NYBROOKLYN-L Archives

Archiver > NYBROOKLYN > 2006-07 > 1152221646


From: "Sarah McRedmond" <>
Subject: Re: [Bklyn] Baptism by Proxy
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 21:34:06 +0000


Joanne,

I (the lady whose father was baptized by proxy) have a question. I know you
cannot speak for all LDS Church members, but how do you think the Mormon
Church members would feel if the Catholic Church, the Church of Islam, the
Buddhists or any other religion began baptizing and performing other
sacraments and ordinances posthumously for those who were Mormons in life?

Sarah McRedmond


>From: "EDWARD JOANN NELSON" <>
>To:
>Subject: Re: [Bklyn] Baptism by Proxy
>Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:44:47 -0600
>
>Judie, I am sure Nan will also reply. But I am also LDS and can add my
>answer as well (not to step on Nan's shoes, hehehe!). I feel a sincerity
>in you to know, and that's why I wanted to reply.
>1. "THEY" she referred to are the "dead and departed" ancestors. Since we
>believe that baptism is a very important and necessary ordinance for
>eternal salvation (that is, to be with our Heavenly Father and Christ), the
>LDS church (short for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) wants to
>provide that opportunity for all. Do we know what is in someone else's
>hearts and minds? No. Do we think everyone should be able to have the
>opportunity to choose for themselves? Yes. As Nan says, performing that
>ordinance for them does not necessarily mean they will choose to accept it.
> It is their choice, just as it would be on earth. But how do we know who
>has had the opportunity to really understand and choose or not? And, as
>she said, those who have had baptisms or other ordinances done by proxy
>(such as sealings of families) does not put them on the records of the
>church. It is not harming them or their descendents. It is just providing
>an opportunity, doing a service !
> for someone who cannot do it for themselves. If you have a strong belief
>in Baptism, would you not want your ancestors to have that same
>opportunity? We should be grateful that members of the LDS church are
>interested in doing this service, or we would not have access to all of the
>genealogical information they provide to make our research easier!!
>2. As far as DIRECT LINE, we try to go as far back on our ancestry as we
>can find verifiable information, just like any other Genealogist. And we
>are told not to submit names for ordinance work on "collateral" lines, such
>as cousins, etc. unless we have the permission of a direct descendant. It
>is not the intent of the "Mormon" church (as sometimes called) to upset
>others such as the lady whose father was baptized by proxy. As Nan said,
>that should not have happened unless she has a sibling or there is a
>Grandchild, Great-Grandchild etc. of her father who is a member of the
>church, and did the ordinance work for him. I am not sure what you mean
>by "be identified as a believer". Those who have had proxy work done for
>them are not "identified as a believer", if that is what you mean. They
>simply have had their ordinance work done for them. Again, whether they
>believe, or accept or not is up to them.
>3. You seemed to question the term "sealed". To be sealed means that
>couples are married "FOR TIME AND ALL ETERNITY" vs "TIL DEATH DO YOU PART".
> If you truly loved your spouse, would you not want to have that marital
>relationship last forever? The same goes for your children. Would you
>want to be a family forever and continue to enjoy those relationships? We
>believe that is only possible though the sealing ordinance done by those
>who have the priesthood authority to do so in the temple, which is the
>HOUSE OF THE LORD. Obviously if someone did not have a good marriage, and
>a loving family, they would not want those relationships to last forever.
>They would be happier on their own. But that should be their choice, not
>mine.
>4. As someone mentioned in an e-mail, if this work is important to you in
>your religion (as it is to LDS members), let them do what they feel is
>their responsibility and privilege for their ancestors. If it is not,
>benefit from the genealogy information that is being provided as a result,
>and don't worry about whether or not an ancestor has been baptized by
>proxy. Certainly it is not hurting anyone, and would not have any meaning
>to you. As attested to by this email lists and so many others,
>genealogists want to help genealogists, and try to make our search for our
>ancestors easier. I think we all want a sense of belonging, to know who we
>are and what our ancestors were like, where they came from etc. I feel an
>excitement and satisfaction in it, as do so many others. Otherwise, why
>would we spend so much time in it? Let's just help each other rather have
>an ax to grind.
>Sincerely,
>Joanne
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Judie Cook<mailto:>
> To: <mailto:>
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bklyn] Baptism by Proxy
>
>
> Thank you Nan for this...it is the best I have read on the subject.
> However, when you say that "...they are free to choose for
> themselves"...who is THEY>?? The dead and departed, or the survivors
> or??? And when you say "direct line", just how far back does that
> line go before "someone" can be identified as a believer..?
> I was told by another member, who was part of the project, that the
> ultimate goal of the Mormons is to "baptize" every single person who
> has ever lived . This is why, they say, death certificates from all
> over the world are being photographed and recorded so that the
> individuals can be "sealed"....?
> I do appreciate the information you have already given.
>
> Judie
> On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:10 AM, <mailto:>
>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sarah:
> >
> > I wish I would have seen your original post about this, but it
> > didn't come
> > thru to me for some reason.
> >
> > I don't know if anyone that answered you was a member of the LDS
> > Church, but
> > I am. So I will address your posting that I did see.
> >
> > 1). If the names are on the IGI, they have either been cleared for
> > ordinance work, or some or all of the work has been done.
> >
> > Having said this, here is what we believe: When the immortal
> > spirit leaves
> > the body, it goes to one of 2 places:
> > (a) "Paradise", if he/she has been faithful in his/her mortal life
> > and
> > accepted the gospel and the ordinance work was done in mortal
> > life; or (b) a place
> > we refer to as the "spirit prison"....not a prison like we have on
> > earth,
> > but a place where that spirit cannot progress until they are
> > taught the gospel
> > and the ordinance work is done by Proxy here on earth. (this
> > includes LDS
> > members who may not have been able to finish the ordinances here
> > on earth).
> > That is not to say that they will not go to a beautiful place for
> > eternity.
> > They will. But we, as LDS, believe there are grander blessings
> > available (such
> > as families being "sealed" together for eternity) that were
> > restored by the
> > Prophet Joseph Smith when he was the instrument in restoring the
> > church in
> > 1830.
> >
> > Just as in this mortal life, every spirit has their Free Agency.
> > They can
> > choose to accept or reject the gospel and/or the ordinance work
> > done on their
> > behalf. If they choose not to, the ordinance work does not apply.
> >
> > 2) Quote: "I found that my father had been baptized-by-proxy
> > and...I know my father was a good Catholic and would not be
> > pleased about
> > being listed as a member of the Mormon Church,..":
> >
> > The baptisms are not recorded as membership in the Church of
> > Jesus Christ
> > of Latter-day Saints. These folks are not baptized into the
> > earthly church and
> > there names are NOT on the church records. They are baptized by
> > recognized
> > authority into the household of God. The names are recorded in
> > the spirit
> > world (which is what we call the time between death and the
> > resurrection, when
> > spirits are without their bodies).
> >
> > 3) The removal of names of Holocaust victims is between the Jewish
> > Federation and the Church.
> >
> >
> > 4) Quote: "I can safely assume that if one of my family members
> > is listed
> > at familysearch.org in the IGI, they have probably been baptized-
> > by-proxy. I
> > was really surprised how may of my family members where listed. I
> > think my
> > entire Forno family is there as well as most of the DeGruys and
> > Duffys, etc. "
> >
> > The names that are submitted to the IGI for ordinance work are
> > submitted by
> > - and only by - LDS church members. So, for your family's names
> > to be on the
> > IGI, there must be a church member somewhere in your family.
> > HOWEVER,
> > members are instructed repeatedly that they are to submit only
> > their direct line
> > (father, mother, grandparents, greatgrandparents, spouse, child,
> > sibling) not
> > Aunts, Uncles, 3rd cousins etc. In the case of your father's name
> > being on
> > the IGI, whoever is/was doing the genealogy and submitting the
> > names should
> > have contacted you and asked your permission - unless that person
> > is a son or
> > daughter or grand-son/daughter of your father. There are rules
> > that should be
> > followed. Unfortunately, people insist on breaking those rules
> > and then
> > things like this (your father's name being submitted to the IGI
> > and his work
> > being done) happen and cause friction.
> >
> >
> > Having also read Elizabeth's post, I want to address that.
> >
> > Quote: "Almost no one in the system is or was a Mormon".
> >
> > Not true, Elizabeth. Many on the IGI are LDS. They just
> > didn't have
> > the opportunity to do their own work while in this mortal
> > life....such as the
> > pioneers who crossed (and may have died on) the plains and did not
> > have access
> > to a Temple for many, many years. A friend of mine who come's
> > from pioneer
> > stock (lds lingo for many generations of LDS) who found a great-great
> > grandmother whose work had not been done.
> >
> > Quote: "If you believe, then it is a serious part of your religious
> > activity. If you do not, it is meaningless."
> >
> > Well said, Elizabeth!
> >
> > Quote: "Everyone knows it does not mean those listed asked to be
> > baptised
> > or sealed in unions.."
> >
> > Going by what I have already said, maybe they DID ask to be
> > baptized or
> > sealed together. We, as LDS, provide the opportunity for it to be
> > so. It is
> > their choice to accept or reject this opportunity.
> >
> > I want to my family to be sealed together forever. "Til death do
> > us part"
> > means exactly that. The union is no longer binding after one of
> > the two dies.
> > I can not imagine loving my family so much and not be able to be
> > with them
> > for eternity, especially my children.
> >
> > Again, no one is forcing any of the ordinances on anyone. They
> > are free to
> > choose for themselves.
> >
> > Nan
> >
> >
> >
> > ==== NYBROOKLYN Mailing List ====
> > Search the List Archives:
> >
>http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl>;
>
>
> ==== NYBROOKLYN Mailing List ====
> Search the List Archives:
>
>http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl<http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl>;
>
>
>
>==== NYBROOKLYN Mailing List ====
>List Administrator: <a href="mailto:">Nancy E Lutz</a>
>


This thread: