Reader comments
Catholics told not to give LDS parish data
777 comments | Read story
Don't worry, it'll be fine | 10:15 a.m. May 6, 2008
The Catholics don't want us to see their records, and they'll probably
try to impose some system whereby they'll discover our Mormonness and
exclude us from using their records to further our genealogical research.
If the work is meant to be done, it will be done. There will be a way around this and any other roadblock that may come along.
The commandment to perform these ordinances for our family members came along just a few years after the Church was restored. The early Church members didn't have cars, computers, telephones, Internet, pedigree charts or family group sheets, but they went ahead and did what they were asked. With all the developments that have come about since then, I doubt the Roman Catholic Church's latest edict will be able to put a dent in our temple work.
Let's not spend time worrying or bickering. Let's just get busy instead. We still have a lot to do!
If the work is meant to be done, it will be done. There will be a way around this and any other roadblock that may come along.
The commandment to perform these ordinances for our family members came along just a few years after the Church was restored. The early Church members didn't have cars, computers, telephones, Internet, pedigree charts or family group sheets, but they went ahead and did what they were asked. With all the developments that have come about since then, I doubt the Roman Catholic Church's latest edict will be able to put a dent in our temple work.
Let's not spend time worrying or bickering. Let's just get busy instead. We still have a lot to do!
Thanks a lot | 11:00 a.m. May 6, 2008
Just a word of thanks to my *fellow LDS* who have commented with such anger and
disrespect toward the Catholic Church. You have made my friendships with my
Catholic friends more comfortable today. No. Think again. Today they are
asking me if I truly accept them as they are or if I have an agenda percolating
somewhere to "save them." The more I read the words of self-names
active LDS on these comment boards, the more I reconsider the beneficial effects
of the LDS faith. As of today, I'm sure I will be walking out the door of
this religion as the goodness of the works of the people was the last thing I
was clinging to in order to feel good about belonging.
Comments continue below
G | 11:05 a.m. May 6, 2008
"Absolutely and rightfully so. And it is a Mormon problem, not a Catholic
problem. "
Why should Mormons try to appease anyone else?
Why should Mormons try to appease anyone else?
Supportive | 11:04 a.m. May 6, 2008
This comment board is a very good example of begging the question "why on
earth would anyone wish to live all eternity linked to everyone else?"
I'd much prefer my own wee piece of the universe in a galaxy far, far away.
Alex | 11:05 a.m. May 6, 2008
Pretend:
"I would not expect the Church to cooperate with pagans either, so why with LDS church henotheists? "
Simple: because the Catholic Church has cooperated with the LDS Church for a long time. Look, this work for the dead and genealogical work using Catholic records has been going on for a long time. Over these many years, it is not as if the Catholic Church didn't know what we were doing. Come on. So many posters here act surprised as if the Catholic Church had been hoodwinked by the LDS Church. The Catholic Church knows full well and has known for a long time that we do work for the dead.
This has been a cooperative effort: you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. They allow us access to these old records, and we provide them and the public with these records of the dead (microfilm and online). We in turn use them in our temples. It has been a mutually beneficial relationship.
Naturally, it is the Catholic Church's right to cease that practice. Remember though, they are doing so after benefiting greatly from the LDS Church's genealogical work for their benefit.
By the way, Catholics are my friends.
"I would not expect the Church to cooperate with pagans either, so why with LDS church henotheists? "
Simple: because the Catholic Church has cooperated with the LDS Church for a long time. Look, this work for the dead and genealogical work using Catholic records has been going on for a long time. Over these many years, it is not as if the Catholic Church didn't know what we were doing. Come on. So many posters here act surprised as if the Catholic Church had been hoodwinked by the LDS Church. The Catholic Church knows full well and has known for a long time that we do work for the dead.
This has been a cooperative effort: you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. They allow us access to these old records, and we provide them and the public with these records of the dead (microfilm and online). We in turn use them in our temples. It has been a mutually beneficial relationship.
Naturally, it is the Catholic Church's right to cease that practice. Remember though, they are doing so after benefiting greatly from the LDS Church's genealogical work for their benefit.
By the way, Catholics are my friends.
Thomas | 11:12 a.m. May 6, 2008
Nobody's asking the Catholic Church to "cooperate" with the
Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. Everybody knows that the Catholic
Church disagrees with the practice. All that Mormons are asking is to have the
same access to Catholic records as anyone else.
It is gallingly hypocritical for the Catholic Church to argue that giving Mormons equal access to parish records -- without endorsing what Mormons do with them -- constitutes "cooperation" with an allegedly heretical practice, when the Church employs professors at Catholic universities who support abortion, or otherwise teach in direct opposition to the Magisterium of the Church.
The Church thus gets to buy doctrinal rigor on the cheap, taking shots at an unpopular sect, while declining to cease its much more direct endorsement of heterodox ideologies by allowing them to be taught at its own universities.
Clearly, the Church is far more concerned with making friends with modern secular culture than with the Mormons, with whom -- doctrinal differences aside -- they share a much more consistent basic worldview.
Cheap and shabby, I still say, and unworthy of the Church's great traditions.
It is gallingly hypocritical for the Catholic Church to argue that giving Mormons equal access to parish records -- without endorsing what Mormons do with them -- constitutes "cooperation" with an allegedly heretical practice, when the Church employs professors at Catholic universities who support abortion, or otherwise teach in direct opposition to the Magisterium of the Church.
The Church thus gets to buy doctrinal rigor on the cheap, taking shots at an unpopular sect, while declining to cease its much more direct endorsement of heterodox ideologies by allowing them to be taught at its own universities.
Clearly, the Church is far more concerned with making friends with modern secular culture than with the Mormons, with whom -- doctrinal differences aside -- they share a much more consistent basic worldview.
Cheap and shabby, I still say, and unworthy of the Church's great traditions.
Ethicist | 11:52 a.m. May 6, 2008
"They [Catholics] allow us access to these old records, and we [LDS]
provide them and the public with these records of the dead (microfilm and
online)."
A Faustian bargain, indeed!
The Pope and the Catholic Church are simply doing what they are obliged to do by their religious beliefs. Ever notice that the Pope carries a shepherd's crook? That's because as the shepherd of the Roman Catholic Church, his duty is to care for his flock. If he allowed the members of his flock to be unwillingly submitted to acts considered heretical by the RC Church (i.e., temple ordinances) he would be derelict in his duty to care for his flock. Thus, by the belief system of the Catholic Church, he is obliged to try to put a stop to the posthumous baptism heresy applied to his members.
He is doing what he considers to be theologically, morally, and spiritually correct. Can't fault someone for living up to his principles.
A Faustian bargain, indeed!
The Pope and the Catholic Church are simply doing what they are obliged to do by their religious beliefs. Ever notice that the Pope carries a shepherd's crook? That's because as the shepherd of the Roman Catholic Church, his duty is to care for his flock. If he allowed the members of his flock to be unwillingly submitted to acts considered heretical by the RC Church (i.e., temple ordinances) he would be derelict in his duty to care for his flock. Thus, by the belief system of the Catholic Church, he is obliged to try to put a stop to the posthumous baptism heresy applied to his members.
He is doing what he considers to be theologically, morally, and spiritually correct. Can't fault someone for living up to his principles.
To thanks alot | 11:58 a.m. May 6, 2008
Are you serious? You're stating all your Catholic friends are on this board
and now are questioning your motives as a friend?
Why don't you look at it a little differently than the sad eyes you are currently using....
Why not look at this as a chance to enhance your friendship and teach them about the gospel principle of baptisms for the dead? I think I'd turn this into a chance to enhance my dialogue with them.
Take this chance to deepen your testimony instead of looking for some easy way out of whatever issues you have going on....
It's not a show stopper but a friendship enhancer....Go for it!
Why don't you look at it a little differently than the sad eyes you are currently using....
Why not look at this as a chance to enhance your friendship and teach them about the gospel principle of baptisms for the dead? I think I'd turn this into a chance to enhance my dialogue with them.
Take this chance to deepen your testimony instead of looking for some easy way out of whatever issues you have going on....
It's not a show stopper but a friendship enhancer....Go for it!
Melissa | 12:24 p.m. May 6, 2008
I guess it's the "grave reservations" part that has everyone up
in arms... I can't figure out why people outside of any church would think
they should just be handed information about a church's members... sounds
like privacy violations to me. I mean when you think about it, with all the
identity theft going on these days?
Alex | 1:11 p.m. May 6, 2008
Melissa:
"I guess it's the "grave reservations" part that has everyone up in arms... I can't figure out why people outside of any church would think they should just be handed information about a church's members..."
I can. The Catholic Church handed it out themselves.
"...sounds like privacy violations to me. I mean when you think about it, with all the identity theft going on these days? "
Except there is neither theft nor any privacy violation here. How could there be if the Catholic Church allowed access from the beginning? At any rate, all of the records are of dead people, many of whom have been so for hundreds of years. None of them are living. These records have been available to the public if they want to go in and look at them. Now with this edict, they are now available to the public, minus the LDS Church. Fortunately, a good portion of the records have already been documented.
"I guess it's the "grave reservations" part that has everyone up in arms... I can't figure out why people outside of any church would think they should just be handed information about a church's members..."
I can. The Catholic Church handed it out themselves.
"...sounds like privacy violations to me. I mean when you think about it, with all the identity theft going on these days? "
Except there is neither theft nor any privacy violation here. How could there be if the Catholic Church allowed access from the beginning? At any rate, all of the records are of dead people, many of whom have been so for hundreds of years. None of them are living. These records have been available to the public if they want to go in and look at them. Now with this edict, they are now available to the public, minus the LDS Church. Fortunately, a good portion of the records have already been documented.
To: Alex | 1:19 p.m. May 6, 2008
"Fortunately, a good portion of the records have already been
documented."
Are you implying that if I object to my deceased Parents (Catholic Faith) being (possibly) posthumously baptized into some sort of LDS framework of beliefs because I find the act dissrespectful at the very least ... are you saying that I don't have a leg to stand on? ... just to be clear sir.
Are you implying that if I object to my deceased Parents (Catholic Faith) being (possibly) posthumously baptized into some sort of LDS framework of beliefs because I find the act dissrespectful at the very least ... are you saying that I don't have a leg to stand on? ... just to be clear sir.
Mick | 1:28 p.m. May 6, 2008
No one should take offense here. Just because someone doesn't agree with
our faith, or doesn't desire to release records, should not anger us. We
just have to remember the perspective they are coming from. No offense, just
personal misunderstanding, or purposeful denial.
The sad part is when we as Mormons become offended, bitter, and make derogatory comments towards the Pope, or any other leader for that matter. We only rise above the level of others when our actions actually show that we live what we speak. Until that time, we are no better than those we decry.
The sad part is when we as Mormons become offended, bitter, and make derogatory comments towards the Pope, or any other leader for that matter. We only rise above the level of others when our actions actually show that we live what we speak. Until that time, we are no better than those we decry.
To: Mick | 1:40 p.m. May 6, 2008
"The sad part is when we as Mormons become offended, bitter, and make
derogatory comments towards the Pope, or any other leader for that matter. We
only rise above the level of others when our actions actually show that we live
what we speak. Until that time, we are no better than those we decry."
-----------
I find your comments facinating (i'm the author of: "To Alex") I realize that you are devout (LDS version of devout), but please carefully reread your comments. It sounds like a barely cloaked jab at those of another faith. That is: if you live the LDS faith, then you ARE better then those that don't. If after closely considering this possible interpretation, do you see how your words seem no better than those of whom you counsel, at least to an outsider such as myself?
-----------
I find your comments facinating (i'm the author of: "To Alex") I realize that you are devout (LDS version of devout), but please carefully reread your comments. It sounds like a barely cloaked jab at those of another faith. That is: if you live the LDS faith, then you ARE better then those that don't. If after closely considering this possible interpretation, do you see how your words seem no better than those of whom you counsel, at least to an outsider such as myself?
Mohan | 1:50 p.m. May 6, 2008
None of us have the superiority we think we have. We are all off one flesh. We
are all in need. We are all dependent on God. Let us treat each and every one
as a son or daughter of God, as a beloved brother or sister. Let disrespect be
far from us.
I am sure the Catholic Church will soon realize the effect of their pronouncement and when they better understand what they are doing in the great scheme of things, they will again allow Mormon volunteers in assit them by photographing all their vital records. The service rendered by the LDS in this regard is a God send. May we all realize the connections we have with each other.
I am sure the Catholic Church will soon realize the effect of their pronouncement and when they better understand what they are doing in the great scheme of things, they will again allow Mormon volunteers in assit them by photographing all their vital records. The service rendered by the LDS in this regard is a God send. May we all realize the connections we have with each other.
RE: To: Alex | 1:19 p.m | 1:57 p.m. May 6, 2008
Here's your answer:
From: Letters jtnews.net
Note the date....March 1, 2008
>>[Mark] Paredes stated that Church rules make it clear that a person who adds a name to the baptism rolls must be able to prove that they are related...True. But it is also true that this rule, along with many other rules, are ignored by individual Mormons... For example, there is a rule that you cannot posthumously baptize any person who was born within the past 95 years without permission of the closest relative. Yet Anne Frank was baptized six times. There is a rule that you should baptize only relatives, not famous people, yet Simon Wiesenthal was recently �cleared for baptism.�...Paredes states that a Mormon is permitted to perform ordinances on any relative...True. But the 1995 agreement with the Jewish organization specifically limits it to �direct ancestors.� The Church has not enforced this rule. No one has a right to involve other people�s families in their religion. It is time that the Mormon Church did the honorable thing and met its commitment to the Jewish people to cease this offensive act of posthumous baptism as outlined in the agreement they signed in 1995.<<
Mick is right | 2:10 p.m. May 6, 2008
No one should take offense here. Trust in God and move on. He is fair and will
give everyone the same chance to do the same things they need to do to be saved.
That is what helped convert me to the LDS Church. Respect this decision by the
Catholics.
The other thing by which I'm disappointed is that of these 600-plus comments, not one made by a Latter-day Saint contains an invitation to ask God what He says on this matter. (I helped contribute to this bushel-light covering, I'll admit).
The other thing by which I'm disappointed is that of these 600-plus comments, not one made by a Latter-day Saint contains an invitation to ask God what He says on this matter. (I helped contribute to this bushel-light covering, I'll admit).
I just don't get this | 2:19 p.m. May 6, 2008
To whoever wrote to Alex,
Your parents being baptized doesn't change anything if they don't want it to. Thats the fact, no one has to change faiths just because we perform a baptism in the temple. If they don't accept than everything is just same as when they were here. The ordinance isn't forcing anything on anyone. I do have a serious question for any Catholic, not trying to argue just understand. When you baptize a child I realize the intent of it is to make sure they have it done should they pass early in life, but why do the baptism when the child has no choice?
Your parents being baptized doesn't change anything if they don't want it to. Thats the fact, no one has to change faiths just because we perform a baptism in the temple. If they don't accept than everything is just same as when they were here. The ordinance isn't forcing anything on anyone. I do have a serious question for any Catholic, not trying to argue just understand. When you baptize a child I realize the intent of it is to make sure they have it done should they pass early in life, but why do the baptism when the child has no choice?
Alex | 2:25 p.m. May 6, 2008
"Are you implying that if I object to my deceased Parents (Catholic Faith)
being (possibly) posthumously baptized into some sort of LDS framework of
beliefs because I find the act dissrespectful at the very least ... are you
saying that I don't have a leg to stand on? ... just to be clear sir.
"
Short answer: yes, but probably not in your lifetime.
Ultimately, yes, your father will have opportunity to be baptized into an LDS framework of beliefs, on conditions that your father does so of his own free will and choice in the world of the Spirits of the Dead. Ultimately, we believe that all will have opportunity to receive those ordinances vicariously (one person standing in the place of another).
That said, it probably wouldn't be done in your lifetime unless one of your father's posterity as a member of the LDS Church does that work for him. I have never done work in the temple for someone who wasn't a family name who wasn't already dead for over 100 years. That is my experience. (I am sure there are infrequent exceptions.)
Short answer: yes, but probably not in your lifetime.
Ultimately, yes, your father will have opportunity to be baptized into an LDS framework of beliefs, on conditions that your father does so of his own free will and choice in the world of the Spirits of the Dead. Ultimately, we believe that all will have opportunity to receive those ordinances vicariously (one person standing in the place of another).
That said, it probably wouldn't be done in your lifetime unless one of your father's posterity as a member of the LDS Church does that work for him. I have never done work in the temple for someone who wasn't a family name who wasn't already dead for over 100 years. That is my experience. (I am sure there are infrequent exceptions.)
Re: "To thanks alot" | 2:32 p.m. May 6, 2008
Are you seriously commenting that I'm looking for "an easy way
out"? What gall to make such an assumption. And, yes, my Catholic friends
were following this story and reading the comments then called me about it
wondering what I thought. You again assume a lot thinking they do not know
about the LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead, and naively assume more that
their understanding of it would enhance their opinion of the church.
"Go for it!" Go for what? Defending a religion that at least in this forum seems to be more and more defined by harsh repudiations, arrogant egos, and name-calling of the least of these? Perhaps it is only in such forums that such disgraceful communication is carried on. Sadly, it is available for all the world to see.
"Go for it!" Go for what? Defending a religion that at least in this forum seems to be more and more defined by harsh repudiations, arrogant egos, and name-calling of the least of these? Perhaps it is only in such forums that such disgraceful communication is carried on. Sadly, it is available for all the world to see.
No Longer Interested | 2:33 p.m. May 6, 2008
I had been learning about the LDS Church. I was scheduled for another lesson
this week. But Mormon arrogance sickens me. I want nothing to do with such a
Church that is obviously NOT Christian in any way, shape, or form.
to Re: To: Alex | 2:45 p.m. May 6, 2008
your concern has been addressed 1000 times. Most recently by D. Todd
Christofferson before he was called to the 12. Maybe you need to get up to speed
on what is going on before you argue a point that has already been addressed.
Actually, there are no church rules that state that a person must prove that the names they are submitting are related. Although, it stands to reason that if someone is going genealogy that they are doing it on their family line. There is no 95 year old rule either... I've submitted many names that were less than 95 years deceased and NO ONE has ever asked me my relationship. We are related but there are not these silly rules you speak of....
And a quick review of the article it was posted on Feb 22 of this year with Paredes making his comments on the 16th of Feb. Significance meaning what?
You must be Helen Radkey who constantly complains about this topic with her internet Reverend status...
Actually, there are no church rules that state that a person must prove that the names they are submitting are related. Although, it stands to reason that if someone is going genealogy that they are doing it on their family line. There is no 95 year old rule either... I've submitted many names that were less than 95 years deceased and NO ONE has ever asked me my relationship. We are related but there are not these silly rules you speak of....
And a quick review of the article it was posted on Feb 22 of this year with Paredes making his comments on the 16th of Feb. Significance meaning what?
You must be Helen Radkey who constantly complains about this topic with her internet Reverend status...
Bob | 3:15 p.m. May 6, 2008
We need to trust our moral instincts and realize that the best course of action
is to honor relatives of the dead by respecting their decision in the life not
the supposed decision of a dead person.
We meet a higher standard of morality when he honor the people living in this world as opposed to honoring your own religious beliefs. Honor all people their wishes concerning their body and names. I am not a member of any religion, but I believe that we ought both non-believers and believers their wishes concerning their deaths.
I am relieved with the comments made by the religious regarding their believing that we should honor the wishes of those who are Catholic. I've read so many condescending, arrogant and ugly comments by so many LDS members that I began losing hope that there are few, deeply caring LDS people out there.
We meet a higher standard of morality when he honor the people living in this world as opposed to honoring your own religious beliefs. Honor all people their wishes concerning their body and names. I am not a member of any religion, but I believe that we ought both non-believers and believers their wishes concerning their deaths.
I am relieved with the comments made by the religious regarding their believing that we should honor the wishes of those who are Catholic. I've read so many condescending, arrogant and ugly comments by so many LDS members that I began losing hope that there are few, deeply caring LDS people out there.
Craigr | 3:18 p.m. May 6, 2008
Latter Day Saints sing a hymn verse, "For this eternal truth is given, God
will force no man to heaven."
The God I believe in, is a God of love. He won't force His children to accept any proxy act done on their behalf. They will have their agency to choose. And yes, baptism for the dead is mentioned in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:29.
The God I believe in, is a God of love. He won't force His children to accept any proxy act done on their behalf. They will have their agency to choose. And yes, baptism for the dead is mentioned in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:29.
Question | 3:23 p.m. May 6, 2008
Why do so many people use the word Christian when referring to universal morals?
Isn't the high standard of respecting the wishes of the dead and the
relatives of their dead a universal moral standard?
This issue really shouldn't be about religion; it should be about universal morals we all share as human beings. Everyone should know that it's a high moral good to respect the wishes of the dead and their relatives. LDS members shouldn't make it about themselves, as when so many often say, "if someone were to do have a ritual in my name I wouldn't care." It's not about you. It's about honoring the dead and their relatives by honoring their wishes.
This issue really shouldn't be about religion; it should be about universal morals we all share as human beings. Everyone should know that it's a high moral good to respect the wishes of the dead and their relatives. LDS members shouldn't make it about themselves, as when so many often say, "if someone were to do have a ritual in my name I wouldn't care." It's not about you. It's about honoring the dead and their relatives by honoring their wishes.
Craigr | 3:29 p.m. May 6, 2008
To "No Longer Interested",
My thoughts: I don't believe you are an investigator. I believe you are an antagonist to the LDS church, taking advantage of the opportunity to rebuff them once more.
My advise: Come on inside the Conference Hall at the next General Conference and see what all the fuss is about.
My thoughts: I don't believe you are an investigator. I believe you are an antagonist to the LDS church, taking advantage of the opportunity to rebuff them once more.
My advise: Come on inside the Conference Hall at the next General Conference and see what all the fuss is about.
To: I don't get this | 3:35 p.m. May 6, 2008
I think that I am particularly equipped to have this conversation since I am NOT
beholden to any religious system of beliefs yet am NOT an aitheist.
Unfortunately the word limit does not permit. In a nutshell, different systems
of beliefs in this arena each claim to know the: "THE TRUTH" therefore
one does not see harm in "saving" others from within anyone system. My
parents were VERY secure in their Catholic faith and it served them brilliantly
till their last breath. As much as you would like to think that yours in the
correct faith, in their view it is not. Common curtesy and respect for the
deeply personal as held by others should be self-explanatory. To me, it is
expressly counter to my Parents deeply held account of: "THE TRUTH"
that I fiercely oppose the albeit symbolic attempt at religious cooptation since
I expressly hold their wishes to be considered Catholic both in life and in the
here-after.
To: to Re: To: Alex | 3:38 p.m. May 6, 2008
"You must be Helen Radkey who constantly complains about this topic with
her internet Reverend status... "
----------------------
Now this is getting stranger and stranger by the minute. My name is Robert Guevara and I live in California ...
I am here because I take great interest in people's devotion to religion since it is a central player in how the world unfolds.
----------------------
Now this is getting stranger and stranger by the minute. My name is Robert Guevara and I live in California ...
I am here because I take great interest in people's devotion to religion since it is a central player in how the world unfolds.
Anonymous | 4:05 p.m. May 6, 2008
Their records, they can do what they choose with them. End of story. No
bitternes or hate needed nor warranted.
Thomas | 4:36 p.m. May 6, 2008
Anon, while the Catholics surely have the right to do whatever they want with
their own records, why go out of their way and change the policy now? Why stick
a big papal thumb in the Mormons' eye?
If the Mormons are wrong about the efficacy of baptism for the dead, then there's no harm done. The dead are either dead, and don't know anything about it, or they're in heaven or purgatory or wherever and they can just look down and laugh at the LDS for wasting their time.
On the other hand, if the Mormons are right, then providing the souls of the dead access to saving ordinances -- which they can accept or reject of their own free will, in the light of superior eternal understanding -- then how is this not a good thing?
The present Pope has re-authorized the use of a Mass liturgy that prays for the conversion of the Jews. Some Jews find this offensive. How is this not similar to what the Catholics object to the LDS doing -- involving references in religious rituals to the names of people who are happy in their own traditions?
Beam, meet eye.
If the Mormons are wrong about the efficacy of baptism for the dead, then there's no harm done. The dead are either dead, and don't know anything about it, or they're in heaven or purgatory or wherever and they can just look down and laugh at the LDS for wasting their time.
On the other hand, if the Mormons are right, then providing the souls of the dead access to saving ordinances -- which they can accept or reject of their own free will, in the light of superior eternal understanding -- then how is this not a good thing?
The present Pope has re-authorized the use of a Mass liturgy that prays for the conversion of the Jews. Some Jews find this offensive. How is this not similar to what the Catholics object to the LDS doing -- involving references in religious rituals to the names of people who are happy in their own traditions?
Beam, meet eye.
To: Thomas | 5:01 p.m. May 6, 2008
praying for groups of people to see the light is apples and oranges to actually
attempting to co-opt someone personally and I can still see your point. My
parents were Catholic, I am not but if an attempt is made to specifically co-opt
them, I take it personally and I can easily see how others do the same and find
it astounding that you don't.
If someone says that Americans are X or that Americans should be X, I'm not bothered. If someone tells me that I should be X to my face or that my parents should be X, specially on a very deeply personal level, then it's an issue.
I will venture to say that as long as you don't see that, issues will continue ...
If someone says that Americans are X or that Americans should be X, I'm not bothered. If someone tells me that I should be X to my face or that my parents should be X, specially on a very deeply personal level, then it's an issue.
I will venture to say that as long as you don't see that, issues will continue ...
Thomas | 6:54 p.m. May 6, 2008
"To: Thomas", apples and oranges are both still fruit.
I guess the issue is this: At what level of specificity should we be offended by a person's belief that his religion is preferable to ours?
Traditional Christian belief is that a person who believes and is baptized will be saved, while a person who believes not will be damned. All modern, ecumenical attempts to soften this doctrine aside, most believing Christians, when pressed, would acknowledge that it's better to be Christian than not. The level of specificity is Christians versus non-Christians. Is this offensive? Ann Coulter sure caught some flak for acknowledging this.
The Catholic Church, by praying specifically for the conversion of the Jews, ratchets the specificity level up a notch, and singles out one particular group for attention. Offensive? Some Jews think so.
Mormons take this just one step further and single out particular (deceased) *individuals,* declaring, by baptizing them by proxy, that it would be better if each specific person were Mormon than not.
Maybe there's a bright line between offensive and inoffensive here, or maybe not. I think we ought to be slow to take offense at others' sincerely-held religious beliefs.
I guess the issue is this: At what level of specificity should we be offended by a person's belief that his religion is preferable to ours?
Traditional Christian belief is that a person who believes and is baptized will be saved, while a person who believes not will be damned. All modern, ecumenical attempts to soften this doctrine aside, most believing Christians, when pressed, would acknowledge that it's better to be Christian than not. The level of specificity is Christians versus non-Christians. Is this offensive? Ann Coulter sure caught some flak for acknowledging this.
The Catholic Church, by praying specifically for the conversion of the Jews, ratchets the specificity level up a notch, and singles out one particular group for attention. Offensive? Some Jews think so.
Mormons take this just one step further and single out particular (deceased) *individuals,* declaring, by baptizing them by proxy, that it would be better if each specific person were Mormon than not.
Maybe there's a bright line between offensive and inoffensive here, or maybe not. I think we ought to be slow to take offense at others' sincerely-held religious beliefs.
Genealogy | 7:13 p.m. May 6, 2008
Getting records from the catholics is great for the mormons church, especially
since I live away from Utah and pay over $5 to see 1 film for a few weeks and
over 15 per film to keep it permanently. It's a great moneymaker on the
part of the mormon church. Perhaps if they offered the catholics a percentage
of the cut, there would not be the problem. Instead the mormons claim the
catholics don't have the REAL priesthood so all baptism must be redone.
That is just plain rude.
ME ME ME | 7:48 p.m. May 6, 2008
Yet another comment by an LDS member, "It wouldn't be
offensive...." It's not about you. It's about honoring the
wishes of the dead and their dead relatives. Is this how you practice
Christianity, by questing the sincerity of Catholics with regard to their dead?
Wow! Ugly.
Dear Losing Track:
You are changing the subject. No one is questing the free information provided by the LDS Church. I applaud any group who liberally provides such information; however, you are changing the subject, trying to lose our discussion track. This is about honoring the wishes of the dead.
Dear Losing Track:
You are changing the subject. No one is questing the free information provided by the LDS Church. I applaud any group who liberally provides such information; however, you are changing the subject, trying to lose our discussion track. This is about honoring the wishes of the dead.
Bob | 7:53 p.m. May 6, 2008
Most religions are rude. It's the outcome of dogma.
No Longer Interested | 8:40 p.m. May 6, 2008
To Craigr | 3:29 p.m.,
You may believe whatever you want. Your attitude is exactly what is making me sick to my stomach and unwilling to meet with the elders again. I have already called them and cancelled. Believe whatever the heck you want to. But I can't stand the spirit of people like you. Bye! Forever!
You may believe whatever you want. Your attitude is exactly what is making me sick to my stomach and unwilling to meet with the elders again. I have already called them and cancelled. Believe whatever the heck you want to. But I can't stand the spirit of people like you. Bye! Forever!
Cougar Royal | 8:40 p.m. May 6, 2008
Wow, over 600 comments on this blog! I don�t think I have
seen so many comment on a story�.. I obviously
don�t have time to read all the hatred by the anti-mormons
on this story but I am confident and assured they have out done themselves with
these 600 + comments. You gotta love the anti�s, they sure
are a persistent little bunch.
Agency | 8:49 p.m. May 6, 2008
I think it's important to point out that the LDS church teaches that those
people who pass on and then have their work done by proxy can choose whether or
not they want to accept it. No one is "forced" and no one is
"claimed". It is done out of love and concern for those people. I
think this changes the mindset and the motivation behind temple work.
Banderson | 9:10 p.m. May 6, 2008
Dear Genealogy: I am a volunteer worker at one of the 4,500 Mormon Family
History Centers in the world that the Church staffs with UNPAID volunteers to
help members of the Church and the general public access records of their
ancestors. Admission is always FREE. Tonight I was excited with a lady as she
found on a microfilm the marriage record of her greatgreat grandparents on a
parish record in Cornwall,England in 1865. True, she had spent $5 to borrow the
film. But,she was thrilled. She had found the married couple's names from
3 death certificates of their children for which she had paid the Cornwall
government 45 dollars.
You might be interested in volunteering in a Family History Center yourself. It's fun to help people find their ancestors.
You might also be interested in volunteering to help for NO PAY with an LDS Church organized effort to digitize and index all the millions of microfilms the Church has collected over the last 70 years so they can be provided for FREE to anyone in the world on the Internet. The project was opened to the public last August and has about 150,000 volunteers. Everyone please volunteer at familysearchindexing.org.
You might be interested in volunteering in a Family History Center yourself. It's fun to help people find their ancestors.
You might also be interested in volunteering to help for NO PAY with an LDS Church organized effort to digitize and index all the millions of microfilms the Church has collected over the last 70 years so they can be provided for FREE to anyone in the world on the Internet. The project was opened to the public last August and has about 150,000 volunteers. Everyone please volunteer at familysearchindexing.org.
Sam | 9:18 p.m. May 6, 2008
To those whom reflect on agency to justify baptism for the dead it is just
wrong. Agency is a mormon theology and not a Christian theology. If one does not
believe in mormonism but is Christian then one does not believe in agency thus
your baptism for the dead is morally bankrupt by Christian standards and
ultimately untrue. You can only have it one way and I am sorry you have chosen
the wrong way.
To: Cougar Royal | 9:39 p.m. May 6, 2008
Just trying to understand the "anti" phenomenon that I always hear
around this LDS community. My read is that any questioning or critical thinking
(not simply being critical but attempting do discern) regardless of sincerity or
respectfulness is: "Anti".
I've also heard it said in this community that one should think how an "elder" (not sure if that's the term) would respond and respond in kind. This sounds similar to my initial comment in terms of not questioning the elders.
is my assessment correct?
I've also heard it said in this community that one should think how an "elder" (not sure if that's the term) would respond and respond in kind. This sounds similar to my initial comment in terms of not questioning the elders.
is my assessment correct?
Dear Thomas | 9:41 p.m. May 6, 2008
Thanks for your thoughtful response re specificity. I think that it is fruitless
to expect others to act/react in a certain way. The best judge of how one is
occurring in the world is to measure the response and not look inward at
one's expectation. No?
jake | 9:45 p.m. May 6, 2008
It's reallt a shame. Just when I thought the two churches were gaining
respect and understanding for one another, this happens. I am more interested
in preserving records that are being lost @ an alarming rate due to floods,
fires, natural disasters, etc than I am about being petty. I am going to follow
what Pres. Monson has asked us to do, show an increased amount of love for
others not of our faith. I'll let God take care of the rest.
banderson | 9:48 p.m. May 6, 2008
For seventy years the LDS Church has offered other churches and other record
holders FREE labor to microfilm their records, FREE permanent safe storage of
the microfilms in Utah,a FREE copy of the microfilm for the record holder as
well as the original records staying with the record holder. I understand it has
been rather common that when a person goes to the trouble to go to an Catholic
or other church in the US or Europe, which has old records in the dusty
basement; they will be referred back to one of the LDS Family History Centers
for easier access to the records.
If you're traveling to an old church to check out its' records it's wise to check if the records are on LDS microfilm already, when the old church is open and how much they charge to look through their sometimes fragile books.
Some people think it is more efficient to borrow, for $5.50, a microfilm from the Family History Library in Utah than to travel to France, for instance, to look at parish records -- but not as fun. A catalog of the microfilmed records the Church has is available FREE on the LDS FamilySearch website.
If you're traveling to an old church to check out its' records it's wise to check if the records are on LDS microfilm already, when the old church is open and how much they charge to look through their sometimes fragile books.
Some people think it is more efficient to borrow, for $5.50, a microfilm from the Family History Library in Utah than to travel to France, for instance, to look at parish records -- but not as fun. A catalog of the microfilmed records the Church has is available FREE on the LDS FamilySearch website.
Achim Erlacher | 9:50 p.m. May 6, 2008
My Ancestors paid and contributed towards the wealth, building up and
maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. I am sure that this was
in part their choice but often the consequence of a lack of choices. As taxpayer
in Austria, my taxes still benefit the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. R.C. religous
education at schools is at least in part funded by the State, the upkeep and
renovation of Chapels is in part goverment supported etc.) My ancestor and their
descentants should be able to choose whether they want to be baptised. Strangely
the Roman Catholic Church was not only happy to take my ancestors contributions
who didn�t have a choice but also my tax money to keep and
maintain records. On the other hand to be unwilling to share that information
with people who have a personal interest in their ancestors being able to
choose, is highly inappropriate.
LDSmom | 9:51 p.m. May 6, 2008
People should do some research before they comment on The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints ----(YES that is the name and please use it properly). You
all sound uneducated and obviously don�t have a clue on
your comments. I am sick with the arguments on this post!
Jeff | 9:59 p.m. May 6, 2008
I am a Genealogist, and I am not Mormon (but have Mormon Ancestors). I have
read many responses that echo the sentiments of Julie who stated that if
Catholics do not believe LDS Baptisms have any affect, then why stand in the
way? This is purely an issue of intollerance. I suppose you could make the
same argument about Gay Marriage, or any other issue you may disagree with
especially if you feel it doesn't apply to you. What do you lose by it,
and if you don't believe it is valid, then why choose to be intollerant of
it, especially if it may mean something positive to someone else? In my humble
opinion, a lot of people, including the Pope, need to get back to basics and
rediscover what it takes to be a true follower of Christ. Lead us not into
temptation...to judge one another.
To: Jeff | 10:10 p.m. May 6, 2008
You say: "In my humble opinion, a lot of people, including the Pope, need
to get back to basics and rediscover what it takes to be a true follower of
Christ. Lead us not into temptation...to judge one another."
----------------
But is it not being judgmental to not let (in this case) Catholic baptism stand w/out additional and presumably *correct* LDS baptism? ... also, am I hearing it correctly that the deceased can authentically *choose* LDS baptism?
----------------
But is it not being judgmental to not let (in this case) Catholic baptism stand w/out additional and presumably *correct* LDS baptism? ... also, am I hearing it correctly that the deceased can authentically *choose* LDS baptism?
Kevin | 10:29 p.m. May 6, 2008
Knee biters are plentiful here. The caravan moves on and will dot the earth with
temples and gods true church will continue his ordinances. No big thing here as
the catholics are just bitter we are authorized and well them; not so much.
Hey, wait a second | 11:03 p.m. May 6, 2008
Since when do the views put forth by an incredible minority of the the LDS
Church suddenly represent all of us? There are over 5 million members in the US
alone. If every single post on here was from a different LDS person, it would
represent just slightly more than .0001% of US members, and .00005% of worldwide
members. If you're using this, or Utah for that matter (representing about
10% of the worldwide Church) as your basis for what "all Mormons are
like" your view is going to be awfully skewed.
I for one am from New England, I'm Mormon, and I don't like the attitudes I've seen in Utah because they don't represent the Church that I joined in New England. They represent the elitist attitude that has become prevalent among some people in Utah. You see this same attitude among Southern Baptists in the southeast.
The members don't represent the religion if they don't live its doctrines, like respect for other religions and loving one another.
I for one am from New England, I'm Mormon, and I don't like the attitudes I've seen in Utah because they don't represent the Church that I joined in New England. They represent the elitist attitude that has become prevalent among some people in Utah. You see this same attitude among Southern Baptists in the southeast.
The members don't represent the religion if they don't live its doctrines, like respect for other religions and loving one another.
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.
- High school volleyball: All-region 5:45 p.m.
- High school girls soccer: All-region 5:40 p.m.
- Jazz Extra: 5 things the Jazz hate 5:34 p.m.
- Chargers win sixth straight 5:24 p.m.
- Top performers: Robbie Findley 5:18 p.m.
- Top performers: Nat Barchers 5:17 p.m.
- Top performers: Kyle Beckerman 5:15 p.m.
- Top performers: Nick Rimando 5:13 p.m.
- RSL triumphant in Seattle 5:10 p.m.
- From inconsistent to champions 5:07 p.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Hall comes up big when it counts
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
727 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime468
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- BYU is champion of the state126
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside115
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane90
- Hall's legacy measured today77
- Y. focused on 10-win season74
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
My heart has just been so heavy for this family. I do not know them, but...
No Jesus in WOT? It seems to me like Rand is going to be a Christ-figure.
I am so glad he won..The one thing that impressed me, dancing aside, was he...
Interesting, but very predictable, that Hall waited a year, and only after a...
I went to Church today - just like you. I went to seminary - just like you....
I feel like Max just yanked me down by my ponytail. I consider Mr. Hall's...
Try again. "So Then" is actually correct. The 23% of the U.S. population has...
It seems a little ironic that Monopoly editions should come at the end of a...
Deseret Dawg - BYU won the toss, if it was sudden-death they would have taken...
I agree, Brandon Sanderson's novels are amazing. I was totally caught by...
Advertisements
I guess my point is this: The Catholic Church has taken an action on a universal level. Let's take our own action at a personal level and show love and understanding to our Catholic brothers and sisters.