Deseret News | Catholics told not to give LDS parish data

Reader comments
Catholics told not to give LDS parish data

777 comments | Read story

Anonymous | 8:55 p.m. May 5, 2008

Unbelievable

Bob Krebs | 8:57 p.m. May 5, 2008

It's interesting that people in this string are attacking the Catholic Church for not supporting a position that She believes in error. Would the LDS Church support a position that it believes is in error?

Patty | 9:02 p.m. May 5, 2008

Catholics do not worship Mary. Letï¿½s not lose sight of what we are talking about. The freedom of choice. My choice is NOT to be baptized a Mormon after Iï¿½m died. What is wrong with that?

Comments continue below

Bob | 9:11 p.m. May 5, 2008

Thomas,

While it's true that we see things in part, why focus on matter beyond life and stake our moral claims on experience? Regardless of religion, we all share the same moral instincts as the rest of us. Religious dogma seems to stir in a mix of an inflexibility that disregards the feelings of others, which is moral failing. I read a lot of LDS members saying, "why be bothered with using your name in our temple rituals?" I ask then, "why be bothered with holding on to religious doctrine at the expense of ignoring the wishes of a dead person's relative?" I'm not a Catholic or Jew, but seems sense to me that most people don't want their dead relatives name used in anyone's ritual.

Why not let go of dogma? There are better things in life on which to focus and apply one's energies.

Jo | 9:11 p.m. May 5, 2008

Ooooh! I get so angry when I read how arrogant and offensive so many comments by Mormons are!

If I had any doubts about whether or not Mormons are Christian, I am convinced now that they ARE NOT!

Bob | 9:15 p.m. May 5, 2008

Why are people placing a greater importance of claim of an afterlife that no one can substantiate as true when there is so much to learn about in the here and now? The moral life begins on earth.

Anonymous | 9:19 p.m. May 5, 2008

Live Well, Laugh Often, Love Much
Freedom of choice, God gave us that choice.

Roy | 9:24 p.m. May 5, 2008

Julie | 12:48 a.m. May 4, 2008
"I'm still trying to figure out why it bothers people that mormons do baptisms for the dead if non-mormons don't believe that it has any effect."

Are you serious? I find this and all other comments like this to be insensitive, ignorant, arrogant, and disrespectful. How would you like it if some other religion forced their dogma on you or a member of your family after you were dead?

Saddened | 9:29 p.m. May 5, 2008

It is sad that the Pope and the Vatican take this position. My family and I are LDS and we embrace working together with other faiths. Here in Colorado the Catholic and LDS Churches join with many others in common charitable undertakings. My two oldest sisters graduated with nursing degrees from the old Catholic Holy Cross School of Nursing in Salt Lake City and I remember as a small boy enjoying their graduation ceremonies held in the Cathedral of the Madeleine. Unfortunately, I lay this edict at the door of Pope Benedict. I served an LDS mission in the Germany Munich Mission from 1977-1979. The Pope, who at that time was Cardinal Josef Ratzinger of the Archdiocese of Munich, personally undertook to shut out LDS missionaries from the city of Freising, home of the Archdiocese (he made sure no one would rent to them, etc.), and from the heavily Catholic city of Passau. Just look at his history of antagonizing Lutherans in Germany, provoking Muslims since becoming Pope, etc. This too will pass, but in the meantime he is needlessly picking fights with other faiths. However, we should turn the other cheek and keep the dialogue with Catholics open.

Irish Catholic | 9:29 p.m. May 5, 2008

I can feel the love... Can't you? What a waste! And we wonder why the world is in its current state of disrepair. If we had this much debate about local issues OF IMPORTANCE we would actually SOLVE problems rather than create them so as to hide from the reality of the world.

Bob | 9:29 p.m. May 5, 2008

I am not a member of any religion. I believe that we should respect the wishes of the dead and their relatives. When I see the people choose religious dogma over the wishes of a Catholic or Jewish family, I remember why I not a member of any religion.

Love Catholic friends | 9:32 p.m. May 5, 2008

I love my catholic friends. My grandfather was catholic and joined the church, and now we are all subsequently LDS. We are grateful that the Catholic church has opened up its records in the past to us LDS decendents of these good people. Nearly all of my employees are non-mormons- 18 out of 20, and half of these are catholic- great people- and good friends. I treat them well. Not all mormons are against other churchses. I hope that I am an example of that, and I know that most of my LDS friends are that way as well..but there are a few imposters here on this comment board I believe that try to make us look bad. Thanks.

Bob | 9:35 p.m. May 5, 2008

As far as I can tell, most LDS members posting in this thread are on low moral ground. Such is the nature of religious dogma.

Sojourner Truth | 9:35 p.m. May 5, 2008

Two faced | 2:04 a.m. May 4, 2008
"I love these churches who on the one hand, will do almost anything to attack, embarass and arm twist the LDS Church. But then, the second there's a fire at one of their churches, or a natural disaster somewhere, they churches often turn around and beg for the LDS Church's assistance."

Hmm, I canï¿½t recall one instance in the past 50 years where the Catholic Church has begged for the LDS Churchï¿½s assistance. Quit distorting the truth!

Sasha | 9:42 p.m. May 5, 2008

Rob | 4:34 p.m. May 4, 2008, wrote:
"It's understandable if the Catholic or Jewish leaders think the LDS church has secret plans to use all this data they are collecting on people and families to do something other than what they say they are doing, which is performing proxy ordinances."

Catholics, Jews, and others are aware that it's for proxy baptism. They don't think it's for some other purpose. Their objection is based on knowing that it's for proxy baptism.

Patty | 9:45 p.m. May 5, 2008

This may not be an important issue to some. But to someone trying to raise their non- Mormon children is a small town with a Very large Mormon population, this is important. Our children face discrimination every day at school and in their neighborhoods. If you move into Utah into a small town, one of the first things you are asked is: are you a Mormon?
We must take the time to let are feeling known, we all have rights. And not being baptized a Mormon after we die is one of them.

One-Upmanship... | 9:48 p.m. May 5, 2008

I see a lot of idioc comments by mormons.I have less respect for the mormon church from these comments on this post. I once thought that it was possible we had the same end game put now I just see the mormons for how they truly are with all these comments,,,,

Dissed | 9:57 p.m. May 5, 2008

ladyblueyes | 2:18 a.m. May 4, 2008
"I cannot believe the Catholic church is being so stingy and dog-in-the-manger."

Money | 6:59 p.m. May 4, 2008
"These posts are silly. The obvious truth is the Catholic chuch wants money for its records and that's it."

It's not about being stingy. It's about respecting others beliefs, something you apparently know nothing about.

jennifer | 10:08 p.m. May 5, 2008

Baptism by Proxy Doctrine | 10:48 a.m. May 4, 2008, wrote:

"Christ was perfect and yet he was still baptized."

Here is the explanation.

Ambrose in Luke 3:21: "Our Lord was baptized because He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism."

Chrysostom (Hom. iv in Matth.): "that He might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized afterwards."

to It wouldn't be offensive | 10:09 p.m. May 5, 2008

"If those of other faiths were truly secure in their own faith, they would dismiss any LDS baptisms for the dead as the erroneous choice of a deluded people."

Everyone already *knows* it's deluded. It's the arrogance and insensitivity of it that people are talking about. Anyone can be fooled but even if they are, they can and should be a decent human being.

Excuse Me?!? | 10:26 p.m. May 5, 2008

"deceased are baptized into the LDS faith so that they may be united in the afterlife with LDS families, if they so choose."

They are dead so how do they choose to be LDS? A living family member decides? Isn't that against freedom of religion? I would be pissed if after I died someone without by consent or will changed my faith.

Naive? | 10:36 p.m. May 5, 2008

ladyblueyes | 2:18 a.m. May 4, 2008
"It's not true that we baptize EVERYONE ... it has to be submitted by a family member for that to happen. But it would be nice to have all the information for geneology."

Ya, right. That's why Pope John Paul II was baptized by the LDS exactly one year to the day after he died, 4 times, no less.

Sad | 10:37 p.m. May 5, 2008

How sad, every time I think there is hope that the LDS people will look at Catholicï¿½s as a loving and faithful people in our own right. Something like this comes to light.
We are Catholicï¿½s because it is right, are faith, are truth, and our joy. We do not ask you to be something else. Do not ask us to be something we are not. Only in Utah. What happened to live and let live? What happen to love they neighbor?
It is time to say goodbye to Utah and find a new home where people worry less about if you are Mormon or not and more about what kind of person you are.

Becasue my Dear Julie | 10:38 p.m. May 5, 2008

If I died as a Catholic, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc then that was my faith I chose. I would roll over in my grave if later on a LDS family member came by and baptised me as a LDS.

This is against freedom of religion. Logic says that if the dead person wanted to be LDS they would have converted when they were alive!

Liars | 10:49 p.m. May 5, 2008

Shelley | 5:23 p.m. May 4, 2008
"Not so very many years ago, the Jews were offended to discover that some Holocaust victims had been given proxy baptisms. Out of respect for the history and feelings of those of another faith, the LDS Church no longer allows its members to perform proxy baptisms for Jews unless the member involved can show family ties to the ancestor being proxied. ... Why not do the same thing for the Catholics, if they feel offended by the ordinance of proxy baptism for the dead?"

In fact, it's probably because of the broken promises made to the Jews by the LDS that the Catholic Church is wary. Despite a written agreement in 1995, thousands of Jews continue to be baptized by proxy, and they're still upset about it.

Jim J in Cedar Rapids | 10:54 p.m. May 5, 2008

I am dismayed at the antagonistic and offensive statements by both sides of the issue. Obviously, I am not going to change anyone's mind on either side of the issue. But, really, I have read very few posts that exhibit the love and charity exemplified by our Savior.
Several misconceptions that should be corrected; 1) Temple work is at the request of decendent family members of the deceased. Normally, not always, a relative has done the research and submitted the names to the temple for proxy work. 2) As Latter-day Saints, we do believe strongly in an afterlife where those who did not receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ in life, have the opportunity to be taught and accept the ordinances from the temple on their behalf. It is still their choice to accept or not the blessings and ordinances of the Gospel. 3) The Church has become more sensitive to the wishes of other family members and cultures not of our faith. Not always compliant, but trying to do better.
I consider it an honor and sacred privilege to do this work for my ancesters. It is their agency to accept or not.

just a thought | 10:55 p.m. May 5, 2008

There has been a lot of abusive language in this stream that surprises me. The Catholic Church has the right to say that they don't wish to be a party to a practice they believe to be wrong. In fact, since the Catholic Church believes itself to be the only true church it is appropriate that they take this step. It is also not surprising that the LDS Church would be disappointed in this move because they believe that they are the only true church and that only through these ordinances on behalf of the dead can everyone who has ever lived have a chance to attain the highest degree of celestial glory.
It is, however, an issue that the church leaders involved should deal with and settle. All of this wrangling online is merely fostering discord and contention, something neither church is interested in promoting. Perhaps we should seek to be a little more constructive and a little less flippant or accusatory. Just a thought.

Hostility | 10:57 p.m. May 5, 2008

Mary Anne fittingly said, "..there seems to be great hostility between Mormons and Catholics." What most LDS don't realize is that most Catholics have never heard of their church, or at best confuse it with the Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientologists. However, things are about to change. I was told about this forum by a friend on the East Coast. Right now this forum is being copied and will surely be distributed to Catholics everywhere. If the LDS wants to be better-known, it's wish is about to become reality. The Baptists were already onto you, now it will be the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. Hostility? Yes! Bring it on. The LDS dream of joining mainstream Christianity in the US is now dead and buried and no temple rite will ever bring it back. The LDS posts on this forum is a Godsend to Catholic apologists everywhere.

owning names and people | 11:03 p.m. May 5, 2008

I didn't know that any one group had the AUTHORITY to own names and people,
whether DEAD or ALIVE.

Free access to history must be the rule. Free access to names, dates, places, etc.
No one group (whether a religious entity or not) should have the right to
be so closed minded.

Unless a person specifically mentioned (sealed by a notary) that they never wanted their name etc. given out, then records must be left open.

Since when can the catholic church dictate what any other church does?
Freedom of religion (even in Italy) is the rule of law.

Michael | 11:23 p.m. May 5, 2008

Wow, I'm amazed at how out of control everyone is (especially Hostility.) Shame on all of us! Perhaps this emotionalism just comes with the terrain of blogging. Print the forum? A "Godsend"? Those sound like emotionalized, conniving fighting words. Both faiths have been shamed in this forum, so will it ALL be printed? In a time when many are turned off religion altogether, who are we pulling for anyway?

The Catholic Church isn't declaring anything new, I have to admit. It has just been the policy of this new pope to draw a line of demarcation between his religion and others. Recently he reiterated the view that Protestant religions are invalid. It's too bad because John Paul II had made so much progress to bridge gaps and promote dialogue.

My roots are in Italy, where I've already seen many Catholic priests refuse to let people of other faiths see their parish records. Others have been more lax about it. Obviously, Benedict XVI is trying to guilt them into his way, but I'm sure there will still be ways around it. Many Catholic clergymen (and Catholics) show goodwill to other faiths. I've only seen a couple in this forum.

Limbo Rock | 11:27 p.m. May 5, 2008

Once more... | 9:17 a.m. May 5, 2008
"One more try...there is NO religous issue at stake here."

Of course not, for you. But there is for Jews, members of the Armenian Church, Russian Orthodox, the Evangelisch Church in Germany, and Catholics, all of whom have expressed outrage at the Mormon practice of posthumous baptism.

Hostility | 11:44 p.m. May 5, 2008

Limbo Rock is correct. And yes, even peaceful Christians can express hostility and outrage when dealing with those who express those same emotions toward us, as well as dishonor our Christian faith (much in the same way we have been outraged at radical Muslum extremists in recent years). It may not be right, be we are human and we do ask the Lord to forgive, and put our trust in Him.

Thomas | 12:39 a.m. May 6, 2008

The problem with the Catholic reaction is that it's effectively declaring a major tenet of Mormonism to be inherently offensive. That makes it difficult for Mormons and Catholics to simply agree in good will to disagree: The Vatican is not just saying that this sincerely-held Mormon belief is erroneous, but that it's *bad*.

That way lies holy war. The West has managed to rise above religious strife largely by separating religious differences from moral comparisons: We've moved away from declaring people who hold different religious opinions to be *evil* (although many Mormons seem not to have gotten the memo when it comes to dealing with former members!); rather, religious differences are chalked up to our knowing the things of God only in part during our mortal lives, and though we don't whitewash our honest differences, we don't get too exercised about them, either.

The Vatican is reversing this positive trend by this policy. A friendly approach to LDS posthumous baptism would be to make clear that the RCC disagrees, but Mormons are free to act as their consciences dictate.

I have always greatly admired the Catholic Church, but it deeply disappoints me with this unfriendly act.

Truth & Patience:Continued | 12:49 a.m. May 6, 2008

So if it is right, under God, to love your enemy and to do no harm to others, the definition of harm comes in to play.

Is it harmful to use a name for ordinances which I believe will save someone if they accept it and if they do not it has no effect? Where 'they have to accept it for the work to be valid' self proves that it does no harm to any individual whether alive or not. The choice is still with the party in question(the dead) and THEIRS to make. No other person has a right to decide this for them. We are giving others a chance to accept the LDS faith. By not giving them that chance(or specifically taking it away) the Catholic church is only denying the dead THEIR RIGHT to choose what they will.

Who would disagree with this fair LDS doctrine? (Legal argument reworded for religious freedom argument)

"we do not believe that ... has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion ... never control conscience ... but never suppress the freedom of the soul." -D&C:134

Kropotkin | 1:00 a.m. May 6, 2008

1. Proxy baptism does not baptise into the LDS Church, it provides a sacrament that is only provided by the LDS Church through priesthood authority. It has nothing to do with any other baptism the individual may have had. It also does NOT make the individual a member of the church.
2. Every individual has been saved by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. LDS Baptism does not provide salvation, it allows progression in the next life.
Obviously, those outside the church refuse to listen, so there is little point arguing with them. However, it would help if more members were better informed and didn't make daft statements that misrepresent the church; it would also help if people remembered that they can only baptise their own relatives.

Lisa | 1:03 a.m. May 6, 2008

I think what some people fail to understand is that a person could theoretically be baptized posthumously into any and every religion, but none of those baptisms will matter if the person (whom Latter-day Saints believe to be living now as a spirit in the Spirit World) decide to accept it. No rights or agency is being denied. The temple work performed on behalf of others only benefits them if they accept it and want it.

With that understanding, I truly would not care if after I died, someone who loved me and was concerned about my soul, performed some ceremony for me, even if I didn't believe it would change my situation, and even if it was into another religion. In the eternal scheme of things, I believe it wouldn't make a difference to my soul, but should I see that person in the next life, I would thank them for caring about me.

To perhaps | 1:14 a.m. May 6, 2008

"If my child converted to Catholic, would I be totall included by the priest in the ceremony? Not."

Uh, yes you would. You would be able to sit in the pews with everyone else and witness the beautiful sacrament of your child's marriage. It's traditional for parents to attend their child's wedding.

Miriam | 2:42 a.m. May 6, 2008

I'm sure you've all heard of Simon Wiesenthal. The Simon Wiesenthal Center's website describes him this way:

"Simon Wiesenthal, a survivor of the Nazi death camps, dedicated his life to documenting the crimes of the Holocaust and to hunting down the perpetrators still at large."

Mr. Wiesenthal was born a Jew in 1908. He suffered during the Holocaust because he was a Jew, and members of his family were murdered because they were Jews. He lived his whole life as a Jew. And when he died in 2005, he was a Jew. One year later, Mr. Wiesenthal's name was submitted to LDS, and he was baptized vicariously.

Nobody can honestly claim that Mr. Wiesenthal wasn't aware of the existence of Jesus or the existence of LDS. Nobody can honestlyy claim that they thought Mr. Wiesenthal would like to have the opportunity to stop being Jewish after his death.

to; Thomas | 4:26 a.m. May 6, 2008

ï¿½A friendly approach to LDS posthumous baptism would be to make clear that the RCC disagrees, but Mormons are free to act as their consciences dictate.ï¿½

I donï¿½t think the Vatican is saying that Mormons shouldnï¿½t be free to act as their conscience dictates. They are saying that since they theologically disagree with the Mormon practice, they will not be a party to condoning it.

I donï¿½t understand why Mormons are so obtuse regarding this. I have never met a larger group of people with such a sense of entitlement that they think rules just donï¿½t apply to them. Your LDS leaders are constantly issuing statements the media condemning the FLDS and their practices. They are offended if the LDS are confused with the FLDS, and spend an inordinate amount of effort strutting the differences. The LDS refused to assist the court during FLDS prayer, and have chosen to oppose any perception that they even remotely condone the FLDS practices.

This is no different. You can stop acting so persecuted. Go ahead and perform your misguided baptisms, but donï¿½t expect people of other faiths who believe itï¿½s heretical to any way assist in your efforts or indulge your practices.

Yockel | 4:31 a.m. May 6, 2008

Exercise a little Christian charity, people. How would you feel if an alien religious tradition laid claim to your ancestors?
Although it will be soothing to many people to find out that Mormons believe that baptisms for the dead require the demised's consent to become valid, it is not hard to see that to non-Mormons temple ordinances are imposing on their heritage.
For a culture that places so much value on our own heritage, it is troubling how little Utah Mormons appreciate the feelings of non-Mormons. I am sorry to say but your lack of sensitivity and charity is giving Mormonism a bad name.

Diogenes | 5:34 a.m. May 6, 2008

I don't recall having seen such vitriol spewed forth when the Jews demanded an end to the posthumous baptism of members of their faith. Of course, it's politically incorrect to bash Jews, but apparently not Catholics. The fact that so many Mormons don't recognize that *all* religions deserve respect is telling. It's incidents like this through which their true colors come shining through.

As someone pointed out earlier, this has set back the cause of interfaith dialogue, by about 130 years.

Not a Catholic.
Not a Jew.
Not a Mormon.
Just a tolerant atheist.

James | 5:50 a.m. May 6, 2008

The main problem is that Christian religions use the Bible to justify their actions. Quote this and that passage and that somehow authorizes them to act the way they do. All religion and all scripture is man-made and thus faulty.
We who choose not to get caught up in all the nonsense just sit back and giggle over your silliness.

rudragoo | 6:48 a.m. May 6, 2008

So much about hese people from 200+ years ago wanting to be catholic. Who says they wanted to be? where was their choise? Just as with the religious terrorists today it was do as we say or we will torture and kill you. Perhaps they wanted to worship God instead of statues. Too bad. And they are my records as it is my family, not the jailers that recorded them.

to Catholic Homer | 7:25 a.m. May 6, 2008

How many are active?

Oh, different number?

Who cares !! ! | 8:50 a.m. May 6, 2008

Who cares if the Mormans Baptize non-Mormans into the church after you're dead? The concept is so off base that it has no Biblical meaning! Let them continue to pretend they are doing something spiritual. This sort of act they administer is no different than the Baal worship that took place thousands of years ago in the Middle East. My security in the living Christ is never compromised by the insecurities the Morman church practices.

Offensive | 9:24 a.m. May 6, 2008

Thomas said: "The problem with the Catholic reaction is that it's effectively declaring a major tenet of Mormonism to be inherently offensive."

Absolutely and rightfully so. And it is a Mormon problem, not a Catholic problem.

Shocking | 9:29 a.m. May 6, 2008

I just checked and MOTHER Teresa (Agnes Bojaxhiu) was baptized into the Mormon church so was John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła) Egads, no wonder you have angered both the Jewish people and now the Catholics. It would not surprise me if this action was the very one that put a stop to communication.

Curious | 9:29 a.m. May 6, 2008

Father James Massa, executive director of the U.S. bishop's Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs is quoted by CNS as saying the step was taken to prevent LDS members from using the records.

"The congregation requests that the conference notifies each diocesan bishop in order to ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in his territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,"

Many people here are stating that LDS true colors are coming out on this board. The comment above is stating that the LDS Church is erroneous and has a detrimental practice, is this considered Christian way of doing things? Insult the others' believes? I could understand if the statement was made as we don't belive the same as the Mormons and therefore choose not to provide names but the context and words say something else all together.

Think about it | 9:29 a.m. May 6, 2008

I wonder what bring the practice of baptisms of the dead to general knowledge will do for Romney's electability in 2012. Hard to know if that or his having acknowledged having polygamous grandparents will hurt him more.

Pretend | 9:31 a.m. May 6, 2008

I would not expect the Church to cooperate with pagans either, so why with LDS church henotheists?

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.