Deseret News | Catholics told not to give LDS parish data

Reader comments
Catholics told not to give LDS parish data

777 comments | Read story

Not a dead mormon...yet | 1:23 p.m. May 5, 2008

No wonder the LDS have 13 million members and growing. People die every day!

Get Real! | 1:25 p.m. May 5, 2008

Many have stated that we as LDS would be upset if our ancestors were baptized in other churches after they were dead. I can guarantee that almost all faithful LDS people couldn't care less! We know that ordinances done without the real authority of God mean nothing, thus they would just be taking a bath with a name, not really baptizing anything.

And do you really think Jesus would say, "Well you lived a Christ-Like life and would have got into heaven, but it looks like 350 years after you died someone baptized you in a different church so you're screwed."????????

jt | 1:26 p.m. May 5, 2008

that is why i do not believe in orgainized religion. Jesus was not orgainized, He was spontaneous. He was charismatic. He did not write sermons. He spoke with his heart. You Lds take things out of concept. The bible guides you, not men.

Comments continue below

Catholic Me | 1:36 p.m. May 5, 2008

Will you Mormons stop the deception already!!? It is NOT TRUE that Catholics "do not understand baptism for the dead"! We understand completely! It is NOT TRUE that we believe your baptisms are legitimate and that is why we oppose them! Your "priesthood" is a false priesthood and has no legitimacy whatsoever. It is precisely BECAUSE we understand your doctrine of baptism for the dead, and precisely BECAUSE we think your temple rites are bogus and wrong that we oppose your access to our records!

Stop the spin! Stop the games! Just leave our sacred dead alone!

Thomas | 1:41 p.m. May 5, 2008

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't recognize LDS baptisms as valid, and requires converts from Mormonism to Catholicism to be rebaptized. Since the RCC does not single out Protestant baptisms as similarly invalid, I can't help but to see this as an arrogant, unfriendly act.

In any event, if the RCC doesn't recognize LDS baptisms as valid, it shouldn't be insulted that the LDS view RCC baptisms as invalid, and therefore practice baptism for the dead.

Where's Cromwell when you need him?

Anonymous | 1:43 p.m. May 5, 2008

To 'Cuts both ways':

**Would it bother mormons if let's say the FLDS were re-doing the temple ordinances because they figured the mainstream LDS had gone astray.

The LDS church would be all over that like white on rice. So why be surprised that other churches don't like the LDS church doing the same?**

No, wouldn't bother us/LDS at all as the FLDS can't & don't use our temples. They'd have to join our church & be worthy of a temple recommend before they'd ever be allowed to attend a temple. They can redo whatever they want in their own temples...as LDS members it doesn't matter to us as we are a totally seperate religion from them.

RE: Get Real | 1:49 p.m. May 5, 2008

Maybe the arrogant attitude you have saying others baptisms are just "taking a bath" is the reason the Catholic church is taking a hard stance.

James Gaede | 2:06 p.m. May 5, 2008

To Just Me and Biblical Practice:

please read 1 Peter 3:19-20, for what purpose did Christ preach to the spirits that were dead if baptism for the dead is invalid.

Alex | 2:06 p.m. May 5, 2008

Catholic Me:

"It is precisely BECAUSE we understand your doctrine of baptism for the dead, and precisely BECAUSE we think your temple rites are bogus and wrong that we oppose your access to our records! "

If that is true, that is all the more reason why it shouldn't matter to the Catholic Church. If what we are doing is bogus, it will ultimately have no effect, will it. So why worry?

Last time I checked | 2:09 p.m. May 5, 2008

the ordinance of baptism for the dead was proxy or "in name only". Seems that many people on here feel like it's an actual event with the body and all. Every time the Pope prays for everyone in the world, he is praying to God for me (a Mormon). Should I take offense at that?

porky | 2:09 p.m. May 5, 2008

what's the point of prohibiting something (proxy baptism) you don't believe in (Mormonism) anyway? Are they afraid there just might be some truth in the LDS faith?

Nick Hudson | 2:16 p.m. May 5, 2008

I would say that, despite my personal wishing that the Catholic Church would not close the records, the fact reamins that they do own them. That means that they can use them or not allow them to be used as they wish. We can make doctrinal arguments all day in regards to the rationality of the decision but, as the owners of the records, the Catholic Church has every right to close those records.

By-Mexico | 2:18 p.m. May 5, 2008

For at least fifty years the LDS church has been micofilming the genelogical records of the Catholic Church and municipal records in Mexico. The quid pro quo was that a copy of the micorfilm is given to the Catholic church as a permanent record since the written records tend to decompose and are lost. There are two parties who loose in this decision besides those who desire the records for geneological purposes. The decision is short sighted when issued for the reasons given.

LDSmom | 2:23 p.m. May 5, 2008

Chris:

*Did the Catholic church also decide to refuse LDS humanitarian aid in the future?*

Would kind of serve them right but of course the church wouldn't turn down anyone who needed aid regardless of their religion.

*I guess I can see the Catholic church's point--if my version of "truth" did not include a doctrinal ordinance clearly mentioned (and practiced) in the New Testament times, I might have some "grave reservations" too.*

LOL, that was very cleverly worded. :=)

tired of the bashing | 2:40 p.m. May 5, 2008

baptizing the dead is simply unture to catholic scripture. thats why they are not allowing it. maybe they consider it blasphemy. but in the p.c. world we live in maybe the church doesn't want to say it in a way to hurt anyones feeling. even if those persons feelings may mean more to them than what may be sciptually correct.

Connie | 2:45 p.m. May 5, 2008

Just tell me, Is there any religion out there doesn't bash another religion? NOPE! All religions BASH each other. Everyone of them is true, but none of them are truthful. So I say, forget all of them, and just be a nice guy. Basically life is based on 2 things..Good and Evil. Its all up to each individual to choose thier own path. Religion has nothing to do with who you truly are.

If the Catholics want to be stinky and stingy with records-- so who cares! Perhaps the LDS church should charge admission to their Family research center...just kidding!

Andrew | 2:49 p.m. May 5, 2008

As a Jew, I find it sickening, arrogant and disrespectful for the LDS church to posthumously baptize people who would never have done so during their lifetime. I know about the church baptizing dead Holocaust victims so it doesn't surprise me that they are trampling on others' graves. For shame!

Ammon | 2:56 p.m. May 5, 2008

I wish everyone would just calm down and trust the Lord, He will do what needs to be done for His kingdom. Is anything too hard for the Lord? This is nothing for Him to take care of. "What power can stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven." D&C 121:33

To me, this will allow the Lord to provide a miracle, I can't wait!

Alex | 3:00 p.m. May 5, 2008

tired of the bashing:

"baptizing the dead is simply unture to catholic scripture. thats why they are not allowing it. maybe they consider it blasphemy. "

Thats fine, but why have they been allowing us to microfilm the records all this time? It is not like they didn't know what we did. I want to be clear that I have nothing but the highest respect for Pope Benedict XVI. I've loved his strong stance on many issues. Moreover, the Catholic Church has been very helpful and generous in the past with regards to giving us access to their records. That is why I am a bit confused with all of this.

Re: Andrew | 3:06 p.m. May 5, 2008

"I find it sickening, arrogant and disrespectful for the LDS church to posthumously baptize people who would never have done so during their lifetime."

How do you know they wouldn't accept this gift of love if they were given an opportunity to study the gospel in an unbiased, completely open setting, such as the place where all spirits go when they depart this life?

Members of the LDS church perform these ordinances for their own ancestors. The last thing they would want to do is to disrespect those ancestors. We care just as much about those ancestors as people from other faiths do.

LDSmom | 3:06 p.m. May 5, 2008

**I would think there would be a cry of outrage among the LDS folk if Catholics suddenly baptized deceased, life-long, temple worthy, LDS members. How about church prophets? How about those who died while in service of the LDS Church?

It is the height of arrogance to claim the "souls" of those like Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, and anyone else who lived worthy lives dedicated to their own faiths. It is a matter of respect.**

It's of no concern to us if those of other religions want to baptize our dead as we believe we have the full truth & our baptisms are the only ones performed by the proper & authorized authority bestowed by God on worthy priesthood holders.

No, it's not arrogance. It's LDS people offering a saving ordinance that others have the right to accept or reject in the next life. The majority of those others will be eternally grateful that this was done for them.

Nick Hudson | 3:10 p.m. May 5, 2008

I still don't understand the shame in doing it or the outrage at someone disallowing it. People are only baptized if a family member brings the record, not in blanket style. These are not performed by the church but rather individuals who are related to the person. If a person feels it important to perform a certain act for a deceased ancestor out of love then I do not understand the outrage. As a family member it seems their right. At the same time, if a group does not want their records to be used then that is their choice and should be respected. I just don't understand why we are so quick to disgust and slow to understand.

Mark | 3:12 p.m. May 5, 2008

@ Thomas 1:41 p.m:

Your reference to Cromwell was mean-spirited.

For those who don't know, Oliver Cromwell butchered Catholics in Ireland and Scotland in the 17th century. Many LDS would be offended if someone said "Where are Gov. Boggs and the mobsters when you need them?"

Mark | 3:17 p.m. May 5, 2008

@ Nick Hudson:

The Church does submit names in mass groupings for temple work. Have you ever heard of the name extraction program? Our stake submits tens of thousands of Spanish names each year. And we aren't related to them directly in any sense.

Which Way? How Far? | 3:18 p.m. May 5, 2008

The Late Pope John Paul II was known for getting along with others worldwide. He did alot to BUILD Bridges of understanding and respect. The Late
Gordon B. Hinckley also did alot to BUILD Bridges of understanding and respect. I'm sure that President Thomas S. Monson will follow in Gordon B. Hinckley's
way of doing things, but it looks like Pope
Benedict 13 is going in the opposite direction. Going in the reverse direction is a form of "Fundamentalist" type thinking. Warren Jeffs and
his followers do not OWN the word "Fundamentalist".
Extreme "Fundamentalism..." is VERY Dangerous. It robs respect and dignity of the individual and throws up "walls" of disrespect, intolerance, and
bigotry. The Warren Jeffs group has gone a very long way in that directiion --WELL PAST Respect of civil laws and obedience to those civil laws.

"Extreme" Muslim Fundamentalism thought it was OK
and actually desirable to fly airplanes into tall buildings in New York City on 9/11. Extreme "Fundamentalism" of anything is extremely
DANGEROUS.

How far is Pope Benedict 13 going in the Fundamentalist direction?? Will it go to the point of a Fundamentalist Catholic Church?

I Hope Not.

LDSmom | 3:23 p.m. May 5, 2008

To "To Julie":

**I wonder how you would feel if a group that you thought was a cult, say The Church of Satan, baptised your family into their Church. Would you like it??? I am not saying anything against the LDS Church, I am saying that many would find it understandably offensive.**

Wouldn't phase us as we believe our baptisms are the only ones done by those who hold true & authorized priesthood authority.

sheesh | 3:24 p.m. May 5, 2008

Oh Please. Blah blah blah The true church blah blah blah Listen. The Catholics 1 billion. Mormons including the Fundamental, maybe 10 million. You are insignficant to them thats why your not getting the records. They don't care. It has nothing to do with being threatened by you. It's like a butterfly on an elephant. They don't even notice it. Sorry. But it's true.

get it right NOW | 3:27 p.m. May 5, 2008

The Bible is clear that death is the end of all chances. Hebrews 9:27 tells us that we die, and then face judgment. So, as long as a person is alive, he has a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. chance to accept Christ and be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). Once a person dies, there are no more chances.

What about those who do not believe? Wouldnï¿½t they repent and believe if they were given a second chance? The answer is no, they would not because their hearts are not changed simply because they die. Their hearts and minds ï¿½are at enmityï¿½ against God and wonï¿½t accept Him even when they see Him face to face. This is evidenced clearly in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.

re: Thomas | 1:41 p.m | 3:27 p.m. May 5, 2008

"The Roman Catholic Church doesn't recognize LDS baptisms as valid, and requires converts from Mormonism to Catholicism to be rebaptized. Since the RCC does not single out Protestant baptisms as similarly invalid, I can't help but to see this as an arrogant, unfriendly act."

As far as I know, most christian churches, as well as the Catholic church do not recognize the authority of Mormon baptism. It is not meant to be an unfriendly act, as you say...but rooted in the trinitarian belief. This is why some baptisms from other churches are in fact, recognized. Mormons do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe the LDS baptize in Jesus name only.

Those spirits you are saving, have already chosen or not chosen to be saved. It is an offensive and elitist view to think that you can save them from their Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist...etc, beliefs. They have already made those choices while they were living. Mormon baptism does not supersede all others, and Christian churches/Jewish synagogues do find it very offensive that you take it upon yourselves to baptize their faithful deceased members into a non-christian or non-judaism religion...without anyone's consent.

Shoes | 3:29 p.m. May 5, 2008

Of course the LDS would be offend if the situation were reversed. A few years ago a stupid basketball player insulted the mormons, and people went ballistic. They wrote letter after angry letter to the papers demanding he apologize. They felt very persecuted. They looked like idiots.

If another religion was baptizing LDS dead, and proclaiming that the LDS dead needed the ordinance to be saved, we'd see the same kind of thing happen.

The near-complete inability of Utah mormons to put themselves in someone else's shoes staggers the mind.

Naive | 3:32 p.m. May 5, 2008

The bottom line is this: It is naive to think the Catholic Church considers the LDS Church a threat or pays any attention to our comments regarding their actions. The Vatican runs an organization with a population four times the size of the population of the US. The Pope signs numerous documents on a regular basis, and this is probably already old news. To the Vatican, the issue of church records is most likely no more than a minor irritant coming from a tiny US-based religious group that is but a blip on the radar screen to the Catholic Church. To put it into perspective, Catholic church growth has slowed to one percent a year, or 12 million new members a year. That is the size of our entire LDS Church.

Alex | 3:33 p.m. May 5, 2008

Mark:

"Your reference to Cromwell was mean-spirited. "

I'll second that. I am hoping that what Thomas was trying to say didn't come out right. Oliver Cromwell is rightly a very sensitive issue for Catholics.

dispatches from for-mon | 3:33 p.m. May 5, 2008

"...People are only baptized if a family member brings the record, not in blanket style. These are not performed by the church but rather individuals who are related to the person. If a person feels it important to perform a certain act for a deceased ancestor out of love then I do not understand the outrage..."

My wife, a former Mormon (Praise God for that!), reports that as a teenager, she did temple work as part of a LDS youth group, which specifically included 'baptisms for the dead'; she says she knew none of the people on the list and that none of them were her ancestors nor members of her family.

no respecter of persons | 3:41 p.m. May 5, 2008

God is no respecter of persons. LDS doctrine teaches that everyone who has ever lived deserves the right to accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ and its saving ordinances.

Members work diligently to trace their ancestral lines and to perform these ordinances on behalf of their deceased ancestors, respecting their right to accept or reject these ordinances.

My question to those who question this practice is what right do you have on behalf of your ancestors to reject this opportunity for them to choose?

Religion aside | 3:44 p.m. May 5, 2008

Regardless of beliefs, in today's society of access and open information, particularly in the area of finding out who your ancestors are, this decision to close access to members of a specific religion seems selfish and small minded. If I had information in my possession about who someone's parents, great grandparents or other ancestors were I would certainly share that information freely with them. It hardly seems Christ like or loving to close that door on people who want to know who their ancestors were, for whatever reason.

Alex | 3:45 p.m. May 5, 2008

re: Thomas:

"Mormons do not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe the LDS baptize in Jesus name only. "

Actually we do each and every time, and we have been doing it in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost from the very beginning.

Even so, it doesn't bother me that Catholics don't accept my baptism. Heck, I don't accept their baptism either. Its nothing personal. None of this, however, has never stopped me from having plenty of friends from other faiths.

Reader | 3:53 p.m. May 5, 2008

489 comments. Wow.

Seems this pushes some real hot buttons. I think I'll start having grave reservations too.

So much for bringing people together.

Andrew,/ Re: LDS Mom | 3:59 p.m. May 5, 2008

Yes, it is arrogant for those of you who decide that these old twelve white guys in Temple Square are "authorized" to baptize my parents and relatives who died in the Holocaust into a religion they would never accept no matter how "loving a gift" you seem to think it is. Keep your beliefs to yourself and other clones. I and just about everyone I know doesn't want to hear your tired old dogma.

larry | 4:01 p.m. May 5, 2008

After reading and reading and reading on this forum I would like to declare that the Catholic church has every right to its records. Logical, eh.

PS -- I am not a Catholic.

To Alex: | 4:01 p.m. May 5, 2008

The LDS Trinity and Christian Trinity are not the same. Look it up.

Hit a Nerve | 4:03 p.m. May 5, 2008

Wow, this story sure has HIT A NERVE!! I don't think I've ever seen this many comments on a single story. This is just a little opposition. The Lord is able to do His own work.

Macka | 4:09 p.m. May 5, 2008

sjc!

One church recognising another's baptism may happen. However, this is not correct doctrine. Paul himself re-baptised a number of men as they had not been baptised by one holding the correct authority.

Acts 19: 1-5
1 AND it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Clearly there is need to be baptized by the correct authority.

elliot | 4:17 p.m. May 5, 2008

These comments from both sides of the spectrum should be an eye-opener for us all.

Religion brings out the worst in people. I will let you sit here and fight about who has the correct baptism. When will we learn?

I can't wait until these ancient religions die down and the new ones start, maybe they will actually practice what they teach.

My family | 4:17 p.m. May 5, 2008

You people are fighting about nothing. If you go back 6-10 generations or so, on most Mormon lines their are Catholic lines of people who are direct lines that come back down to a particular Mormon person. So if the Mormon person has ancestors who were all Catholics and then this particular Mormon descender chooses to do work for the dead on his direct ancestors, who were all Catholic and Jewish, then he definitely has the right as a Mormon to do work for them because THEY ARE HIS FAMILY! I am a eight generation Mormon and I DIRECTLY have family lines back to Jewish and Catholic families, and as well, being a descendant of (Theologian Protestant Reformer) Martin Luther. These are my "direct" ancestors, so indeed, I will do the work within the Mormon church for "MY FAMILY". Does anyone have any objections to this?

to to alex | 4:26 p.m. May 5, 2008

you are right, they are not the same. Can you please scripturally corroborate the Catholic version of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost for us? I don't want you to use the Nicene Creed. I want you to use the scriptures where is says all 3 are 1 person....

I'll give you some hints...use the verses where Christ is baptized..or use the one of the Mount of Transfiguration...or use the one of the Intercessory Prayer....

Please, I'd like for you to scripturally tell us the Catholic version of the Trinity...

Wow Indeed | 4:27 p.m. May 5, 2008

Why does competing religious dogmas stir up so much division of among people? Aren't we ultimately human beings before anything we are member of a belief system? We can't we get together and focus on concerns facing us in the real world, all together, not as a group of Mormons, Catholics, etc in their separate religious groups, but as a group of human beings concerned with issues all people are concerned out, and let the standard be the evidence of our collective efforts to spread goodness in the world.

Instead of getting together to focus on life as we know it on this planet, lots of people prefer arguing over baptism. Why? I personally believe that issues we experience are more important than talk of an after life. Don't you?

Alex | 4:29 p.m. May 5, 2008

"The LDS Trinity and Christian Trinity are not the same. Look it up. "

I know. I was only answering Thomas statement to the effect that we only baptize in the name of the Son. We are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Three separate beings who are one in every other way other than being the same person. I know what the Trinity as defined by the early church councils is.

People...come now | 4:31 p.m. May 5, 2008

Folks, what do you think is going to be going on in the Millennium? It's going to be a 1000 years of genealogy work.

It really matters not if the Catholics or any other church gives up their names or not. They will be known in the Millennium and then the temple work will be done for them.

It's really cute and dried or in other words, plain and simple.

Catholics worship Mary. That's not in the scriptures. There version of the "trinity" isn't found in scripture. There version of baby baptism isn't in scripture. all of their rituals aren't found in scripture.

you know what is in scripture? Baptisms for the dead. Ever read 1 Peter 3:19? Will a Catholic believer please explain that scripture?

BTW, I don't know where this doing temple work is an act of "love" came from. For some, I'm sure doing their own family names it is a wonderful experience. However, it's a commandment and it has to be done no matter what.

AND, those who have died don't have an easier time of accepting the gospel versus those on the earth. Where did that come from?

Howard | 4:36 p.m. May 5, 2008

What a shame! So just because my Chinese ancestors never accepted Christ while they were alive, they are out of luck?

"Get it right NOW" suggests that they, along with the MAJORITY of humans since the race began are all consigned to Hell because the never even heard of Christ. That is merciful.

As for Catholic records, they own them. It is their choice. That is agency.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 4:37 p.m. May 5, 2008

Perhaps the Vatican representatives should know about this and ALLOW their Priest's and all other males to get married to a woman. Remember, the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. That's why Republican's as well as "normal people" call upon other responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.