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

[kalt]

Did you see my follow up thread? The mormontimes newspaper puts the story for all to understand.

mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/joel_campbell/?id=11233

…I am truly disappointed if LDS Church members who are not relatives to Father Damien did this. If relatives did this, then they followed the rules. Latter-day Saints have a connection to Father Damien. Because of the LDS membership in Hawaii, Latter-day Saints benefited from Father Damien’s service. In fact, an 84-year-old leprosy survivor who is Mormon attended the canonization service. Mormons should revere Father Damien, but not this way if there was no familial connection.

When newspapers run stories critical of someone or something they usually rely on more than one source.

Yet in Radkey’s case, it’s open-mic night at the Trib.

Another issue that ought to worry readers is just how Utah’s Independent Voice is independent from Radkey’s manipulation. Who knows if Radkey has hoarded a long list of perceived LDS offenses and is simply waiting to dribble them out each slowly to the Tribune for maximum self-serving effect.

Furthermore, in the most recent article about Father Damien, several key questions appeared unasked. Is it possible that Father Damien did have relatives that did submit his name for temple work? The Tribune never explains what a task it might be to police the LDS Church’s honor system. How often does the system fail? How many names are submitted a year? How many names are there in the system? Have violators been disciplined? What has the church done to improve the system? The church may not answer many of these questions, but there should be some evidence that the Tribune asked them. Let’s hope the award-winning religion reporters at the Tribune do a better job next time.

A draft of this column was provided to the Salt Lake Tribune for comment. The following a response from Terry Orme, Tribune managing editor for news and business:

"Our decisions on whether or not to report on LDS Church proxy baptisms are handled the same way we handle all news decisions. We ask: Is this news? And: Is this something our readers should know?

"You answer the first question when you say the story makes its way around the world. And as a prominent source of LDS Church news, it is safe to say a proxy baptism and sealing of a Catholic saint to a wife is a story Salt Lake Tribune readers would want to read. If we were to choose to not report it, I would have to ask: Are we fulfilling our commitment to readers?

“We always verify Helen Radkey’s information and of course the LDS Church was contacted for the story. We have run numerous questions past the church on this subject, but they rarely go beyond a statement. Any context they provide would be most valuable and welcome.”

About using Radkey as a source for stories: “We clearly identified her as a critic of the LDS Church, and pointed out that she hits on this issue a lot. Sen. Orrin Hatch is a critic of the Obama administration. Should we stop quoting him?”

About the story needing more context and voices: "We attempted to contact Roman Catholic leaders, but were unsuccessful. I, too, feel the need for more context on many stories. That is a reality of daily journalism. But in this case it wasn’t for lack of trying.

"The bottom line is that many people of many faiths take offense at the practice of proxy baptisms. And what made this even more troubling to many of them is the sealing of a canonized Catholic priest to a wife.

“You say The Salt Lake Tribune has been recognized nationally for our religion coverage. What you don’t say is that The Tribune’s coverage of the LDS Church is singled out when our coverage is called the best in the nation.”

---

What gives a relative he right to change someone’s relgigious affiliation (even just on paper) after the person is dead?

LDS really just doesn’t get it. Are they being willfully dense?

 

[kimmielittle]

Did you see my follow up thread? The mormontimes newspaper puts the story for all to understand.

mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/joel_campbell/?id=11233

…I am truly disappointed if LDS Church members who are not relatives to Father Damien did this. If relatives did this, then they followed the rules. Latter-day Saints have a connection to Father Damien. Because of the LDS membership in Hawaii, Latter-day Saints benefited from Father Damien’s service. In fact, an 84-year-old leprosy survivor who is Mormon attended the canonization service. Mormons should revere Father Damien, but not this way if there was no familial connection.

When newspapers run stories critical of someone or something they usually rely on more than one source.

Yet in Radkey’s case, it’s open-mic night at the Trib.

Another issue that ought to worry readers is just how Utah’s Independent Voice is independent from Radkey’s manipulation. Who knows if Radkey has hoarded a long list of perceived LDS offenses and is simply waiting to dribble them out each slowly to the Tribune for maximum self-serving effect.

Furthermore, in the most recent article about Father Damien, several key questions appeared unasked. Is it possible that Father Damien did have relatives that did submit his name for temple work? The Tribune never explains what a task it might be to police the LDS Church’s honor system. How often does the system fail? How many names are submitted a year? How many names are there in the system? Have violators been disciplined? What has the church done to improve the system? The church may not answer many of these questions, but there should be some evidence that the Tribune asked them. Let’s hope the award-winning religion reporters at the Tribune do a better job next time.

A draft of this column was provided to the Salt Lake Tribune for comment. The following a response from Terry Orme, Tribune managing editor for news and business:

"Our decisions on whether or not to report on LDS Church proxy baptisms are handled the same way we handle all news decisions. We ask: Is this news? And: Is this something our readers should know?

"You answer the first question when you say the story makes its way around the world. And as a prominent source of LDS Church news, it is safe to say a proxy baptism and sealing of a Catholic saint to a wife is a story Salt Lake Tribune readers would want to read. If we were to choose to not report it, I would have to ask: Are we fulfilling our commitment to readers?

“We always verify Helen Radkey’s information and of course the LDS Church was contacted for the story. We have run numerous questions past the church on this subject, but they rarely go beyond a statement. Any context they provide would be most valuable and welcome.”

About using Radkey as a source for stories: “We clearly identified her as a critic of the LDS Church, and pointed out that she hits on this issue a lot. Sen. Orrin Hatch is a critic of the Obama administration. Should we stop quoting him?”

About the story needing more context and voices: "We attempted to contact Roman Catholic leaders, but were unsuccessful. I, too, feel the need for more context on many stories. That is a reality of daily journalism. But in this case it wasn’t for lack of trying.

"The bottom line is that many people of many faiths take offense at the practice of proxy baptisms. And what made this even more troubling to many of them is the sealing of a canonized Catholic priest to a wife.

“You say The Salt Lake Tribune has been recognized nationally for our religion coverage. What you don’t say is that The Tribune’s coverage of the LDS Church is singled out when our coverage is called the best in the nation.”

---

Hiyas why me

Thank you!!!
I believe both sides made good points.

 

[kalt]

:: Snerk-snerk-snerk:: I can’t find the link, but this reminds of an absurd thread back in December, in which a non-Christian posted about some well-intentioned Catholic friend of his baptizing him (the non-Christian) while he was asleep! I’m calling it a mere case of “those wacky Mormons”.

Except that they keep a list of those who were supposedly baptized by proxy. Apparently, according the LDS (officially) any relative can have someone’s religious affiliation changed after death (on paper) so the record will show that they were baptized by proxy.

This isn’t the work of a rogue wacky Mormon. This is the Mromon religion. This is the offical stance of the LDS church.

It’s not enough that the living said yes to God and no to the Mormons in life. That isn’t enough of a clue to these thick-headed Mormons. Instead of taking that as the person’s final answer (an answer of Yes to God to the moment of death even), they choose to let any “relative” (even one who never knew the person!!! even someone several generations later!) change the person’s designation, as if the dead person would allow a baptism by proxy. We know from the Mormons here, that the baptism means nothing, that it has no effect (This is something that they admit.), so it’s all about the list. But what the Mormons are choosing not to acknowledge is that most people (at least everyone I know) would never want their names on that list, and they would turn over in their graves if they knew that their names were being brought up in one of these cult-like rituals.

It’s Halloween. Let’s all let our wacked-out relatives put our names on the coven’s list of the initiated.

 

[kalt]

I would like to know, too, for sure, if the relative has to be in a direct line to the victim. Can the nephew of a nephew submit the name? And what about in-laws? If someone’s wife re-marries after her husband’s death, can the children of her children (with the 2nd husband) submit the first husband’s name?

The obvious answer to those questions is, yes. They are baptizing nuns and priests who didn’t have children. They’ve been dead for a generation or more, so the closest relatives alive to commit this dishonest act are nieces and nephews, people are not in a direct line.

 

[kimmielittle]

it’s all about the list…

I agree.

 

[kimmielittle]

I would like to know, too, for sure, if the relative has to be in a direct line to the victim. Can the nephew of a nephew submit the name? And what about in-laws? If someone’s wife re-marries after her husband’s death, can the children of her children (with the 2nd husband) submit the first husband’s name?

The obvious answer to those questions is, yes. They are baptizing nuns and priests who didn’t have children. They’ve been dead for a generation or more, so the closest relatives alive to commit this dishonest act are nieces and nephews, people are not in a direct line.

integrity

 

[why_me]

Hiyas why me

Thank you!!!
I believe both sides made good points.

I must know you. The whole thing is much ado about nothing in my opinion. Over zealous Mormons did the work on the good father, possibly. End of story. The mormons are following their doctrine and this doctrine has been followed for well over a hundred years. Now everyone is getting bent out of shape over it. In the past, no one really cared.

It just shows that the mormons are gaining in influence and as such, they are targets.

 

[kimmielittle]

This statement alone, should stand: We do not believe in the practice of baptismal by proxy!

It says it all.

 

[why_me]

What gives a relative he right to change someone’s relgigious affiliation (even just on paper) after the person is dead?

Their religious faith.

 

[kimmielittle]

I must know you. The whole thing is much ado about nothing in my opinion. Over zealous Mormons did the work on the good father, possibly. End of story. The mormons are following their doctrine and this doctrine has been followed for well over a hundred years. Now everyone is getting bent out of shape over it. In the past, no one really cared.

It just shows that the mormons are gaining in influence and as such, they are targets.

I don’t believe in targeting Mormons …by the same token, I don’t wish to be their target…in this life or the other

 

[kimmielittle]

This is exactly why most faiths don’t practice it.

 

[kalt]

I must know you. The whole thing is much ado about nothing in my opinion. Over zealous Mormons did the work on the good father, possibly. End of story. The mormons are following their doctrine and this doctrine has been followed for well over a hundred years. Now everyone is getting bent out of shape over it. In the past, no one really cared.

It just shows that the mormons are gaining in influence and as such, they are targets.

I think it’s that the acts they are commiting are known to a wider audience now, because of the Net. If it weren’t for the Net (this forum), who knows if I would have ever heard of this list-building.

It’s not a case of their becomming more influential. It’s a case of having no place to hide.

 

[kalt]

 

[kalt]

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept that we are NOT 'chang[ing] someone’s religion, even if it’s only on paper." WE can’t do that! WE don’t think that those people we do proxy work for are Mormons, unless the people for whom the work is done actively accept and want to BE Mormons.

In that case, which one of us is being disrespectful; we, who are simply offering a choice to the person concerned, or you–who have taken it upon yourself to determine what someone else must think and believe?

You also seem to be conflating the arguments. “The dumbest argument I’ve ever heard” was specifically this claim that in a hundred years people will be too stupid to read the actual records…and that this stupidity would ‘take the Jewishness’ away from Holocaust victims…and that this would 'play into the hands of Holocaust deniers."

the agreement was that we wouldn’t do work for Holocaust victims who were not directly related to those Mormons submitting their names. I’m all for that agreement. I think it should be kept.

…but not because some hysterical idiot decides that what we do means that nobody was murdered during the Holocaust.

Yes, you just don’t grasp the concept of respect. You make all kinds of high-sounding proclamations and then go right back to the flawed idea that relatives have the right to change someone’s religious designation (baptized by proxy, accepted or not) on paper.

I would never want to be baptized by proxy in the Mormon church, and yet you still claim that some distant relative years from know has the right to put my name on that list.

That is disprespectful. The fact that a deluded future distant relatve of mine would agree to this doesn’t release the LDS church (and you, in the present) from responsibility. You are as guilty as those relatives who are submitting the names.

A Mormon with integrity would stand up against this practice.

And stop pretending not to understand our point - that the fake baptism does nothing even you admit. It’s the list we object to. It’s the taking a dead person’s name and adding it to a list of people who are baptized (by proxy, even) by the Mormon church when these people didn’t say yes. It’s a simple concept that you are willfully refusing to acknowledge.

You admit that the baptism is a sham baptism–that it has no effect. It’s not about the baptism, since we all agree that it is nothing. It’s about disrespecting the dead by performing cult-like rituals in the name of someone who had clearly said “No” to your offer while alive. Religion is a choice. Mormonism was a choice that the dead refused in life. Taking their name and adding it to your list of sham baptisms is disrespectful.

These priests and nuns (especially) made a postive (meaning an active Yes) choice to be Catholic. They could have been Mormon is they chose. They chose, instead, to say Yes to God. To disregard their positve Yes to God and instead perform a sham baptism in their name, including their name of those “baptized” in another religion is disrespectful.

It’s easy to understand. You must be choosing not to acknowledge that you and your church are wrong. Are you a blind follower (anything your church does is right) or are you playing a game here?

 

[kalt]

The Mormons on this board (and apparently the whole LDS church) are ignoring the fact that Father Damien made a postive (an active “Yes”) choice to be Catholic. His wishes are well-known. He was a Catholic by choice. He became a priest by choice. He was a servant, even, in his church. His “Yes” cannot be in question.

To take his “Yes” and proclaim (by including his name on the list) that his “Yes” was a “Maybe” is disrespectful.

 

[kimmielittle]

As to the Biblical interpretation of 1 Corinthians; Chapter 15, line 29.

I think it’s how we interpret the Greek word ‘baptizontai’ …albeit there is no Greek word for ‘they’…this word is indicative, third person, passive, present and plural…the closest word now… would be… ‘they’.

To me, Paul is speaking of the pagan ritual performed - the Christians were not practicing this ritual. But pagans were and Paul was referring to these people…basically saying…‘IF even these people they that baptize the dead ] believe in resurrection…why do you have a problem’

My God doesn’t mince words…i.e. 'thou shall…
My Jesus isn’t wimpish either i.e. 'verily I say unto…

I don’t see either saying to do so.
So the weight is left upon Paul and his Ministries…can we find where Paul physically baptized the dead?

As always, just my thoughts

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . Apparently, according the LDS (officially) any relative can have someone’s religious affiliation changed after death (on paper) so the record will show that they were baptized by proxy.

This isn’t the work of a rogue wacky Mormon. This is the Mromon religion. This is the offical stance of the LDS church.

It’s not enough that the living said yes to God and no to the Mormons in life. . . Instead of taking that as the person’s final answer (an answer of Yes to God to the moment of death even), they choose to let any “relative” (even one who never knew the person!!! even someone several generations later!) change the person’s designation, as if the dead person would allow a baptism by proxy. We know from the Mormons here, that the baptism means nothing, that it has no effect (This is something that they admit.), so it’s all about the list. But what the Mormons are choosing not to acknowledge is that most people (at least everyone I know) would never want their names on that list, and they would turn over in their graves if they knew that their names were being brought up in one of these cult-like rituals.

It’s Halloween. Let’s all let our wacked-out relatives put our names on the coven’s list of the initiated.

I would like to know, too, for sure, if the relative has to be in a direct line to the victim. Can the nephew of a nephew submit the name? And what about in-laws? If someone’s wife re-marries after her husband’s death, can the children of her children (with the 2nd husband) submit the first husband’s name?

The obvious answer to those questions is, yes. They are baptizing nuns and priests who didn’t have children. They’ve been dead for a generation or more, so the closest relatives alive to commit this dishonest act are nieces and nephews, people are not in a direct line.

Yes, you just don’t grasp the concept of respect. You make all kinds of high-sounding proclamations and then go right back to the flawed idea that relatives have the right to change someone’s religious designation (baptized by proxy, accepted or not) on paper.

I would never want to be baptized by proxy in the Mormon church, and yet you still claim that some distant relative years from know has the right to put my name on that list.

That is disprespectful. The fact that a deluded future distant relatve of mine would agree to this doesn’t release the LDS church (and you, in the present) from responsibility. You are as guilty as those relatives who are submitting the names.

A Mormon with integrity would stand up against this practice.

And stop pretending not to understand our point - that the fake baptism does nothing even you admit. It’s the list we object to. It’s the taking a dead person’s name and adding it to a list of people who are baptized (by proxy, even) by the Mormon church when these people didn’t say yes. It’s a simple concept that you are willfully refusing to acknowledge.

You admit that the baptism is a sham baptism–that it has no effect. It’s not about the baptism, since we all agree that it is nothing. It’s about disrespecting the dead by performing cult-like rituals in the name of someone who had clearly said “No” to your offer while alive. Religion is a choice. Mormonism was a choice that the dead refused in life. Taking their name and adding it to your list of sham baptisms is disrespectful.

These priests and nuns (especially) made a postive (meaning an active Yes) choice to be Catholic. They could have been Mormon is they chose. They chose, instead, to say Yes to God. To disregard their positve Yes to God and instead perform a sham baptism in their name, including their name of those “baptized” in another religion is disrespectful.

It’s easy to understand. You must be choosing not to acknowledge that you and your church are wrong. Are you a blind follower (anything your church does is right) or are you playing a game here?

The Mormons on this board (and apparently the whole LDS church) are ignoring the fact that Father Damien made a postive (an active “Yes”) choice to be Catholic. His wishes are well-known. He was a Catholic by choice. He became a priest by choice. He was a servant, even, in his church. His “Yes” cannot be in question.

To take his “Yes” and proclaim (by including his name on the list) that his “Yes” was a “Maybe” is disrespectful.

Dianaiad:

People are telling you, in just about every possible way, how disrespectful and disturbing the Proxy Baptisms are. This is no acceptable excuse for this practice. There is nothing the Mormon Church can say that will cause us to feel differently.

I know that you are passionately defending your faith. We all are.

I realized this morning that you are defending the practices of your religion, on this thread, almost entirely alone. Where are all the other LDS Forum Members? I know there are quite a few. They are posting on other Threads. Yet, they seem to have left you to battle this one alone. Somehow, that doesn’t seem right.

I strongly disagree with what you are saying; but it is a bit disturbing to see you are left to defend this issue alone. I think WhyMe is Mormon, but where is everyone else?

Anna

 

[Janet1983]

If a really bad person gets baptized by the Mormons after death, would he be still cast into Outer Darkness?

Well I guess not, but I’m not 100% sure.
Let’s take that person that I made up earlier… James Robert Smith:
He would end up in Spirit Prison to be begin with because he hasn’t been a Mormon during his lifetime. There he would be able to learn the Mormon gospel of Jesus Christ and repent of their sins after death and before judgement. He would also be able to receive the ordinances that have been done for him by the members of the LDS church.
Because he has all the ordinances he would enter into the highest kingdom after the judgment (Celestial Kingdom) and because he has been sealed to his wife he would even inherit the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom and would become “exalted” and be permitted to live “the kind of life God lives” and “to become like him”.
Without marriage he would still end up in the Celestial Kingdom (which is the permanent residence of the Father and Jesus Christ), but he wouldn’t become a god.
The Terrestrial Kingdom is kind of complicated to me… As James received all of the ordinances and as I assumed he would have accepted them I think he would go all the way up… The Terrestrial Kingdom is inhabited by people who lived a good life, but did not know the full Mormon gospel (through the deeds of men) and thus rejected it. There are also those who rejected the Mormon gospel when it was presented to them in their mortal lives and then accepted it in the spirit world… and those who did receive it but did not remain in it… This Kingdom sees the full glory of Jesus Christ but not the full glory of the Father.
Then there is the lowest heaven, the Telestial Kingdom… all those who fit not in above mentioned categories, but are not “Sons of Perdition” go here and are servants, only being ministered to by inhabitants of the Terrestrial Kingdom and the Holy Spirit.
You’ll find all kinds of sinners here who never heard of the Mormon gospel… It’s glory is still described as unfathomable…

Diana correct me if I’m wrong in the above description… I was trying to be as accurate as possible…

I personally wonder how there would be anybody in the Telestial Kingdom or outer darkness according to this system… Anybody in the spirit world still can become a Mormon and thereby get to at least the Terrestrial Kingdom… with ordinances even further…

You all know what I think about all this. I am a Christian believing that we only get a chance here and that the thought of becoming a god is rather blasphemous…

 

[ParkerD]

Dianaiad:

People are telling you, in just about every possible way, how disrespectful and disturbing the Proxy Baptisms are. This is no acceptable excuse for this practice. There is nothing the Mormon Church can say that will cause us to feel differently.

I know that you are passionately defending your faith. We all are.

I realized this morning that you are defending the practices of your religion, on this thread, almost entirely alone. Where are all the other LDS Forum Members? I know there are quite a few. They are posting on other Threads. Yet, they seem to have left you to battle this one alone. Somehow, that doesn’t seem right.

I strongly disagree with what you are saying; but it is a bit disturbing to see you are left to defend this issue alone. I think WhyMe is Mormon, but where is everyone else?

Anna

Anna Scott,
I had participated earlier and made the points I thought were pertinent, plus I really like Dianaiad’s logic and able defense. Why should someone like me “butt in”? I have seen no reason to do so during your back-and-forth discussion. (But I’ll probably add another comment about the question Christine had asked yesterday.)

 

[Janet1983]

I went to familysearch.org and entered Elizabeth Ann Seton, selected birth for the event, 1774 for the year, and United States for the country. One listing comes up. After clicking on it, I scrolled down to “source information” and clicked on the “film number” link. Clicking that link brings up this: “Baptisms for the Dead (Salt Lake Temple), 1893-1943; heir indexes,1893-1960.” I clicked on that, and on the next screen under notes, I read, “HEIR INDEXES list a family representative at whose instance the baptisms were performed.”

Thank you… not all persons filed there actually do have source information… and the database is not very reliable when it comes to ease of use, structure and completeness…
Living relatives are not in there and many siblings are missing… Some have up to 20 entries with more or less the same information… Some information seems to be right out wrong… This database needs a serious overhaul, so I wouldn’t trust it’s contents all the way…