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
No Longer Interested

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

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...


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.


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.


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.


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.

To: I don't get this

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

"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.


Their records, they can do what they choose with them. End of story. No bitternes or hate needed nor warranted.


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.

To: Thomas

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 ...


"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.


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.


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.


Most religions are rude. It's the outcome of dogma.

No Longer Interested

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!

Cougar Royal

Wow, over 600 comments on this blog! I dont think I have seen so many comment on a story.. I obviously dont 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 antis, they sure are a persistent little bunch.


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.


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.


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 comment

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