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

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 4 2008 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Limbo Rock

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Truth & Patience:Continued

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

To perhaps

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

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


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

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

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

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

to; Thomas

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

to Catholic Homer

How many are active?

Oh, different number?

Who cares !! !

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

Think about it

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


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

to comment

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