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. It's not a matter of worshiping their dead ancestors! 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! Sherry BAC, not LDS, but explaining the best I understand. "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.

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. My local LDS Church FHL had a complete set, so maybe there's one near you too.

On 10 Mar 2002, Cloy Tobola wrote: >Although the following items are from an old thread, I just came >across it and some clarifications are in order. I'd also like to >continue this discussion, as I think it's imporant. > >The thread began discussing the fact that the French government was >[supposedly] limiting access to some records because they objected to >Mormon church's practice of performing a baptism ceremony on behalf of >people (including non-Mormons) after they had died. > >On 27-Jan-2000, Sithgrani (sithgrani@aol.com) wrote in >soc.genealogy.french: >>Mr Bouvier: ><snip> >>Some won't submit the names because of the fear that the Mormons >>will "do temple ceremonies" on the names. They,(the Mormons) >>of course won't do any such thing if the submitter doesn't >>give them permission (at least the last that I knew). > >I don't know that the Mormon church has EVER asked permission before >baptising anyone. This would be especially difficult since the people >being baptized are deceased. The reason that the LDS church supports >genealogy is to assist in the (vicarious) baptism of the dead. This is >an important part of their faith, not some marginal practice. To my >understanding, the only time they do not baptize a person, is if there >is an objection. 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.

"Larry Y." <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:fM9j8.7895$P4.649338@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > 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. 3. Leave no living descendents and live high on the money that would have disappeared down the black hole of childrearing.

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0203112123030.23113-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org>... > On 10 Mar 2002, Cloy Tobola wrote: > >Although the following items are from an old thread, I just came > >across it and some clarifications are in order. I'd also like to > >continue this discussion, as I think it's imporant. > > > >The thread began discussing the fact that the French government was > >[supposedly] limiting access to some records because they objected to > >Mormon church's practice of performing a baptism ceremony on behalf of > >people (including non-Mormons) after they had died. > > <snip> > > How is this a "REAL Baptism?" Are they digging up corpses? This is a baptism by proxy, or a vicarious baptism. A living person is baptized on behalf of the dead person. > From the religious point of view, don't they only have any "right" to do this > ONLY if the deceased was a Mormon? No. They vicariously baptize non-Mormons; and that's exactly the issue. > Otherwise, I see this as religious > infringement upon the deceased which could easily be an offense against the > descendants of that deceased. That's one way to look at it. Mormons would likely counter by saying that this simply gives non-Mormons the OPTION of accepting or rejecting Mormon beliefs in the afterlife. The problem with this is that it smacks of syncretism -- the attempt to embrace several religous traditions, often to ensure that you've "got your bases covered." Kind of like the person who wears a crucifix, an ahnk, a Buddah and a Star of David around his neck to ensure that if he gets run over by a bus maybe one of them will get him into heaven. Unfortunately, "playing the field" is considered wrong in many religions. Another position held my non-Mormons is that they don't believe it accomplishes anything, so they don't care. 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.... Excelsior! -Cloy

> The thread began discussing the fact that the French government was > [supposedly] limiting access to some records because they objected to > Mormon church's practice of performing a baptism ceremony on behalf of > people (including non-Mormons) after they had died. Now THAT is what I'd call "throwing the baby out with the bath water!"

Hello all, I am trying to find information on the family of Molly Cummings. Molly was born Cass, County Missouri in the year 21 Oct,1859. Her family moved to Ramsey,Fayette County,Illinois a couple years after she was born. Her father went off to serve the Civil War and than was brought home to die from gangrene of a gun wound. Her mother went back to Cass County and than a year later also died. She moved back to Illinois and was adopted by a family. If anyone has any information about Molly and her family, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Yours A.S. Bennett

It is my understanding that the LDS folks do not perform their "vicarious" temple baptisms without permission from the closest relative for anyone before 100 years after the candidate's birth. That tells me that after the 100 year mark they do it for anyone they wish, which to me would be everybody. This was told to me by an LDS Bishop who was a close friend of my father and had asked me for permission to baptize my parents in the LDS temple. This is all I care to add to this discussion since the above is all I know about it. Lomfou Cloy Tobola <cloy@tobola.com> wrote in message news:bd11c9dd.0203101653.375b9473@posting.google.com... | Greetings! | | Although the following items are from an old thread, I just came | across it and some clarifications are in order. I'd also like to | continue this discussion, as I think it's imporant. | | The thread began discussing the fact that the French government was | [supposedly] limiting access to some records because they objected to | Mormon church's practice of performing a baptism ceremony on behalf of | people (including non-Mormons) after they had died. | | On 27-Jan-2000, Sithgrani (sithgrani@aol.com) wrote in | soc.genealogy.french: | >Mr Bouvier: | <snip> | >Some won't submit the names because of the fear that the Mormons | >will "do temple ceremonies" on the names. They,(the Mormons) | >of course won't do any such thing if the submitter doesn't | >give them permission (at least the last that I knew). | | I don't know that the Mormon church has EVER asked permission before | baptising anyone. This would be especially difficult since the people | being baptized are deceased. The reason that the LDS church supports | genealogy is to assist in the (vicarious) baptism of the dead. This is | an important part of their faith, not some marginal practice. To my | understanding, the only time they do not baptize a person, is if there | is an objection. | | On 28-Jan-2000, EskyMoe (eskymoe@aol.com) wrote in | soc.genealogy.french: | <snip> | >Could someone please explain this sentence. What is a temple | ceremony, | >and what is its "feared" result?????? | | For individuals who do not hold the Mormon faith (and their families), | the idea of being inducted into another religious tradition without | their knowledge or permission can be offensive. Although the LDS | church purports to be a "Christian" belief system, none of the | mainstream Christian denominations (Lutheran, Roman Catholic, | Methodist, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, etc.) | would support this idea. Of course, Mormon beliefs are even further | removed from Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist creeds. | | This is not to cast any negative light on Mormons -- there are many | decent, faithful Mormon people in the world, and the deserve the right | to practice their belief in any way they see fit. | | On 29-Jan-2000, John P. DuLong (dulongj@habitant.org) wrote in | soc.genealogy.french: | <snip> | >I believe you can also write a letter to the Mormon church | >officials requesting that you never be baptized into their faith. | | I've never heard of this. Could someone provide a source for | information on this. | | Thanks! | | -Cloy Tobola

John, At first glance, your suggestion seems correct; however, deeper analysis reveals that ONLY consulting www.lds.org [to understand Mormon beliefs] isn't necessarily the best idea. Here are a couple reasons why: 1. The Mormon belief system relies heavily on temple ceremonies. These are not only closed to the public, but are generally revealed only to a select few within the church. Ergo, not all of these will be on the site. 2. It's generally considered bad form in journalism to publish a news story that only relies on only one source -- multiple sources ensure a more thorough and balanced treatment. The same is true here. Listening to Mormon and non-Mormon sources -- and possibly even the anti-Mormon rhetoric -- seems the best way to develop an informed opinion. 3. 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. Hope that helps. Excelsior! -Cloy brotherjohn@imt.net (brotherjohn) wrote in message news:<001701c1c8a7$949a0520$a9c7a1d8@ibm>... > Good grief folks, > > Why all the chatter* about what Mormons believe? > The have a website at URL www.lds.org > that tells authoritatively what they believe. > > *chatter ... vi. ... 2. to talk fast, incessantly, and foolishly. > Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, > Third College Edition, 1988-Simon & Schuster

If this is the case, then I stand corrected. Thanks for your post, Robert. -Cloy "Robert L Quinnett" <rlq@mmcable.com> wrote in message news:<924j8.27334$q83.6424049@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>... > It is my understanding that the LDS folks do not perform their "vicarious" > temple baptisms without permission from the closest relative for anyone > before 100 years after the candidate's birth. That tells me that after the > 100 year mark they do it for anyone they wish, which to me would be > everybody. This was told to me by an LDS Bishop who was a close friend of > my father and had asked me for permission to baptize my parents in the LDS > temple. > > This is all I care to add to this discussion since the above is all I know > about it. > > Lomfou > > Cloy Tobola <cloy@tobola.com> wrote in message > news:bd11c9dd.0203101653.375b9473@posting.google.com... > | Greetings! > | > | Although the following items are from an old thread, I just came > | across it and some clarifications are in order. I'd also like to > | continue this discussion, as I think it's imporant. > | > | The thread began discussing the fact that the French government was > | [supposedly] limiting access to some records because they objected to > | Mormon church's practice of performing a baptism ceremony on behalf of > | people (including non-Mormons) after they had died. > | > | On 27-Jan-2000, Sithgrani (sithgrani@aol.com) wrote in > | soc.genealogy.french: > | >Mr Bouvier: > <snip> > | >Some won't submit the names because of the fear that the Mormons > | >will "do temple ceremonies" on the names. They,(the Mormons) > | >of course won't do any such thing if the submitter doesn't > | >give them permission (at least the last that I knew). > | > | I don't know that the Mormon church has EVER asked permission before > | baptising anyone. This would be especially difficult since the people > | being baptized are deceased. The reason that the LDS church supports > | genealogy is to assist in the (vicarious) baptism of the dead. This is > | an important part of their faith, not some marginal practice. To my > | understanding, the only time they do not baptize a person, is if there > | is an objection. <snip>

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. Wilhelm

Hi there For all of you interested in genealogy I have a 4 volume set of the above title for sale. Please follow the link below to bid for a 4 volume set of this 1972 reprint unbound and uncut, in excellent condition. No water marking or damage to the book at all. Jackets are supplied with all volumes. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1523414357

Good grief folks, Why all the chatter* about what Mormons believe? The have a website at URL www.lds.org that tells authoritatively what they believe. *chatter ... vi. ... 2. to talk fast, incessantly, and foolishly. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, 1988-Simon & Schuster A. John Birkholz brotherjohn@imt.net 963 McIver Road Great Falls, MT 59404

"Richard VanHouten" <richvh@citlink.net> wrote in message news:3C8B7A87.F4A4EAA2@citlink.net... > Marie Lees wrote: > > > > I have traced my family back to 1772 but there is a missing link. > > > > My family are connected to T&W Lees Hatworks (no longer there of > > course). The hat works was set up by two brother Thomas & William. > > William later became the Mayor of Stockport. The two brothers came > > from a large family. > > > > My great great grandfather is the nephew of these two brothers and my > > cousin and I are almost sure that their sister Martha gave birth to > > Alfred when she was only 13. Unfortunately, the birth is definitely > > not registered and I am having trouble finding his christening can any > > one help me? He was born in 1855. > > It might help if you told us where this Stockport is. There are at > least three in the United States. How true - I was assuming that the one in England was intended, and was about to advise a query to soc.genealogy.britain and a search for Alfred's marriage certificate. The 1861 census also comes to mind.... Lesley Robertson

Greetings! Although the following items are from an old thread, I just came across it and some clarifications are in order. I'd also like to continue this discussion, as I think it's imporant. The thread began discussing the fact that the French government was [supposedly] limiting access to some records because they objected to Mormon church's practice of performing a baptism ceremony on behalf of people (including non-Mormons) after they had died. On 27-Jan-2000, Sithgrani (sithgrani@aol.com) wrote in soc.genealogy.french: >Mr Bouvier: <snip> >Some won't submit the names because of the fear that the Mormons >will "do temple ceremonies" on the names. They,(the Mormons) >of course won't do any such thing if the submitter doesn't >give them permission (at least the last that I knew). I don't know that the Mormon church has EVER asked permission before baptising anyone. This would be especially difficult since the people being baptized are deceased. The reason that the LDS church supports genealogy is to assist in the (vicarious) baptism of the dead. This is an important part of their faith, not some marginal practice. To my understanding, the only time they do not baptize a person, is if there is an objection. On 28-Jan-2000, EskyMoe (eskymoe@aol.com) wrote in soc.genealogy.french: <snip> >Could someone please explain this sentence. What is a temple ceremony, >and what is its "feared" result?????? For individuals who do not hold the Mormon faith (and their families), the idea of being inducted into another religious tradition without their knowledge or permission can be offensive. Although the LDS church purports to be a "Christian" belief system, none of the mainstream Christian denominations (Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, etc.) would support this idea. Of course, Mormon beliefs are even further removed from Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist creeds. This is not to cast any negative light on Mormons -- there are many decent, faithful Mormon people in the world, and the deserve the right to practice their belief in any way they see fit. On 29-Jan-2000, John P. DuLong (dulongj@habitant.org) wrote in soc.genealogy.french: <snip> >I believe you can also write a letter to the Mormon church >officials requesting that you never be baptized into their faith. I've never heard of this. Could someone provide a source for information on this. Thanks! -Cloy Tobola

I just uploaded the 2nd of 4 Photo Albums dating from 1911 to 1950s that was compiled over these years by Evangeline ELPERS of Logansport Indiana . This 2nd album shows a young woman and her friends as they were in the mid to late 1920s during the flapper Years .. at Picnics , Weddings , Partys ,with Family.. Many are Identified by first name.. some not at all .. a Few Surnames found in this 2nd album are FLOOD,BRENNAN,.. You will find a lot of unique and enjoyable viewing ... Maybe you can discover a relative or help discover one for a friend and send it Home .. The best way to view the album is to go to http://www.deadfred.com and select P in the alphabet listing , Scroll down to Photo Album-ELPERS2 .. this will bring up the individually identified Photos for you to Browse Good Luck and Enjoy! Joe Bott DeadFred.com http://www.deadfred.com

Clayton, I've information on Colonel James "Gunsmith" NICKELL b.1799, NC, d.1874, KY. I can't vouch for this, only what I've collected from his descendants, my notes are: ==== "In July of 1996 I received from Barbara Jean Smith Brown a document about "Gunsmith" and other family members written by Mary Criswell Nickell Baccus on March 23, 1973. The only thing I know about "Gunsmith" comes from a small quote: "James `Gunsmith' Nickell made guns for the army. When Orville Nickell (Alexander Reid Nickell's son) was in Japan during WWII he went into a gun shop and found a gun with Col. Jim Nickell's name on it. He did everything he could to get the gun but the Japanese man would not part with it. Walter Prine Nickell, who just passed away the first of this year (1973), wrote me last summer that he had one of those guns and several other souvenirs of the Nickell family. ..." ===== I could put you in touch with Barbara if you are interested in learning more; I have her e-mail address as current as Friday of last week. I see that Colonel Jim isn't on your list as of this morning. Sincerely, 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

I have traced my family back to 1772 but there is a missing link. My family are connected to T&W Lees Hatworks (no longer there of course). The hat works was set up by two brother Thomas & William. William later became the Mayor of Stockport. The two brothers came from a large family. My great great grandfather is the nephew of these two brothers and my cousin and I are almost sure that their sister Martha gave birth to Alfred when she was only 13. Unfortunately, the birth is definitely not registered and I am having trouble finding his christening can any one help me? He was born in 1855.

Someone who looks an awful lot like Clayton E. Cramer <clayton@claytoncramer.com> wrote: > 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. Sounds like a great project - and it's a good reminder to folks that sometimes the best source of genealogical information is in other historical documents. My GGG-father's brother wrote several books, one of which was his memoirs, which of course has stories about my own ancestors. Quite a treasure. Wesson Gage Miller - he was a methodist missionary in the midwest USA, and having that sort of information from an unexpected source is great. Best of luck with your project - please email me with your contact information and I'm interested in buying a copy once it's ready. Dave Hinz

Hi, Lesley, This whole subject of NG message posting is a stickey wicket to say the least. You'll find NGs that INSIST that people BOTTOM post. Others INSIST visitors TOP post. You'll find NGs that INSIST you format messages with 74 characters per line! And those NGs that INSIST also INSIST you quote fully so those who read 1000 messages a day (some do) don't have to try to find previous messages to see what the whole thing is about. Then there's the subject of typing in mixed case like newspapers, magazines and books, re., ALL CAPS like the funny papers (some people refer to it as shouting). And, of course, every one is right!! eh? Sigh... ;-) I guess I responded as I did as a knee jerk reaction to the many times I've been lectured to about Bottom/Top posting with Uncut quotes. But, it really can misconstrue a thought when message quotes are snipped. Not trying to lecture, but shed a little friendly light on the subject, Don Lesley Robertson wrote: > > "Don Nickell" <dnickell@icehouse.net> wrote in message > news:3C8AAF34.3C6AEF89@icehouse.net... > > > > > > Lesley Robertson wrote: > > > Did you read the whole message, or just my snipped version? > > > > Why did you snip anything? It takes more effort to edit his message, to > support your reply, than to just simply reply. Snipping is a form of "out of > context" quoting. > > > It seems to be regarded as good manners to only include the bits of the > message one is replying to (otherwise you end up fighting your way through > miles of old stuff to find a few lines). I didn't think that my reply was > controversial enough to require later support - silly me! > Lesley Robertson -- ~~~~~ Visit our NICKELL, GAUNCE, MOOTY genealogy Web Page http://nickell.tierranet.com ~~~~~