / was part and party to LDS. This would be a lie!

Of course, the Dead have no way to defend AND neither do the living descendants…WITHOUT being a member of LDS…

There are REASONS I don’t subscribe to their beliefs. One is the arrogance and disrespect shown toward others. That alone, is enough to turn me away from their discipline / discipleship. How are they arrogant / disrespectful? There are simple solutions that have been offered for a number of years. and some presented here…that are ignored.

It was brought up by a poster here; Something like, ‘how would LDS feel if Catholics prayed for their conversion’…and of course, they skirted the real meaning in answering.

The question is: How would a devoted LDS feel about having his / her family Listed under the Jewish Faith Registar…The Catholic International Register…The KKk Register…The Scientolog Register…etc…etc…With NO recourse? AND then be treated as if their concerns were of little importance?

As always, just my thoughts.

 

[ParkerD]

The question is: How would a devoted LDS feel about having his / her family Listed under the Jewish Faith Registar…The Catholic International Register…With NO recourse? AND then be treated as if their concerns were of little importance?

As always, just my thoughts.

Kimmielittle,
In the first place, the actions do not list them under a “faith register” of any sort. There is no “membership change”. It is acknowledged that many of the people represented are not going to have any desire to “accept” the ordinance. If they didn’t “accept” the baptism done in their name, they probably aren’t even aware of it nor of any other ordinance because it is an act of faith in the spirit world to even be aware of these things happening on earth. It would be only known by those who would care to know.

The puzzler for me is related to your questions I have re-posted here.

Most people, when they speak of “Jews”, are speaking about the entire “house of Israel.” The LDS baptismal ordinance gives the deceased person the simple choice (according to LDS beliefs) of being a part of the covenant House of Israel just as the Old Testament talks about over and over again, and does it using the authority that Catholics emphasize over and over again that “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.” (That’s why baptismal fonts in LDS temples are built with twelve oxen–representing the twelve tribes of Israel–as holding up those fonts.)

So the puzzler is, why doesn’t the Catholic church have some similar belief, if they really do think they are of “covenant Israel” and have the authority to “bind on earth that which is bound in heaven” and that “except a person be born of water and of the spirit they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Couple these beliefs with a professed belief in loving all people (I think that is what is taught), then why do they get so upset because someone else actually believes the Bible’s words on these subjects and has a practice related to why those words were written?

Why also do they not get upset that a baby is forced to be baptized without that baby’s own choice and decision having been involved? I honestly don’t understand the thinking behind getting upset at the one thing and not getting upset at this related action that has to do with living people, sweet children who have yet to live their lives and make any decisions at all about religion, Christ, grace, or the loving sacrifice Christ offered for all humankind?

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmielittle,
In the first place, the actions do not list them under a “faith register” of any sort. There is no “membership change”. It is acknowledged that many of the people represented are not going to have any desire to “accept” the ordinance. If they didn’t “accept” the baptism done in their name, they probably aren’t even aware of it nor of any other ordinance because it is an act of faith in the spirit world to even be aware of these things happening on earth. It would be only known by those who would care to know.

The puzzler for me is related to your questions I have re-posted here.

Most people, when they speak of “Jews”, are speaking about the entire “house of Israel.” The LDS baptismal ordinance gives the deceased person the simple choice (according to LDS beliefs) of being a part of the covenant House of Israel just as the Old Testament talks about over and over again, and does it using the authority that Catholics emphasize over and over again that “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.” (That’s why baptismal fonts in LDS temples are built with twelve oxen–representing the twelve tribes of Israel–as holding up those fonts.)

So the puzzler is, why doesn’t the Catholic church have some similar belief, if they really do think they are of “covenant Israel” and have the authority to “bind on earth that which is bound in heaven” and that “except a person be born of water and of the spirit they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Couple these beliefs with a professed belief in loving all people (I think that is what is taught), then why do they get so upset because someone else actually believes the Bible’s words on these subjects and has a practice related to why those words were written?

Why also do they not get upset that a baby is forced to be baptized without that baby’s own choice and decision having been involved? I honestly don’t understand the thinking behind getting upset at the one thing and not getting upset at this related action that has to do with living people, sweet children who have yet to live their lives and make any decisions at all about religion, Christ, grace, or the loving sacrifice Christ offered for all humankind?

Hiyas ParkerD

Wanna know the best thing about being a Kid?
I can say, “I dono…but if you really want to know how Catholics believe about your questions: I betcha, I can find someone here, to explain”

You can call me kimmie, if you want

ps: Do The Latter Day Saints believe my peoples are the “Lost Tribes of Israel”? Cause, we know exactly where we are.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve looked back through the discussion. The LDS defense of their practice of baptism and marriage by proxy only proves the complete lack of respect for religions other than Mormonism.

The Mormon church continued the practice of baptism by proxy, of Jews who died in the Holocaust, even after the Mormon Church entered into an agreement with the Jewish people to stop the practice. Mormons continue the baptism by proxy of Catholicism, regardless of the Vatican’s call to end the practice. -----Again, complete lack of respect, and unwillingness to even honor agreements in place or to honor calls from other religions to stop the practice. Saying the baptisms are a mistake is not good enough, nor does it excuse the actions of Mormons.

We live and die in our faith. Many Jews and Christians were persecuted–even unto death–for their faith, and their memory has been slandered by the Mormon church. Baptism by proxy deceives future generations and desecrates the memory of faithful Jews and faithful Christians.

There is no acceptable defense, nor is there an acceptable argument for these Mormon practices.

I wonder how the Mormon church would react, if someone took the name of Mormon “Prophet,” Joseph Smith and performed a baptism by proxy into Catholicism or Protestantism—changing his place in history as a Mormon. I suspect we would hear a Mormon outcry of persecution, like nothing we have seen to date.

Anna

 

[zerinus]

If have finally finished reading through this long an boring thread; and what everyone has overlooked (including Mormon respondents) is that once you are dead, you basically have no legal rights—with the possible exception of your will, if you have left a will to take care of your estate. Beyond that you have no legal rights. The only people who have any rights are your descendants who inherit your estate. Apart from your estate, they also inherit your good name (assuming you have one! ). If somebody published a defamatory article about you for example, they have an interest in try to defend it by legitimate means. Now suppose you are a Catholic (and a Mormon hater!), and you dropped dead tomorrow; and two years later one of your descendants became a Mormon, and decided to do temple work on your behalf; what right do you, as a dead person, have to stop it? The answer is that you have none. What right do other Catholics have to stop it? None! What right has the Catholic Church? None! What right do they have even to be “offended” by it? Answer: None! It has nothing to do with them, and it is none of their business. If my dad was a Catholic, and I wanted to do temple work for him as Mormon, who cares that other Catholics don’t like it? I wouldn’t!

If you really wanted to go to the extreme, I suppose you could leave a will behind stating that after your death you don’t want to be baptized by proxy in a Mormon Temple. But even then, it is doubtful that will can be legally enforced. Who is going to enforce it? Those who inherit your estate will have to decide to enforce it; and if they (or one of them) became a Mormon, they can override it. There is no legal mechanism as far as I can tell that can prevent them from doing it. A dead person basically has not legal rights. All the rights belong to his or her descendants; and if they decided to have him baptized, there is nothing that anybody else can to about it. They have not right even to be “offended” by it, because it has nothing to do with them.

P.S. I had by mistake posted this on another thread. I am now reposting it here.

 

[kalt]

Kimmielittle,
In the first place, the actions do not list them under a “faith register” of any sort. There is no “membership change”. It is acknowledged that many of the people represented are not going to have any desire to “accept” the ordinance. If they didn’t “accept” the baptism done in their name, they probably aren’t even aware of it nor of any other ordinance because it is an act of faith in the spirit world to even be aware of these things happening on earth. It would be only known by those who would care to know.

The puzzler for me is related to your questions I have re-posted here.

Most people, when they speak of “Jews”, are speaking about the entire “house of Israel.” The LDS baptismal ordinance gives the deceased person the simple choice (according to LDS beliefs) of being a part of the covenant House of Israel just as the Old Testament talks about over and over again, and does it using the authority that Catholics emphasize over and over again that “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.” (That’s why baptismal fonts in LDS temples are built with twelve oxen–representing the twelve tribes of Israel–as holding up those fonts.)

So the puzzler is, why doesn’t the Catholic church have some similar belief, if they really do think they are of “covenant Israel” and have the authority to “bind on earth that which is bound in heaven” and that “except a person be born of water and of the spirit they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Couple these beliefs with a professed belief in loving all people (I think that is what is taught), then why do they get so upset because someone else actually believes the Bible’s words on these subjects and has a practice related to why those words were written?

Why also do they not get upset that a baby is forced to be baptized without that baby’s own choice and decision having been involved? I honestly don’t understand the thinking behind getting upset at the one thing and not getting upset at this related action that has to do with living people, sweet children who have yet to live their lives and make any decisions at all about religion, Christ, grace, or the loving sacrifice Christ offered for all humankind?

Babies are baptized by the people who are responsible for them. They are speaking for the child and then raise the child in the faith. At the appropriate age the person then confirms his baptism for himself. A Catholic who hasn’t confirmed his baptism may not be married in the CC and he can’t be a god parent to a Catholic child.

Compare that to baptizing the dead and giving them wives and husbands - by proxy.

It’s really incredible that you don’t understand the utter disregard you have for the dead and their living relatives. A peron in life was a celibate priest or nun in the Catholic Church, and you put his name a list of the proxy baptisms and assign them spouses?! And you see no problem with that?!

I will give you the same challenge I gave another. If having one’s name listed as a baptized Mormon (by proxy) and assigned a wife or husband means nothing, please change your religion designation on this site to Catholic. The list, after all, means nothing and having your name on a Catholic list doesn’t mean that you are Catholic, only that you are offered (as all always are) offered the opportunity to become Catholic.

If you refuse to change you listing, though it doesn’t change the truth of your belief, can you explain why you refuse?

If you Mormons don’t mind, I may start a post here listing all self-identified LDS posters as Catholics. Maybe I’ll do it even if you do mind.

 

[ParkerD]

Babies are baptized by the people who are responsible for them. They are speaking for the child and then raise the child in the faith. At the appropriate age the person then confirms his baptism for himself. A Catholic who hasn’t confirmed his baptism may not be married in the CC and he can’t be a god parent to a Catholic child.

Compare that to baptizing the dead and giving them wives and husbands - by proxy.

It’s really incredible that you don’t understand the utter disregard you have for the dead and their living relatives. A person in life was a celibate priest or nun in the Catholic Church, and you put his name a list of the proxy baptisms and assign them spouses?! And you see no problem with that?!

I will give you the same challenge I gave another. If having one’s name listed as a baptized Mormon (by proxy) and assigned a wife or husband means nothing, please change your religion designation on this site to Catholic. The list, after all, means nothing and having your name on a Catholic list doesn’t mean that you are Catholic, only that you are offered (as all always are) offered the opportunity to become Catholic.

If you refuse to change you listing, though it doesn’t change the truth of your belief, can you explain why you refuse?

If you Mormons don’t mind, I may start a post here listing all self-identified LDS posters as Catholics. Maybe I’ll do it even if you do mind.

Kalt,
It’s kind of funny to read your comment about changing my “listing” since when I first used this website I used the term “orthodox” since I wasn’t aware that I could list LDS church as my religious affiliation and not be “booted out.” All I wanted to do was clarify a lot of misunderstandings I happened upon.

So again–if the temple sealer had been aware that the names he was being asked to “seal” in marriage had not been married in this life, he would have crossed the names off of his list and it would have been rejected as an ordinance needing to be done. There is no such thing as deliberate LDS “sealing in marriage” two people who weren’t married (or at least engaged if there was a young couple who died in a car accident or some other tragedy) in this life. Whoever submitted that supposed “marriage” was either trying to bring discredit to the LDS church (which certainly happens), or was acting completely out of ignorance.

If the LDS church was really taking names of Catholic celibate priests and nuns and deliberately “sealing” them to a spouse, then yes I would have a problem with that because that is not correct doctrinally at all. But the LDS church doesn’t institutionally do what you seem to think it does. It is human people some of whom may have ulterior motives and some of whom make sincere mistakes who submit names for temple ordinances. The temple sealer just takes the list of names given to him and does the ordinance of “binding on earth” so that it will be “bound in heaven”–but that really does assume that there was a marriage in place on earth already for those two people.

Getting back to the issue of love and parents involvement in having their baby baptized, of course the parent loves their baby and acts in what they believe is their best interest when they have the baby baptized. One can assume they are acting out of love. You may not think someone like me is acting out of love for an ancestor whose temple work I submit to be done, but I can reply sincerely that it is an act of love and of sincere belief. It is not an act of dishonoring anyone. It is giving them the deepest respect, treating them as every bit as much an equal in the eyes of God as any other of God’s children living anywhere in the world at any time in history.

 

[kalt]

Putting feelers out there for the LDS who’ve defended listing non-Mormons as baptized by the LDS church. Would the following actions be OK with you?

The CC doesn’t baptize the dead, but it does baptize the living. I used asome plants as a proxy (they needed watering anyway) and have baptized the following people in the Catholic faith. They’ve also been assigned spouses.

ParkerD - Anna Nicole Smith
Dianaiad - Mike Tyson
thecourt - Paris Hilton
Murdock - Mel Gibson
Zerinus - Michael Vick

If you’re a male and have been assigned a male spouse, I’m sorry. It’s just a list anyway.

This proxy baptism video and the list of names may be worked on to make it slick looking and may be put on Youtube. Unfortunately, unlike the LDS church, I don’t have your real names. If any of you listed above would be so kind as submit your real names for inclusion, it would be appreciated. Since the Mormons have other people’s real names, I’m sure that you, who have defended the LDS’s use of the real names of other people, will man up and give your own names for our new proxy baptism list.

If your spouses or SOs take offense at our listing you in public as being married to someone else, I’m sure as LDS members they will understand that the list and video don’t change the truth of your faith and situation. Your kids will probably wonder if you really do still believe in plural marriage, but you can explain that the Youtube video and the list here, though true, is not true. You really are baptized by proxy and you are “sealed” to other spouses, but it’s not really real and the list, though public, means nothing.

Would it be OK with you if I go ahead with the video? If you don’t want your real names listed here, just send it to me via PM.

 

[kalt]

Kalt,
It’s kind of funny to read your comment about changing my “listing” since when I first used this website I used the term “orthodox” since I wasn’t aware that I could list LDS church as my religious affiliation and not be “booted out.” All I wanted to do was clarify a lot of misunderstandings I happened upon.

So again–if the temple sealer had been aware that the names he was being asked to “seal” in marriage had not been married in this life, he would have crossed the names off of his list and it would have been rejected as an ordinance needing to be done. There is no such thing as deliberate LDS “sealing in marriage” two people who weren’t married (or at least engaged if there was a young couple who died in a car accident or some other tragedy) in this life. Whoever submitted that supposed “marriage” was either trying to bring discredit to the LDS church (which certainly happens), or was acting completely out of ignorance.

If the LDS church was really taking names of Catholic celibate priests and nuns and deliberately “sealing” them to a spouse, then yes I would have a problem with that because that is not correct doctrinally at all. But the LDS church doesn’t institutionally do what you seem to think it does. It is human people some of whom may have ulterior motives and some of whom make sincere mistakes who submit names for temple ordinances. The temple sealer just takes the list of names given to him and does the ordinance of “binding on earth” so that it will be “bound in heaven”–but that really does assume that there was a marriage in place on earth already for those two people.

Getting back to the issue of love and parents involvement in having their baby baptized, of course the parent loves their baby and acts in what they believe is their best interest when they have the baby baptized. One can assume they are acting out of love. You may not think someone like me is acting out of love for an ancestor whose temple work I submit to be done, but I can reply sincerely that it is an act of love and of sincere belief. It is not an act of dishonoring anyone. It is giving them the deepest respect, treating them as every bit as much an equal in the eyes of God as any other of God’s children living anywhere in the world at any time in history.

You haven’t change your designation to Catholic.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Getting back to the issue of love and parents involvement in having their baby baptized, of course the parent loves their baby and acts in what they believe is their best interest when they have the baby baptized. One can assume they are acting out of love. You may not think someone like me is acting out of love for an ancestor whose temple work I submit to be done, but I can reply sincerely that it is an act of love and of sincere belief. It is not an act of dishonoring anyone. It is giving them the deepest respect, treating them as every bit as much an equal in the eyes of God as any other of God’s children living anywhere in the world at any time in history.

I see less of this and more of attitudes like Z’s.

 

[mjf001]

Like I said earlier. As a Catholic, like others have stated, as well, I don’t see proxy baptisms as having any effect whatsoever. When I die, when my non-LDS relatives die, I do not/would not want to see my name or the names of any non-LDS relatives showing up on the proxy baptism list. I would go so far to say, I would be willing to put it in my will, I feel so strongly on this subject. I do not see it as an honor or a sign of respect. My wishes about my faith were made in this life, those wishes should be honored by the people who know me, and the people who don’t shouldn’t presume to offer me or my non-LDS relatives choices they don’t know we would want.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[kalt]

Like I said earlier. As a Catholic, like others have stated, as well, I don’t see proxy baptisms as having any effect whatsoever. When I die, when my non-LDS relatives die, I do not/would not want to see my name or the names of any non-LDS relatives showing up on the proxy baptism list. I would go so far to say, I would be willing to put it in my will, I feel so strongly on this subject. I do not see it as an honor or a sign of respect. My wishes about my faith were made in this life, those wishes should be honored by the people who know me, and the people who don’t shouldn’t presume to offer me or my non-LDS relatives choices they don’t know we would want.

In Christ,
Michael

They don’t respect your decision to be Catholic (or any non-LDS religion). They think they know better. They think they’re helping you by bringing you, by a rite of initiation (Baptism), into their group.

This isn’t about love. It’s about disprespect for other people. Disrespect for their memory - what they were is what they want to be known as in death–and disrespect for the intelligence of those who’ve chosen to be Catholic is all I see in this practice.

None of us believes that this “baptism” has any effect. That’s not the point. Leave our names alone! Is that so hard to understand?

It’s really creepy to think that these people (feels more like predators now) will hunt us down in death. If they can’t get us, they will get one of our descendants and us (for the list) through them. So, you see, no convert is ever really lost. Creepy.

 

[amontoya]

Amontoya,
In answer to your two questions here,

1. The International Genealogical Index (IGI) used to be on microfiche in libraries in many places in the world, especially cities in the United States. If ordinance work had been done, it showed it on those microfiche that were available for anyone to look at who had an interest in looking at it. If the name you were researching showed up on the IGI index in the current database, then there is a reasonable chance their ordinance work was done. If on another index such as the Pedigree Resource File, then most likely that ordinance work has not been done unless a descendant is a member of the LDS church.

When I searched for the IGI index, what came up was familysearch.org which is where I found my father’s name to begin with. So this means someone’s already done his “ordinances”?

1. It is there because there do happen to be people who like using the resources and search engine that are available to them in that multi-source database, so they can research their own family history for their own purposes.

This doesn’t answer my question. Researching your own family history is one thing, performing religious rituals on somebody else’s family is another. As I’ve already written, my father’s only living family aren’t mormon, so why would his name be in a database that is specifically for members of the LDS church to utilize in order to perform ordinances on THEIR deceased relatives?

 

[amontoya]

If have finally finished reading through this long an boring thread; and what everyone has overlooked (including Mormon respondents) is that once you are dead, you basically have no legal rights—with the possible exception of your will, if you have left a will to take care of your estate. Beyond that you have no legal rights. The only people who have any rights are your descendants who inherit your estate. Apart from your estate, they also inherit your good name (assuming you have one! ). If somebody published a defamatory article about you for example, they have an interest in try to defend it by legitimate means.

That’s kinda the point. I, as my father’s descendant, have the responsibility to defend his name. The mormons have taken his good name without his or my permission and performed religious rituals using his name. That is unacceptable.

 

[kimmielittle]

If have finally finished reading through this long an boring thread; and what everyone has overlooked (including Mormon respondents) is that once you are dead, you basically have no legal rights—with the possible exception of your will, if you have left a will to take care of your estate. Beyond that you have no legal rights. The only people who have any rights are your descendants who inherit your estate. Apart from your estate, they also inherit your good name (assuming you have one! ). If somebody published a defamatory article about you for example, they have an interest in try to defend it by legitimate means. Now suppose you are a Catholic (and a Mormon hater!), and you dropped dead tomorrow; and two years later one of your descendants became a Mormon, and decided to do temple work on your behalf; what right do you, as a dead person, have to stop it? The answer is that you have none. What right do other Catholics have to stop it? None! What right has the Catholic Church? None! What right do they have even to be “offended” by it? Answer: None! It has nothing to do with them, and it is none of their business. If my dad was a Catholic, and I wanted to do temple work for him as Mormon, who cares that other Catholics don’t like it? I wouldn’t!

If you really wanted to go to the extreme, I suppose you could leave a will behind stating that after your death you don’t want to be baptized by proxy in a Mormon Temple. But even then, it is doubtful that will can be legally enforced. Who is going to enforce it? Those who inherit your estate will have to decide to enforce it; and if they (or one of them) became a Mormon, they can override it. There is no legal mechanism as far as I can tell that can prevent them from doing it. A dead person basically has not legal rights. All the rights belong to his or her descendants; and if they decided to have him baptized, there is nothing that anybody else can to about it. They have not right even to be “offended” by it, because it has nothing to do with them.

P.S. I had by mistake posted this on another thread. I am now reposting it here.

hmmmm…are you a Freemason?

 

[zerinus]

That’s kinda the point. I, as my father’s descendant, have the responsibility to defend his name. The mormons have taken his good name without his or my permission and performed religious rituals using his name. That is unacceptable.

“The Mormons haven’t,” one of his descendants has, which they have every right to do.

 

[amontoya]

“The Mormons haven’t,” one of his descendants has, which they have every right to do.

I’m sorry, but what is so difficult to understand that he has two descendants: me and my brother. We aren’t mormon. We didn’t do those ordinances or submit his name for them to be done.

So, again, NO his descendants did not perform these ordinances on his behalf. “The mormons” did! And no, they don’t have every right to do so.

 

[zerinus]

I’m sorry, but what is so difficult to understand that he has two descendants: me and my brother. We aren’t mormon. We didn’t do those ordinances or submit his name for them to be done.

So, again, NO his descendants did not perform these ordinances on his behalf. “The mormons” did! And no, they don’t have every right to do so.

Then he has another surviving relative who has done it, such as a brother, or sister, or uncle, Nephew etc. They have every right to.

 

[amontoya]

Then he has another surviving relative who has done it, such as a brother, or sister, or uncle, Nephew etc. They have every right to.

No, actually he doesn’t. Like I’ve already written, only me and my brother.

 

[ParkerD]

When I searched for the IGI index, what came up was familysearch.org which is where I found my father’s name to begin with. So this means someone’s already done his “ordinances”?

This doesn’t answer my question. Researching your own family history is one thing, performing religious rituals on somebody else’s family is another. As I’ve already written, my father’s only living family aren’t mormon, so why would his name be in a database that is specifically for members of the LDS church to utilize in order to perform ordinances on THEIR deceased relatives?

Amontoya,
If you’ll please be a little patient as you work through the answer to your question about your father. FamilySearch has several databases that use a common system that you can use to research a name with a date and place they lived. If you enter that name, you will see some possible “hits” that match the criteria you entered. One or more may be from the “IGI”, one or more from the “Personal Ancestral File”, and others from other files. So the fact that his name came up on “FamilySearch” means that his name (or someone who lived about the same time with the same name) comes up in one of the databases. But if not the IGI, then I doubt that his “temple ordinance work” was done by anyone. It simply means that somehow there is data in one or more of the systems that is fed by several databases for people doing research (not just LDS), that matches the criteria you entered. So I suggest you enter the name as a search, and see which database comes up as the matching database.