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

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.

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.