I got hold of an old "Kodak fiche reader 321" but there is a part missing and without a partlist I am unable to figure out what is missing, can anybody help?? Regards Steinar

In article <pptj8.14860$Vx1.1224900@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "Larry Y." <nospam@nospam.net> writes: >> But, as I said to someone else recently -- if one disapproves of >> the Mormons and their reasons for collecting and disseminating >> the data, perhaps one should exercise one's own ethics by >> refraining from using that data and their facilities. > >Most people are probably not going to view this as a black & white issue. >The Mormons have done us all a great service by collecting and disseminating >these records. We owe them a debt of gratitude. > >If all they did was baptize non-Mormons by proxy, it wouldn't be much of a >bone of contention. But, if I correctly understood the initial poster, they >are going beyond that and are actually adding the names to their membership >rolls. I didn't see anything posted about "membership rolls." The original poster looked at data which has been extracted from LDS temple records and, apparently, is offended that the information is labeled as being from temple records. He/She has inferred that this is a claim that there were no records involved predating the temple records. -- Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but drew@furrfu.com the schedule slipped, they do that. -- Casady

> But, as I said to someone else recently -- if one disapproves of > the Mormons and their reasons for collecting and disseminating > the data, perhaps one should exercise one's own ethics by > refraining from using that data and their facilities. Most people are probably not going to view this as a black & white issue. The Mormons have done us all a great service by collecting and disseminating these records. We owe them a debt of gratitude. If all they did was baptize non-Mormons by proxy, it wouldn't be much of a bone of contention. But, if I correctly understood the initial poster, they are going beyond that and are actually adding the names to their membership rolls. I have heard that Mormons have baptized many famous persons, including Albert Einstein and all deceased US presidents. I can see where families of these individuals would be upset by this apparent intrusion by an outside religious group--especially in cases where the deceased was active in another denomination during his/her lifetime. It doesn't help matters any by the fact that, among a significant number of non-Mormons, the LDS Church is viewed as a cult. What is paradoxical is that the Mormons I know are all decent persons and are not the type that would be expected to try to antagonize anyone. Perhaps someone of the Mormon faith can give us additional insight on their position on posthumous baptism. Clearly it is a matter of great importance to them.

> I sort of doubt this, despite your posting the same intro twice. > Both of the pieces you've posted are focused on detailing why the > author (the Catholic Church according to you) says that the Mormons > are wrong. You are welcome to that view, but don't pretend that > it is a neutral presentation. You are free to doubt my motives all you want, but you are still incorrect in your conclusions. I made it abundantly clear that the material was written by a lay Catholic organization, and was biased in favor of their viewpoint. What more could I have said by way of a disclaimer? Any discussion of the relative merits of various religions would be off-topic in a genealogy bulletin board. In the case of the LDS, they are so intertwined with the practice of genealogy that an exception is in order. I feared that someone would use those 2 posts to start a thread bashing Mormons. Please re-read my introductory paragraphs. > -- > Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but > drew@furrfu.com the schedule slipped, they do that. > -- Casady >

In message <zxfj8.541$_A1.160170@news1.news.adelphia.net> "Robert Jerin" <rjerin@adelphia.net> wrote: [snip] > > And these would be ethnic Germans. The country of Germany did not exist as > a single, unified nation prior to 1850s. 1871 -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website: <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>

In article <jCpj8.14450$Vx1.1191147@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "Larry Y." <nospam@nospam.net> writes: >This is not an an attempt to start a discussion regarding the merits of >Mormon beliefs, but rather an effort to describe their doctrines. The >reader >can decide for himself/herself whether there is any merit to the Mormon >belief system or, for that matter, to the Catholic response as presented in >the article. I sort of doubt this, despite your posting the same intro twice. Both of the pieces you've posted are focused on detailing why the author (the Catholic Church according to you) says that the Mormons are wrong. You are welcome to that view, but don't pretend that it is a neutral presentation. -- Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but drew@furrfu.com the schedule slipped, they do that. -- Casady

In article <3C8E2422.6E447AF1@erols.com> singhals@erols.com writes: >D. Stussy wrote: >> I don't have a problem with SOME group keeping the records. However, when I >> was at one of their FHL's a year ago, it bothered me when the staffer kept >> referring to ancestral records as "blessings." I am not a Mormon. > >Clearly, you're not. Nor am I. However, a "Blessing" is an >entirely different do-dad; as I understand it, they only apply to >infants born to Mormon couples. It is the rite which is also >known as a Christening or a Dedication. Perhaps the staffer was >using the word in the "Blessings of Liberty" sense? There is a view within the LDS culture that doing genealogy work enables the effort to get the temple work done and *that* is a "blessing upon" the genealogist. Essentially, genealogy is at the top of the list of Good Deeds. That may be what was being heard. There are a few other uses of the word that come to mind, but none that wound have records kept. Blessing and naming of infants is pretty much a local matter. I don't think there are records of those as such. It goes on LDS membership records, but I don't think it goes into the IGI, as it isn't a doctrinally required ordinance. (Pretty much the same as christening in some churches.) -- Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but drew@furrfu.com the schedule slipped, they do that. -- Casady

> Why all the chatter* about what Mormons believe? > The have a website at URL www.lds.org > that tells authoritatively what they believe. In the interest of adding to the pool of information available on Mormon beliefs, I am printing the text of an article published by a Roman Catholic group. I do not mean to suggest that their interpretation is authoritative, as the article was clearly written with a bias toward Catholicism. Still, it does contain a lot of information that describes the unique beliefs of Mormons. This is not an an attempt to start a discussion regarding the merits of Mormon beliefs, but rather an effort to describe their doctrines. The reader can decide for himself/herself whether there is any merit to the Mormon belief system or, for that matter, to the Catholic response as presented in the article. Article Follows: _________________________ Distinctive Beliefs of the Mormon Church Are Mormons Protestants? No, but their founder, Joseph Smith, came from a Protestant background, and Protestant presuppositions form part of the basis of Mormonism. Still, it isn't correct to call Mormons Protestants, because doing so implies they hold to the essentials of Christianity-what C. S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity." The fact is, they don't. Gordon B. Hinckley, the current president and prophet of the Mormon church, says (in a booklet called What of the Mormons?) that he and his co-religionists "are no closer to Protestantism than they are to Catholicism." That isn't quite right-it would be better to say Mormons are even further from Catholicism than from Protestantism. But Hinckley is right in saying that Mormons are very different from Catholics and Protestants. Let's examine some of these differences. We can start by considering the young men who come to your door. They always come in pairs and are dressed conservatively, usually in white shirts and ties. As often as not, they get from place to place by bicycle. They introduce themselves to you as Elder This and Elder That. The title "Elder" does not refer to their age (many are not even shaving regularly, yet) but means they hold the higher of the two Mormon priesthoods, the "Melchizedek" order. This priesthood is something every practicing Mormon male is supposed to receive at about age 18, provided he conforms to the standards of the church. The other priesthood-the Aaronic-is the lesser of the two and is concerned with the temporal affairs of the church, and its ranks are known as deacon, teacher, then priest. The Melchizedek priesthood is concerned mainly with spiritual affairs, and it "embrac[es] all of the authority of the Aaronic," explains Hinckley. The Melchizedek ranks are elder, seventy, and high priest. At age twelve boys become deacons and thus enter the "Aaronic priesthood." If the terms for the various levels of the Mormon priesthood are confusing, still more confusing is Mormonism's ecclesiastical structure. The basic unit, equivalent to a very small parish, is the ward. Several wards within a single geographical area form a stake, which corresponds to a large Catholic parish. The head of each ward isn't called a priest, as you might expect, but a bishop. A Mormon bishop can officiate at a civil marriage, but not at a "temple marriage," which can be performed only by a "sealer" in one of Mormonism's temples. Polygamy Mormons try to attract new members by projecting an image of wholesome family life in their circles. This is an illusion-Mormon Utah has higher than average rates for suicide, divorce, and other domestic problems than the rest of the country. And if Mormonism's public image of large, happy families, and marriage bring to mind anything, it is polygamy. Hinckley explains that "Mormonism claims to be a restoration of God's work in all previous dispensations. The Old Testament teaches that the patriarchs . . . had more than one wife under divine sanction. In the course of the development of the church in the nineteenth century, it was revealed to the leader of the church that such a practice should be entered into again." Although polygamy was permitted to Mormons, few practiced it. But enough did so to make polygamy the characteristic that most caught the attention of other Americans. Mormonism, you should understand, is one of those religions which is peculiarly American. (A few others come to mind immediately, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science.) Although now spread beyond the borders of the United States, Mormonism is so tied to a certain brand of American nationalism that you couldn't imagine the religion starting anywhere else. Mormonism: Made in America If many of today's Fundamentalists are known for their belief that America is destined to play a key role in the events of the Last Days, Mormons are identified even more closely with America. The Mormons' theory is that Christ also established his Church here, among the Indians, where it eventually flopped, as did his original effort in Palestine. The situation is somewhat similar to that of the Anglican church. In England, the Anglican church is not just the church of Englishmen; it is the Established Church. In theory, and even at times in practice, Parliament can decide what Anglicans are to believe officially and can make and unmake clerics of all grades, from the lowliest curate to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Just as Anglicanism is tied to England, so Mormonism is tied to the United States. Although it is not the established religion of this country, Mormonism has allowed itself to be modified by Congress. "In the late 1880s," says Hinckley, "Congress passed various measures prohibiting [polygamy]. When the Supreme Court declared these laws constitutional, the church indicated its willingness to comply. It could do nothing else in view of its basic teachings on the necessity for obedience to the law of the land. That was in 1890. Since then officers of the church have not performed plural marriages, and members who have entered into such relationships have been excommunicated." Before Congress acted, Mormons were convinced polygamy was not merely permissible, but positively good, for those "of the highest character who had proved themselves capable of maintaining more than one family." (Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants is officially subtitled this way: "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives.") Yet this position was dropped when Washington, D.C., threatened to deny statehood to Utah. Similarly, and more recently, a "revelation," saying blacks would no longer be denied the Mormon priesthood, was given to Mormon leaders when the federal government started breathing down their necks. Continuing Revelation These continuing revelations are not exceptions to Mormon practice. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things"-this is the ninth article of faith for Mormons and is an official statement of doctrine. Hinckley notes that "Christians and Jews generally maintain that God revealed himself and directed chosen men in ancient times. Mormons maintain that the need for divine guidance is as great or greater in our modern, complex world as it was in the comparatively simple times of the Hebrews." Thus, revelation continues. It might be added: public revelation continues. Catholics hold that public or "general" revelation ended at the death of the last apostle (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66, 73), but private revelations can be given still-and have been, as Marian apparitions at such places as Fatima and Lourdes testify (CCC 67). Such revelations can never correct, supplement, or complete the Christian faith, which is precisely what Mormon "revelations" claim to do. Mormonism's Debt to Puritanism "Mormon theology," says Hinckley, "deals with such widely diversified subjects as the nature of heaven and the evils of alcohol. Actually, in this philosophy the two are closely related. Since man is created in the image of God, his body is sacred. . . . As such, it ill becomes any man or women to injure or dissipate his or her health." So alcohol (as well as tobacco, tea, and caffeine) is out for the believing Mormon. Here we have an example of Mormonism borrowing from Puritanism. The religion Joseph Smith developed uses elements of various forms of Protestantism. The emphasis on "temperance"-which, to the old-line Protestants, meant not the moderate use of alcohol, but outright abstinence-is one such borrowing. The curious thing is that this attitude is contrary to the Bible. It is one of those doctrines, shared by Fundamentalists and Mormons, that is believed independently of the Bible, though the Bible has been searched (and with quite unsuccessful results) for verses that seem to back it. Jesus Wasn't a Teetotaler The ancient Jews were a temperate people-temperate used in the right sense. They used light wine as part of the regular diet (1 Tim. 3:8). Jesus, you will recall, was called a wine-drinker (Matt. 11:19), the charge being not that he drank, but that he drank too much (that, of course, was false, but the charge itself reflects the fact that he did drink alcoholic beverages, such as the wine that was required for use in the Jewish Passover seder). The New Testament nowhere says the Jews claimed Jesus should have been a teetotaler. Wine was used also at weddings, and our Lord clearly approved of the practice of wine drinking since he made wine from water when the wine was depleted at Cana (John 2:1-11). Something Mormons seldom refer to is wine's medicinal uses (Luke 10:34). You will recall that Paul advised Timothy to take wine to ease stomach pains (1 Tim. 5:23). Such apostolic admonitions co-exist uneasily with Mormonism's strictures against wine. Mormons practice tithing, yet would be shocked to learn that in a key Old Testament passage where tithing (the practice of donating 10% of one's income for religious use) is discussed, God says: "you shall turn [your tithe] into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household" (Deut. 14:25-26). We're also told, "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more" (Prov. 31:6-7). As is so often the case when founders of new religions get an idea into their heads, they take it to an extreme. So Joseph Smith confused the misuse of wine with its legitimate use. The Bible does condemn excessive drinking (1 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Pet. 4:3), but the key here is the adjective "excessive." This is why Paul says Church leaders must not be addicted to wine (1 Tim. 3:8). When Hinckley refers to the "evils of alcohol," he gets it wrong. Alcohol itself is not evil, but the misuse of it is, just as a hammer, which can be used to pound in nails, can be misused to pound in skulls. Plural Heavens Polygamy was a doctrine some Mormons found hard to accept. Abstinence from alcohol is a teaching many find difficult. But one unique Mormon belief has supposedly brought blessing and relief to many souls, particularly potential converts. Mormonism teaches that practically no one is forever damned to hell. Aside from Satan, his spirit followers, and perhaps a half-dozen notorious sinners, all people who have ever existed will share in heavenly "glory." Not, mind you, all in the same heaven. There are, in fact, three heavens. The lowest heaven is populated by adulterers, murderers, thieves, liars and other evil-doers. These share in a glory and delight impossible to imagine. Their sins have been forgiven, and they now enjoy the eternal presence of the Holy Ghost. The middle heaven contains the souls and bodies of good non-Mormons and those Mormons who were in some way deficient in their obedience to church commandments. They will glory in the presence of Jesus Christ forever. The top heaven is reserved for devout Mormons, who go on to become gods and rulers of their own universes. By having their wives and children "sealed" to them during an earthly, temple ceremony, these men-gods will procreate billions of spirits and place them into future, physical bodies. These future children will then worship their father-gods, obeying Mormon commandments, and eventually take their place in the eternal progression to their own godhood. Mormons think this doctrine is a strong selling point. They point out (erroneously) that only their church offers families the chance to be together forever in eternity. But read the fine print. The only way you can have your family with you is if each one of them has lived a sterling Mormon life. Otherwise, a spouse, parent, or child may be locked forever in a lower heaven. Indeed, the faithful Mormon wife of a lukewarm Mormon man will leave him behind in an inferior place while she goes on and is sealed to a more devout Mormon gentleman. These two will then beget and raise their own, new family. The LDS slogan, "Families are forever," can only mean fractured families.

> As an evangelism tool, the Mormon website necessarily focuses on > building "common ground" with it's audience. The cosmology presented > on the web site is fairly general and consistent may other belief > systems; however, there are many beliefs that unique to the LDS church > that are never presented there. Some of these are very far removed > from mainstream American protestant beliefs: the average Methodist > would likely find these surprising and possibly even objectionable. > In the interest of adding to the pool of information available on Mormon baptism, I am printing the text of an article published by a Roman Catholic group. I do not mean to suggest that their interpretation is authoritative, as the article was clearly written with a bias toward Catholicism. Still, it does contain a lot of information that describes the Mormon focus on posthumous baptism, that may be useful for genealogists that would like to have some perspective on the practice. This is not an an attempt to start a discussion regarding the merits of Mormon beliefs, but rather an effort to describe the doctrine. The reader can decide for himself/herself whether there is any merit to the Mormon belief system or, for that matter, to the Catholic response as presented in the article. article follows: ________________________________________ Mormonism's Baptism for the Dead The first step toward being able to go to a Mormon temple is an interview with the "ward bishop" (roughly equivalent to a parish priest). During this interview a Mormon is questioned by the bishop to see if he has been faithful in his commitment to the teachings and ordinances of the Mormon church. The questions cover a variety of subjects, including his tithing track record; use of alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine; sexual immorality; and any failures to adhere to church doctrines and disciplines. If the applicant has had difficulties in any of these areas, he will not receive a temple recommend. For the one who does not pass the interview, there is no trip to the temple. It is interesting to note that the majority of Mormons do not have temple recommends. This is not to say that they fail their interviews with their bishops. Actually, for a variety of reasons, most Mormons never make the effort to obtain a temple recommend. But for the minority who do obtain one, their chief duties in the temple include baptism for the dead. On any given day, in more than fifty Mormon temples around the world, thousands of faithful Mormons are baptized vicariously for the dead. Most non-Mormons are dimly aware that the Mormons are interested in genealogy, but they are not sure why. While there is nothing wrong with being interested in genealogy as a hobby, this is far from a hobby for Mormons. They believe people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons after their death. The idea behind baptism for the dead is this: God wants each of us to be with him in glory. To effect this, he allows us to accept the Mormon gospel here on earth. If we do not, he sends us to a "spirit prison" until the Mormon gospel has been preached to us there and we convert. Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the "spirit world" who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. Should any of these dead people want to convert to Mormonism, they are required to abide by all its rules, one of which is water baptism. Hence the need for proxies to receive the corporeal waters of baptism. You might be surprised to learn that the Mormon church has teams of men and women microfilming records of Catholic and Protestant parishes, cemetery records, birth and death certificates-virtually any sort of record pertaining to past generations. Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church. Baptism for the Dead v. Baptism of Desire One reason Mormons advance the practice of baptism for the dead is a sense of justice. Billions of people have died without ever hearing the gospel of Christ and without having the chance to be baptized into his Church. How could God consign such people to damnation without giving them the chance to be saved? Surely he would give them that chance. But if they never heard the gospel in this life, when else could they hear and respond to it except in the next life? There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. Scripture is very clear in stating that this life is the only chance we get. Once we die, our fate is sealed: "It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). There are no "second chances" after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known. Thus, those who do not hear the gospel in this life will be judged based on the knowledge they did have in this life. God gives his light to all people (John 1:9), and the universe itself gives evidence of God (Ps. 19:1-4), evidence which is sufficient to establish basic moral accountability (Rom. 1:18-21). For those who are ignorant by no fault of their own, God will not hold their ignorance against them; but it is wrong to assume that people have no light from God unless they hear an oral proclamation of the gospel. If they live up to the light that has been shown to them and would have embraced Christ and the gospel had they known about them, then they can be saved (Rom. 2:15-16). Neither is their lack of baptism an obstacle. Scripture reveals that sometimes the graces that normally come through baptism are given early, to those who have not yet been baptized (Acts 10:44-48). Such people have what the Church terms "baptism of desire" and are united to God through their desire to do what he wants of them. In the case of those who have not yet heard the gospel or learned of God, but who nevertheless seek to follow the truth as they understand it, they have an implicit desire for God since they desire to follow the truth. They simply do not know that God is the truth. Consequently, they also can be saved through baptism of desire; therefore, a proxy baptism is superfluous, either before their death or after it. They are already united to God, even if they are not fully aware of it in this life (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848, 1257-1260). Thus the Mormon argument from fairness is not persuasive. There are other ways for accounting for God's justice and mercy in dealing with those who have not heard of God and the gospel. It is not necessary to postulate another preaching of the gospel and second chance of repentance in the afterlife, much less the necessity of proxy baptism for the dead, on that basis. God can simply let whomever he wants into heaven, whether they have water baptism or not. God is not bound by the sacraments he himself instituted (CCC 1257). The practice of baptism of the dead, then, must stand or fall based on the direct evidence concerning it, and that is where the Mormon position runs into fatal problems. The Bible Doesn't Teach It The doctrine of baptism for the dead was first given to the Mormon church by Joseph Smith in 1836 and is found in his Doctrine and Covenants, (but not, as we'll see, in the Book of Mormon). In Paul's first epistle to the church in Corinth, he treats a number of subjects. This letter was written to counteract problems he saw developing in Corinth after he had established the church there. Corinth had its share of pagan religions, but there were also quasi-Christian groups that practiced variations of orthodox Christian doctrines. Enter baptism for the dead. Mormons cite a single biblical passage to support baptizing members on behalf of dead persons, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor. 15:29). Mormons infer that in 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks approvingly of living Christians receiving baptism on behalf of dead non-Christians; however, the context and construction of the verse indicate otherwise. The Greek phrase rendered by the King James Version as "for the dead" is huper ton nekron. This phrase is as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. The preposition huper has a wide semantic range and can indicate "for the sake of," "on behalf of," "over," "beyond," or "more than." Like the English preposition "for," it does not have a single meaning and does not require the Mormon idea of being baptized in place of the dead. Such a reading would be unlikely given the more plausible interpretations available, and even if huper were taken to mean "in the place of," it doesn't mean Paul endorses the practice. First Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for Paul's teaching on the resurrection of the body. He makes no statement on baptism for dead persons except to note that some unnamed "they" practice it. While the rest of his teaching in chapter fifteen refers to "we," his Christian followers, "they" are not further identified. Who this group was may not be known with certitude today, but there are some reasonable interpretations: 1. Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives, with the hope that the dead might somehow share in the Lord's mercy. 2. Another interpretation envisions the baptism of catechumens who have witnessed the persecution and martyrdom of their Christian predecessors. With their belief that the dead do rise, the Christian candidates come forward boldly and accept both the faith and its consequences. 3. A related view holds that the group consists of those baptized in connection with a dead Christian loved one. In the first century, many families were split religiously, as only one or two members may have converted to Christianity. When it came time for these new Christians to die, they no doubt exhorted their non-Christian family members to consider the Christian faith and to embrace it so that they could be together in the next world. After the deaths of their Christian loved ones, many family members no doubt did investigate the Christian faith and were baptized so that they could be reunited with their loved ones in the afterlife. At the time, many pagans had at best an unclear idea of what the afterlife was like, and there were a large number of sects promising immortality to those who were willing to undergo their initiation rituals. A pagan husband mourning the death of his Christian wife might thus have an unclear idea of what her religion was all about, but still have it fixed in his mind: "If I want to be with her again, I need to become a Christian, like she was, so I can go where Christians go in the afterlife." This, then, could prompt him to investigate Christianity, learn its teachings about the afterlife and the resurrection, and embrace faith in Christ, receiving Christian baptism for the sake of being united with his dead loved one. The same is true, by extension, for other family relations as well, such as parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren. Even today deathbed exhortations to live the Christian life are not uncommon. People still resolve to live as Christians in order to please dead loved ones, to honor their memories, and to be united with them in the next life. The difference is that, today, most of those being exhorted have already been baptized. 4. Others advance the possibility that Paul was referring to the practice of a heretical cult that existed in Corinth. On this theory, Paul was not endorsing the practice of the group, but merely citing it to emphasize the importance of the resurrection. Rather, his point was: If even heterodox Christians have a practice that makes no sense if there is no resurrection of the dead, how much more, then, should we orthodox Catholics believe in and hope for the resurrection of the dead. There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers' writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead. Some Mormon writers assert that some Christian commentators have discussed the possibility of a kind of "baptism for the dead" among some in the Corinthian community in Paul's time. But these commentators do not suggest that the practice was accepted or mainstream. Given the silence of Scripture and tradition, we conclude rightly when we see this behavior as another aberration within a community of believers already soundly scolded by Paul for its lack of charity, its factionalism, its immorality, its abuse of the Eucharist, and other matters. Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that. A Flat-Out Contradiction The case against baptism for the dead is also made by the Mormon scriptures themselves. The current Mormon doctrine on baptism for the dead is quite unlike what Joseph Smith first taught. As in other cases, the Book of Mormon becomes an important tool for the Christian apologist. It contradicts much Mormon theology, and baptism for the dead is no exception. In Alma 34:35-36 we read: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked." In other words, those who die as non-Mormons go to hell, period. There's no suggestion of a later, vicarious admission into the Mormon church. We also see present-day Mormon doctrine contradicted in 2 Nephi 9:15: "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end." It is unforunate that Smith abandoned his own, earlier doctrine. It would not have made the Mormon scriptures any more authentic, but it would have prevented millions of futile Mormon proxy baptisms from being performed.

> On a practical level, the issue is respecting the views of all people > -- including those who object to this practice. In my own experience, > I've run into people who hesitate to provide genealogy information for > fear that it will be used to baptize them into a faith they disagree > with. > > I'm not sure how to deal with that issue.... You can't accuse Mormons of "respecting the views of all people." Theirs is a pushy religion: 1: Lots of door-to-door attempts to convert people to their beliefs. 2: Tight control of their flock by their religious leaders. I knew a Mormon in Philadelphia that told me that his family regularly received "visits" from other Mormons--in an attempt to see if they were adhering to the faith. 3: Well-orchestrated national advertising campaign. We've all heard the radio & tv ads that sign off with " . . . From the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." There is little hope of trying to stop them from "baptizing" everyone that ever lived! From a legal standpoint, they appear to be within their rights under our Constitution. I just take the position that their beliefs are nonsense, and I let 'em baptize ad nauseum . . .

Anyone know what happened to Mr. Cramer? I sent him info on someone and don't know if he got it, tossed it, didn't care? Seems a lot of that in genealogy these days. People write asking for help, you give it to them, and never hear from them again. Guess it's getting too hard to click on Reply and enter the word, "Thanks", and click on Send. Don "Clayton E. Cramer" wrote: > > http://www.danlo.com/cramer contains a database that I have been creating > of early American gunsmiths. This isn't going to give birth or death dates, > but you may find that it provides some useful pointers to sources that can > give you a bit more information about an ancestor. There are about 1880 > entries in the database right now, involving gunsmiths who were active > at least partly before 1840. I will be updating it from time to time as > I get more entries added. There is no provision for searching for a > particular name, so just take the default settings when you ask for a list, > and use the Find command in your browser to search for surname, firstname. > > I am not primarily interested in genealogy (though I can tell you the > names of at least one my ancestors in that database--Thomas Nash of > New Haven Colony). I am writing a book about gunsmithing and gun > manufacturing in early America. If you run into information in a > reliable source (primary source or a properly footnoted secondary > source) about gunsmith or gun manufacturers in early America, I would > appreciate hearing about it, especially if it is someone who is not > in the database mentioned above. > > By the way, before you make any assumptions: there are both female gunsmiths > in that list, and African-American gunsmiths as well, some of them slaves, > some of them apparently free. > > clayton@claytoncramer.com -- ~~~~~ Visit our NICKELL, GAUNCE, MOOTY genealogy Web Page http://nickell.tierranet.com ~~~~~

D. Stussy wrote: > How is this a "REAL Baptism?" Are they digging up corpses? Probably not, since "real" baptisms can be done only by Jesus Christ or John the Baptist. > > From the religious point of view, don't they only have any "right" to do this > ONLY if the deceased was a Mormon? That's obscure. If the deceased was a Mormon, he'd already have been baptised into their faith; no point in re-doing it after he died. >Otherwise, I see this as religious > infringement upon the deceased which could easily be an offense against > the descendants of that deceased. Umm, if the dead have rights, we're in big trouble. So, if they have no rights to be infringed upon, the descendants have no logical reason to complain that the rights of deceased were violated. I've got relatives who are offended when I attend a church service not of my own denomination. I try not to let them worry me. > > I don't have a problem with SOME group keeping the records. However, when I > was at one of their FHL's a year ago, it bothered me when the staffer kept > referring to ancestral records as "blessings." I am not a Mormon. Clearly, you're not. Nor am I. However, a "Blessing" is an entirely different do-dad; as I understand it, they only apply to infants born to Mormon couples. It is the rite which is also known as a Christening or a Dedication. Perhaps the staffer was using the word in the "Blessings of Liberty" sense? But, as I said to someone else recently -- if one disapproves of the Mormons and their reasons for collecting and disseminating the data, perhaps one should exercise one's own ethics by refraining from using that data and their facilities. Cheryl my apologies to the French group -- I didn't see the name until now.

Hi anyone looking for poor law inmates in Northumberland a Durham 1860 I have several pages froma House of Commons report on my site, inmates who lived in the Workhouse for 5 years http://davekane.tripod.com/poorlaw.html Dave Kane -- CLICK THIS SITE for Tyneside Family History. http://davekane.tripod.com/kaneindex.htm

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0203112131440.23113-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org... > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Wilhelm Gragert wrote: > >Hello, does anyone know if there are ship-lists for persons, who emigrated to > >the USA via LeHavre? Thank you in advance for any hint. > > Yes. Someone knows. > > ----------- > To answer the anticipated, subsequent question (which is what you probably > really meant to ask): > > "Germans to America" Ship passenger lists. Often, this means "German > SPEAKING" peoples, not just political Germans but Swiss, Austrian, etc..., as > well. And these would be ethnic Germans. The country of Germany did not exist as a single, unified nation prior to 1850s. Simple case of Citizenship vs ethnicity (or Race of People as many Ellis Island ship manifests state). The definition of Race of People on those old manifest says this is "the stock from which the alien sprang or the language they speak". Today around 95% of Austrians are ethnic Germans. So these modern Austrians are Germans by stock and language but Austrians by citizenship. And you can include people from many parts of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire IE Hungary, Romania, Bohemia, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, etc.. Robert Jerin

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Larry Y. wrote: >> From the religious point of view, don't they only have any "right" to do >this >> ONLY if the deceased was a Mormon? Otherwise, I see this as religious >> infringement upon the deceased which could easily be an offense against >the >> descendants of that deceased. > >I believe that Mormons try to search for their ancestors so that they can >baptize them posthumously. That would imply that the deceased was not a >Mormon--if he/she WERE a Mormon, why would they need baptism after death? > >If my assessment is correct, then consider this: what would prevent one of >your descendents from "baptizing" you at some point into the future--say 200 >years from now (you never know, sooner or later you'll have a Mormon in the >family). For that, I'd come back as a ghost and HAUNT his ass! :-) >As I see it, we have two options. > >1: Raise cain with them & tell 'em to cut that out. > >2: Do nothing. Let 'em "baptize" anyone they want. Who cares, anyway . . >.? It's all a crock. > >I personally prefer option #2. Life is too short to argue with the LDS >Church. With some of the trends I have seen, perhaps the U.S. Government does have it correctly interpreted: "Freedom of religion" includes "freedom FROM religion." In that respect, they (ANY group) doesn't have the right to impose their views on another. Here, they are imposing their views on the deceased WITHOUT regard for the descendant living.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, C'est Moi wrote: >You're missing the point here. The LDS believe in a spirit afterlife >for all people, even non LDS. Their gospel is preached to all non- >believers. Now, since it's impossible to baptize a spirit, the LDS >practice proxy baptisms - where a living person is baptized in place of >the deceased person. It's up to the deceased spirit to accept or reject >the gospel that's being preached to them. If they accept it, then the >proxy baptism will be adequate for them. Same with the sealings that >they do on behalf of the deceased persons. So, in other words, this part of their religious practice is as "real" as the beliefs of the Church of Scientology regarding their extraterrestial visitor. "Sealing": Another one of their pseudo-religious terms that has no meaning to the rest of us, except to offend non-Mormons by having it imposed on non-Mormon ancestors.... >It's not a matter of worshiping their dead ancestors! Proxy or not, that's what they're doing and we know it. >As for baptism, there are denominations that believe sprinkling is >sufficient to impart God's grace. Others believe in immersion only, >some even believe that there must be a three-fold immersion. Some >believe in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, others >believe in the name of Jesus only. Some believe that baptism is not >necessary for salvation (witness the thief on the cross), others believe >that without baptism there is no salvations, yet others believe that >baptism is only a public testimony of saving faith. Who's to say which >is the "real baptism"? They all claim they can "prove" their believes >from the Holy Bible. > >I don't agree with their beliefs, but I'm comfortable enough in my own >to say let them do what they feel is right because I know where my >salvation is from! > >"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in >news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0203112123030.23113-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org: > ><snip> >> >> How is this a "REAL Baptism?" Are they digging up corpses? >> >> From the religious point of view, don't they only have any "right" >> to do this ONLY if the deceased was a Mormon? Otherwise, I see this >> as religious infringement upon the deceased which could easily be an >> offense against the descendants of that deceased. >> >> I don't have a problem with SOME group keeping the records. >> However, when I was at one of their FHL's a year ago, it bothered me >> when the staffer kept referring to ancestral records as "blessings." >> I am not a Mormon. Although worshipping dead ancestors is common >> in some religions, one should never assume that a person one is >> engaged in conversation with is of the same (or similar enough) >> religion.

Sounds like an Advertisement to me. "Kay Archer" <j.a.b@k.a.y.s.e.r.v.net> wrote in message news:u8kfp5sk9frq17@corp.supernews.com... > While work is done for the dead, there is no requirement for the dead to > accept the work. > > The threefold mission of the church: > 1. Strengthen the Saints. > 2. Share the Gospel. > 3. Redeem the dead. > > Reply or query one of the "Mormon" newsgroups for more information. Or, ask > your local missionaries in for questions (g). > > More below inline. > [some snipping] > > > find but when I started digging into the records, LDS states that they > > are "Original Temple Records". My Ass!! These folks were Danish > > Lutherans, not Mormons. I've heard a bit about the Mormons gleaning > > church records and "saving" the dead so they would have a place in > > Heaven... They were supposedly going to cease and desist. To me, it > > You may not be the only descendant of these people. Some of the other > descendants may be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day > Saints and those people may be the ones that submitted the names for Temple > work. > > > > looks like they're up to their old tricks. I realize that LDS is > > doing tons of research in order to compile these records for all to > > use but that doesn't give them any right to claim them as Mormons. > > They are not being claimed as "Mormons", their temple work be done for them, > but it is up to them to decide whether or not to accept it. > > [remainder snipped] > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 11/04/2001

"Larry Y." <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in news:fM9j8.7895$P4.649338@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net: <snip> > I believe that Mormons try to search for their ancestors so that > they can baptize them posthumously. That would imply that the > deceased was not a Mormon--if he/she WERE a Mormon, why would they > need baptism after death? Seeing as how the church was formed in the early 1800's, they have a *lot* of ancestors who never heard their gospel!! Sherry

In article <d7dk8u8d40rlj9a1qr59daded7epbkptq2@4ax.com> Sitka <snorristurlusson@excite.com> writes: >Dad's cousins plus all 3 of his wives and childern. This was a nice >find but when I started digging into the records, LDS states that they >are "Original Temple Records". My Ass!! These folks were Danish >Lutherans, not Mormons. I've heard a bit about the Mormons gleaning >church records and "saving" the dead so they would have a place in >Heaven... They were supposedly going to cease and desist. To me, it >looks like they're up to their old tricks. I realize that LDS is >doing tons of research in order to compile these records for all to >use but that doesn't give them any right to claim them as Mormons. You seem to have many misunderstandings bumping into each other. Ultimately, and they make no secret of this, all this research is not done to compile records for us to use. That is an intermediate step. The final goal is the temple work. If you don't like that, you're free to withhold your research from them. These records are very useful for researchers who don't buy into the LDS theological perspective, but that isn't the point in financing a large library system. For example, the IGI may be useful to researchers, but if no temple work were being done, nothing would be added to the IGI. And no one is claiming any retroactive rewriting of these people's lives and church practices. The records don't "claim them as Mormons." The records show that certain rites have been performed (as the LDS believe) on behalf of the person named. -- Drew Lawson | It's not enough to be alive drew@furrfu.com | when your future's been deferred

> From the religious point of view, don't they only have any "right" to do this > ONLY if the deceased was a Mormon? Otherwise, I see this as religious > infringement upon the deceased which could easily be an offense against the > descendants of that deceased. I believe that Mormons try to search for their ancestors so that they can baptize them posthumously. That would imply that the deceased was not a Mormon--if he/she WERE a Mormon, why would they need baptism after death? If my assessment is correct, then consider this: what would prevent one of your descendents from "baptizing" you at some point into the future--say 200 years from now (you never know, sooner or later you'll have a Mormon in the family). As I see it, we have two options. 1: Raise cain with them & tell 'em to cut that out. 2: Do nothing. Let 'em "baptize" anyone they want. Who cares, anyway . . .? It's all a crock. I personally prefer option #2. Life is too short to argue with the LDS Church.