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 | 9:21 p.m. May 7, 2008

I would figure our lord would be able to keep track of our geneolgy and would accept good and kind people no matter what ordinances have occured. If indeed he is our father in heaven and we are all his children then does this all really matter and are we just making are lives more complicated?

very sad | 9:25 p.m. May 7, 2008

I am new to blogging, just trying to make a positive contribution. When I read stuff like this, I wonder it it's worth it. I am so brought down by the sarcasm, the name-calling, negativity and bitterness. Wow. I believe it was Christ who warned us where the "spirit of contention" comes from - and it is he who is the source of all contention that I see emerging as the only "victor" here. I happen to be a Latter Day Saint. I am very sad about the above types of communication here by members of my faith. I apologize for them. Very sad also that others choose to "throw the baby out with the bath water" and dismiss any faith because the members are imperfect. Show me a church full of perfect people? Please? I invite any to read the most up-to-date words of our leaders (try General Conference reports on lds.org) and see if we do truly teach about respect and tolerance and love for all others. The Catholics have the right to do whatever they like with their records. Please - the enemy is hate - not each other.

Thomas | 9:25 p.m. May 7, 2008

The Kneebiters are fictional and folklore in mormon history. Anyone who has posted here on actual events involving these creatures are just very, very ill informed. It actually has a very negative connotation as represented in the US version of the book ï¿½Hitchikers Guide to The Galaxy.ï¿½ I am not sure we want our folklore associated with that connotation.

Comments continue below

Truth | 9:44 p.m. May 7, 2008

Reading the bulk of the posts here, I've come to the conclusion that many representing the LDS faith simply cannont comprehend the following:

1. No amount of explaining doctrine about baptism for dead is going to make it acceptable to most. Honoring their privacy and religion should be foremost.

2. Many people simply don't believe yours is the "True Church." No offense but try to understand.

3. You believe your work in baptisms and geneology is the "Lord's work." Other religions place no emphasis on this; no disrespect meant but this may be incomprehensible to many.

I believe many of your intentions are good but please respect the feelings of other religions. Last, to LDS members who understand 1-3 and spoke out on this forum urging religious freedom and tolerance, you've broken down 1 stereotype I had about LDS religion...thank you

banderson | 9:56 p.m. May 7, 2008

harry C
I understand the Catholic Church has for decades welcomed the filming and preservation of their records by the LDS Church. I suspect that in the past it was not perceived by them as conspiring with heretics. If that perception has changed, they can of course pay others in the future to preserve their records for them.

Unfortunately many churches and other holders of valuable genealogical records have a hard time finding the substancial sums necessary to microfilm their records. Their money is spent for other worthy causes.

Fortunately for record preservation, the LDS Church has been willing to spend huge sums of money to provide filming services to record holders at no cost.

For instance, in Europe some records were filmed before churches were destroyed in World War II. In New Orleans there had been opposition to LDS filming for decades. Finally, recently, permission was granted and an LDS film crew was operating when Katrina hit.

We all share the same ancestors. As the LDS find our ancestors and preserve their histories we freely share that information with the world because many have those same ancestors. We invite the world to share with us -- and many do.

Shane | 11:19 p.m. May 7, 2008

We DO NOT ALL share the same ancestors. The LDS are far less than 1% of the worlds population and so the other 99.x+% of us would appreciate the respect of not harassing our ancestors in the after life nor trying to convert us in the here and now!

RE: Erroneous how? | 12:56 a.m. May 8, 2008

"...please scripturally explain how baptism for the dead is erroneous?..."

Paul used first-person pronouns throughout 1 Corinthians referring to himself and the believers, then changes to 'they' in 15:29. Clearly he was referring to an erroneous practice. Paul's style of argument and exposition made frequent use of examples; this is clearly one of those examples, saying, if they don't believe in an afterlife, why do they bother with baptizing the dead? Furthermore, it is mentioned only in that one place in the Bible, without further reference, and without any associated commands or guidelines.
Were it a practice that was condoned, it would have been mentioned elsewhere along with further guidelines.

The Bible teaches that salvation must occur before death; else it is too late. See Luke 16:24 concerning this. See 2 Corinthians 6:2.
The BoM also teaches this: Alma 34:31; 2 Nephi 9:38;
Mosiah 26:25-27.

Nothing in the BoM supports baptism for the dead, which claims to contain "the fulness of the everlasting gospel."

Just some thoughts | 5:55 a.m. May 8, 2008

Why do people get so mad about the LDS? Frequently people of other faiths try to convert me, like Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses or even Hare Krishnas. It is a matter of 5 seconds to say "No thanks, I'm not interested". What's the big deal? Why is everything nowadays seen as disrespectful? The same goes for baptism for the dead. As long as you didn't have a relationship with a particular person, how can you say that he/she would feel harassed? Most of them lived hundreds of years ago. How could anyone here be their spokesperson?

To those who refer to scriptures in the Bible to prove or disprove things I would say, that there are a lot of things that Christian churches do today (LDS and Non-LDS) that is not based on specific commandments or clear guidelines of the Bible.

One last thing-- If you think LDS are being disrespectful, you better not be someone who ever thought or said: "I'll pray for you, erronous Mormon!", because that, according to your thinking, is disrespectful, too.

Actually.. | 8:03 a.m. May 8, 2008

There are many things in the Bible that very few Christian religions ignore. For example, no one stones their children to death for disobedience as god in the Bible command.

If you decide to read the Bible without religious authority looking over your shoulder to make sure you read their way, you'll find that the Bible is full of the worst form of morality around, acts that would make Stalin proud.

Religion is all about picking and choosing passages that support their dogma and conveniently ignoring the immoral god parts and then claiming that the Bible is the word of some supernatural person.

It's time to drop religion all together.

Raymond A. | 8:37 a.m. May 8, 2008

The Pope of the Holy Catholic church is a prophet of the true God and he acts in accord with communion through prayer and revelations, he is not acting on a personal preference but because he is directed by our Lord. We hope others will understand and respect this rule of holy law given with our love and good will.

Jim E | 9:33 a.m. May 8, 2008

Most LDS are saying that Christians donï¿½t believe Mormon baptism has any meaning so why should Christians care.

I wonder if the LDS would mind giving me their dead ancestors names so I can sacrifice their blood to Baal by ï¿½proxyï¿½?

Shouldn't matter to them. LDS don't think a sacrifice to Baal has any meaning.

G | 9:59 a.m. May 8, 2008

"From G: "They don't own the temples." And you don't own the records."

Really? What records did Jewish groups hold over the church to get them to abandon proxy baptism? None.

We live in a society where people use "offense" as political capital. Let them be offended. Brigham Young would not have tolerated this.

G | 10:02 a.m. May 8, 2008

"
I wonder if the LDS would mind giving me their dead ancestors names so I can sacrifice their blood to Baal by ï¿½proxyï¿½?

Shouldn't matter to them. LDS don't think a sacrifice to Baal has any meaning."

Personally, I wouldn't care. You can get names out of a phone book and practice whatever ordnance you want all day long. If it does no physical harm, where is the problem?

G | 10:12 a.m. May 8, 2008

"Why is everything nowadays seen as disrespectful? The same goes for baptism for the dead. "

Because we live in a society that worships political correctness.

Tiago | 10:39 a.m. May 8, 2008

I think those records belong to their ancestors as much as they do to the Catholic Church.

records | 11:19 a.m. May 8, 2008

Records belong to organizations. Ever try going to a doctor and getting your own medical records? They won't just hand them over to you, but they will copy them--for a price.

You might not care... | 11:42 a.m. May 8, 2008

I donï¿½t think LDS individuals would *care* if someone was baptizing them by proxy to another faith because they believe it holds not authority, but letï¿½s be realistic. The Baptistï¿½s have a missionary program called the Great Commission, which targets LDS members as potential converts. Hypothetically, if the Baptists were to initiate a publicly known, church-wide program whereby they used LDS Church membership records to baptize by proxy all LDS members; you can guarantee LDS Church leaders would have something to say about it. You might not *care*, but there is no doubt that action would be condemned at the highest levels of the Church, and access to the records the Baptists were using would be denied.

Thomas | 11:52 a.m. May 8, 2008

No religion should claim veto power over what another religion's adherents do in the privacy of their own churches.

Re: You might not care... | 12:08 p.m. May 8, 2008

"Hypothetically, if the Baptists were to initiate a publicly known, church-wide program whereby they used LDS Church membership records to baptize by proxy all LDS members; you can guarantee LDS Church leaders would have something to say about it. You might not *care*, but there is no doubt that action would be condemned at the highest levels of the Church, and access to the records the Baptists were using would be denied."

I still wouldn't care, since, again, all they would have to do is use a phone book to get names for ordnances. Or our own resources.

But there are a few subtle assumptions in your analogy that need to be pointed out.

(1) In your analogy latter-day saints are being specifically targeted because only of our religion, by a specific church we've had problems with. In proxy baptism, every non-LDS person is targeted. It is not a campaign specifically organized against Catholics.

(2) In your analogy the recipients are still alive.
I think there is a difference between my Catholic ancestors 300 years ago and the current LDS member rolls. Specifically, it raises the question of whether or not the Catholics *own* my ancestors.

Records ownership | 12:47 p.m. May 8, 2008

Organizations own records. You don't even "own" your records. Ever try to get your personal medical records from the doctor? They won't hand them over to you. They will copy your records for you--for a fee.

Religion | 12:56 p.m. May 8, 2008

Wow! There are over 700 comments about this topic. When there are events in the real world needing attention, so many of you are discussing beliefs that aren't based on the real world.

I do not see how religion helps people. Doesn't it just create conflict? If there is a dispute about something in the real world, we can actually make reference to the world as we know it. Belief in things that can't be tested as real and talking in tones of certainty about them gets us nowhere.

G | 12:56 p.m. May 8, 2008

"Ever try to get your personal medical records from the doctor?"

It's interesting that you mention that. I did this morning. No fee, no problem.

I can understand the Catholic Church's position on this matter. But privacy issues for people that lived a long time ago are different from those of the living. Especially when the family is involved.

Even the FBI can be petitioned to release surveillance files on people that have died at least 20 years ago, if a sufficient historical interest can be proven. And if you lived a really long time ago, anthropologists won't hesitate to dig up your grave, make a mockery of your religious beliefs, and put you in a museum. All with no outcry.
than that.

Records | 2:41 p.m. May 8, 2008

"And you don't own the records."

From G: "Really? What records did Jewish groups hold over the church to get them to abandon proxy baptism? -- Who cares. We're talking about the Catholic Church here.

"Brigham Young would not have tolerated this." -- And he might have been driven out of Utah, too. Unfortunately, this issue, along with the FLDS issue, is going to cause great hardship to the LDS Church and its recruiting efforts in the years to come. Disrespecting Catholic folks in this way -- and on this forum -- is not a smart move.

RE: you might not care | 2:44 p.m. May 8, 2008

"...The Baptistï¿½s have a missionary program called the Great Commission, which targets LDS members as potential converts..."

Actually all Christians have a 'missionary program' called The Great Commission; it is found in the Bible,given in Matthew chapter 28, verses 19-20, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

This instruction was given by Jesus Christ to the apostles and all who followed them (Christians) to preach and teach what Jesus Christ has shown us in the scriptures and through the power of the Holy Spirit. We are instructed to evangelize to all unbelievers, all over the world. As Baptists, we believe that we are all 'missionaries' for Jesus Christ. Although many do, one doesn't have to go around the world or even around the country or attend an institutionalized program to preach and teach to unbelievers; all of us can look around in our own neighborhoods, where we work, every where we go and see unbelievers.

RE: RE: Erroneous how? | 3:24 p.m. May 8, 2008

I shouldn't waste my time on 'born again doctrineï¿½, but....

1 Corinthians 15:29 - The Corinthian members were beginning to dispute the reality of the resurrection. He was pointing out that baptizing the dead would have no meaning if the resurrection were not real.

The Bible, as does the BofM, teach that those who hear the gospel preached while in mortality should 1) accept it, and 2) once accept it, live it.

How unjust would it be to condemn the millions of Godï¿½s children to hell because they did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel while they lived in the flesh. Of all ï¿½born againï¿½ philosophies, this saddens me the most.

Again | 3:25 p.m. May 8, 2008

I ask the question because I don't understand, why are infants baptized into the church if they have no cognitive ability to make this choice? Isn't this a "forcing" just like the complaining on this board is? If someone could just explain the baby baptism and why it's done at such a young age?

G | 3:33 p.m. May 8, 2008

"And he might have been driven out of Utah, too. Unfortunately, this issue, along with the FLDS issue, is going to cause great hardship to the LDS Church and its recruiting efforts in the years to come."

I thought one of the tenets of the religion was that God ran the church, and not some public relations department.

If it wanted, the LDS church could get LOTS of converts--just by changing doctrine sufficiently to be attractive to post-modern sensibility. We can drop the tithe and worthiness interviews. We could teach that there are many ways to truth and that different morals apply to different people, and that God doesn't expect anything of anyone.

Ask nothing, and tell people what they want to hear and the chapels will be full. This is a debate the Catholic church has been having too, isn't it?

If you think that's a good idea, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Believing Unbeliever | 3:47 p.m. May 8, 2008

Yes, I'm an believing unbeliever; I believe we ought to engage in dialog concerning morality and whether or not a believe in a supernatural man makes you as a believer morally superior person by this very fact. As someone without religion and knowing family who are Christian, my conclusion that that religious belief does not make grant anyone religious supremacy. We know this to be the case if we open to people of all kinds during our day to day experience. Experiencing morality among people transcends all religions. Unfortunately, the problem begins with religious people often prefer their dogma over real people.

I believe morality is innate, that we all have the ability to agree on a moral system if we put aside religious authority, both person and scripture. This entire discussion about baptism is an example of where religions fail; in this light, when looking at the years and years of violence and destruction in the name of God, regard the conflict in this thread as an microcosm of the attitudes capable of full out war. Call it a tiny seed.

RE:RE:RE: Erroneous how? | 4:20 p.m. May 8, 2008

"...How unjust would it be to condemn the millions of Godï¿½s children to hell because they did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel while they lived in the flesh. Of all ï¿½born againï¿½ philosophies, this saddens me the most..."

It is sad indeed that people hear the Gospel and turn from it. As for those that 'have not heard the Gospel', we cannot know the provision that Almighty God has made for them, although we are told in scripture that all of creation is a witness to God, even the heathen knows right from wrong because of this.
Anything that the Lord does is 'just'; who are we to question the design of Almighty God? We who are filthy sinners without hope, save for the grace of God and the atoning blood of Jesus Christ? Was The Flood, that killed nearly all who lived on the world 'unjust'? There are many examples throughout scripture that to the modern, human mind seem harsh, but God loves us and has always given us the knowledge required to escape sin and penalty; the Bible says nothing of second chances after death. Quite the contrary, in fact.

To Again: | 4:20 p.m. May 8, 2008

To put it simply, infant baptism is a "we welcome this child into the Christian community rite." It is at an older age when these children make an adult commitment to Christ through either a "born again" experience (evangelical protestants), or a First Communion experience (Catholics and mainstream protestants) after studying and discerning.

To G 3:30 pm | 4:28 p.m. May 8, 2008

That is exactly why the Roman Catholic Church chooses to protect the faith and avoid participating in heretical practices, even if it means making a few Mormons angry.

G | 4:44 p.m. May 8, 2008

"That is exactly why the Roman Catholic Church chooses to protect the faith and avoid participating in heretical practices, even if it means making a few Mormons angry."

But what I don't understand is why so many think the LDS church should abandon proxy baptism to make Catholics and Jewish groups happy. Their opinions should be irrelevant.

To Again | 4:47 p.m. May 8, 2008

"To put it simply, infant baptism is a "we welcome this child into the Christian community rite."

Then what is the entire "purgatory" thing all about?

The idea that a child who died in youth is going to Hell for not having Christian parents is not a Christian doctrine.

EndIgnorance | 5:33 p.m. May 8, 2008

"The idea that a child who died in youth is going to Hell for not having Christian parents"

What sort of bigoted mythology do they teach you?? That's not a Catholic doctrine!

Re: To Again | 4:47 p.m. | 8:24 p.m. May 8, 2008

Some real misunderstandings here!

Catholics believe that those who know about and believe in the sacrament of baptism must receive it. Official doctrine with respect to infants who have not been baptized, is that we have no clear teaching. The belief is that infants will attain heaven as God accepts each of us unless we have rejected Him by living in serious sin.

Infants are not baptized because they are viewed as sinful or unclean. Baptism sets up a new relationship with God for all of us who are born into a world that has been affected by inherent human weakness. It's a rite to welcome the child into the Christian community, but it is up to the parents and/or sponsors to see that the childï¿½s religious education follows.

Similarly, adults who desire baptism, were repentant and accepted God, but died before being baptized are saved through grace. Those who may not have had an opportunity to accept a personal God through no fault of their own, but are committed to following their conscience, also receive Godï¿½s grace-presence.

The Church does not believe heaven is reserved just for Catholics, and believe that God's judgement is always fair and loving.

Re: Re: To Again | 10:38 p.m. May 8, 2008

Pope Benedict XVI might have something else to say about the matter. I respect the man for his refreshing policy against what he terms "relativism". You might see the doctrine in that light, but that is not the way the doctrine is taught or practiced in the Catholic Church as a whole. Baptism of infants, as explained to me by a Catholic priest in Argentina, is to cleanse the infants of the "Original Sin" caused by Adam and Eve. Mormon doctrine/philosophy teaches that the "original sin" of Adam and Eve, though necessary, does not taint each person born into this world and that "men shall be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions."

What about | 11:25 p.m. May 8, 2008

simple respect. Why is it the LDS church is so offended that the Catholic church won't give it records? Why does the LDS church fell it is their right to have them? Why does the LDS church believe it's their right to do "proxy" baptisms?
How about a little respect, the same respect I would afford you.

Re: Re: Re: To Again | 11:25 p.m. May 8, 2008

From the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" -- 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' (MK 10"14;cf. 1 Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism..."

Spoiled Child | 12:03 a.m. May 9, 2008

A spoiled child thinks it has the right to get whatever it wants and is offended when told 'no'. When spoiled children get smart, in order to get what they want they use any which excuse they can to get around whatever reasoning the parent gives them. What this article is basically saying is that the Mormon Church should have the right to Catholic diocesan records but that the Catholic Church shouldn't really have the right to deny its access - or that at least the excuses the Church is giving isn't good enough or is lacking. The Church has rights to those records but that isn't good enough - because the Mormon Church WANTS THEM! NOW! What a bunch of whiny, spoiled little children.

Re: Re: To Again | 10:38 p.m. | 8:49 a.m. May 9, 2008

>>You might see the doctrine in that light, but that is not the way the doctrine is taught or practiced in the Catholic Church as a whole. Baptism of infants, as explained to me by a Catholic priest in Argentina, is to cleanse the infants of the "Original Sin" caused by Adam and Eve. Mormon doctrine/philosophy teaches that the "original sin" of Adam and Eve, though necessary, does not taint each person born into this world and that "men shall be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions<<.

My information is correct. Taken from the Catechism and the RCIA.

You misunderstand the Catholic concept of original sin. It is the accumulated affect of the sin of the first humans plus the sin of all humanity. In otherwords, we are all PRONE to sin as mortals on this earth. We develop pridful, unloving attitudes. We adopt the values of society and we are always subject to temptation.

As Paul said, In one man all have sinned. We are all affected by this sin and turn to sin ourselves. I am not "punished" for your sins, anymore than you are "punished" for mine.

AJ | 8:57 a.m. May 9, 2008

To spoiled child

First of all, the LDS Church already has many records for the World to share. This new policy from Rome, will not slow down the work at all.

Mormons will accept the Catholic ban, this is not a new policy, it's been done before and it's being done again. Who's the spoiled child, by taking their ball and going home?

What is unacceptable to Mormons is the notion of the Catholic Church stating "we will stop the Mormons from practicing baptism for the dead."
Ain't gonna happen.

This is America and no religion has the right to tell anther religion what they can and cannnot believe. It's arrogant to the extreme.

Keep your records if you will, burn them if you will, but, rest assured that if the Mormons find family histories, "THEY PRESERVE THEM FOR THE WORLD TO SHARE, AND TREAT THEM AS THE SACRED DOCUMENTS, THEY ARE.

I do work at the Family History Library, I run into people of all Faiths and from all over the World.
The LDS Church isn't involved in "aversion therapy" trying to dictate to another faith what they can and cannot believe.

All are welcome.

Sam Schmitt | 9:01 a.m. May 9, 2008

Julie,

Maybe this will help - just because the Catholic Church doesn't believe in baptism of the dead, that doesn't mean the it thinks it's harmless to the one who attempts to do it. So the RCC does not want to cooperate in any way in the practice, not because it harms the dead (as you correctly point out, the RCC doesn't believe it has any real effect), but because the RCC does not want to have any part of a practice which it considers false.

What if you were asked by a Catholic friend the names of your Mormon friends so that he could pray to Mary for them. I think it is very understandable that you would not want to do this. If he then said to you, "Why not? You don't believe in prayer to Mary anyway, so what's the big deal?" Well, I can see why you would still refuse, not because you think his praying to Mary would actually "do" anything, but because you wouldn't want to cooperate in his praying to Mary, since you think this is a false practice.

That's what's going on here. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Indiana Genealogist | 9:35 a.m. May 9, 2008

I know a Roman Catholic couple who had been married for several years, who had a ceremony by their priest to "renew" their "vows." The RC church apparently approves of re-doing its "sacrament" (what LDS call an ordinance) of marriage for living couples who are still married. People in other Christian denominations also do this.

I'm a convert of 31 years (formerly RC). When people of any denomination ask me about temple work, I liken it to the custom of "renewing vows." They seem to accept that concept.

JOT2779 | 10:17 a.m. May 9, 2008

The vast majority of these comments ignore the fundamental issues: what "right" do people have to these records? And isn't it the SOLE prerogative of the Catholic Church to decide which of HER records it decides to protect? Would any of you be offended if I declined to provide you my latest payroll statement? If so, on what basis? That's the thing--there's no basis for your "beef" with the Catholic Church's decision.

Why Mad at LDS? | 11:43 a.m. May 9, 2008

'Just some thought' said: "Why do people get so mad about the LDS? Many people of other faiths try to convert me, like evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, or even hare Krishnas. It is a matter of 5 seconds to say, 'no thanks, I'm not interested.' What's the big deal?"

The vast majority of Christians do not go to the homes or ring the doorbells of other Christians to tell them they belong to a false religion. Who has ever heard of Methodist missionaries doing this to Lutherans, or Catholics to Presbyterians. How can the vast majority of the 2 billion Christians in the world accept Mormons as fellow Christians under these circumstances. This LDS practice breeds distrust and dislike and is considered disrespectful and intrusive.

banderson | 12:20 p.m. May 9, 2008

As a doctor in Illinois I can share that medical records are the joint property of the patients (and their legal descendants)and the doctor who is required by law to keep a record of treatment.

When a patient choses to change doctors a copy needs to be made so both parties have a copy. Some offices charge. We don't.

I don't know that the medical records are a good comparison with 200 year old birth records held by a church. For whatever purposes the Catholic Church particularly has done a wonderful job over the years of recording births marriages and deaths -- often far earlier than governments made such records.

You could argue that like medical records the descendants have a "right" to the records of their ancestors but really if there is no legal requirement established by the government to provide those records to descendants -- it's left to the church to make up whatever policy it wants regarding release of their records.

The Catholic Church is less centrally directed than the LDS Church. Many parishes in the past have chosen to cooperate in the filming and preservation of their records, others have not. Now we'll see.

Re: Indiana Genealogist | 12:29 p.m. May 9, 2008

Referring to your temple work as ï¿½renewing vowsï¿½ is misleading. The validity of the original marriage vows always remain intact. In your explanation, do you tell people of other faiths that the LDS Church does not accept the validity of the original baptism?

Arrogant to the extreme? | 12:40 p.m. May 9, 2008

"This is America and no religion has the right to tell anther religion what they can and cannnot believe. It's arrogant to the extreme."
-----------------

What's arrogant to the extreme is to do something just because you can regardless of the wishes of the living relatives of the dead. Even if your culture is to ignore the sensitivities of others and stand in judgement of all you survey, you can still stand back and reassess ....

Dear Raymond | 12:42 p.m. May 9, 2008

I was unaware that the Catholics thought the Pope received revelation. Can you expound on that one and tell us of any revelations the Pope has received?

Because as I understand it, according to Catholics, the day and age of revelation is over. All we need to know is in the Bible. No need for modern day revelation...

As for those who are saying that Catholics don't believe babies go to hell if they aren't baptized, I'd say 90% of the Catholics I know disagree with you. That's there understanding of the doctrine and I asked them last night about it.

banderson | 1:00 p.m. May 9, 2008

"We all share the same ancestors"

I admit that is a rather general statement understood by many genealogists. Of course I don't share any close ancestors with someone from Japan.

Here is what I mean. I have 2 parents and 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-parents. Pretty much all of these were LDS. Farther back than these folks nobody was a Mormon because the Church started in 1830.

I have 32 great-great-great-grandparents, 64 4th great-grandparents and so on back through the generations -- 128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192, 16,384, 33,768, 67,536, 135,072. From this fifth generation back all my family were Methodists, Catholics, Church of England and probably even Druid from Denmark.

So the total ancestors I personally have at 17 generations back looks like over 200,000. If each of us had unique ancestors, the 300,000,000 or so inhabitants of the USA would have 200,000 ancestors each by the 17th generation for a total of 30 trillion people. I'm quite sure that's more people than have ever lived on the Earth.

The reality is that as you get back several generations our family trees become so intertwined with many others that effectively -- "we all share the same ancestors".

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.