Comments about ‘Catholics told not to give LDS parish data’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 4 2008 12:30 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
porky

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

Nick Hudson

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

By-Mexico

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

LDSmom

Chris:

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

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

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

LOL, that was very cleverly worded. :=)

tired of the bashing

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

Connie

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

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

Andrew

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

Ammon

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

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

Alex

tired of the bashing:

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

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

Re: Andrew

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

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

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

LDSmom

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

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

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

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

Nick Hudson

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

Mark

@ Thomas 1:41 p.m:

Your reference to Cromwell was mean-spirited.

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



Mark

@ Nick Hudson:

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

Which Way? How Far?

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

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

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

I Hope Not.

LDSmom

To "To Julie":

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

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

sheesh

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

get it right NOW

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

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

re: Thomas | 1:41 p.m

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

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

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

Shoes

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

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

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

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments