Baptisms For The Dead

[Whiskeypete]

In spite of my contempt for "Independent Researcher" Helen Radkey, this wouldn't come up as an issue so often if members weren't disobeying church guidelines in their zeal to perform baptisms for celebrities and noted groups like holocaust victims.

If you look at the records, not only have most deceased celebrities (actors, politicians, royalty, etc) had their temple work done, they have had them done numerous times, not only under their actually names, but under their stage names as well.

John Wayne has nine entries in the IGI:

2. MARION MICHAEL OR MITCHELL MORRISON - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979

3. Marion Michael Morrison - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979

4. Marion Robert Morrison - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979

5. MARION MICHAEL MORRISON OR WAYNE - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979

6. MARION MICHAEL MORRISON - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979

7. Marion Michael Morrison - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979

8. MARION MICHAEL MORRISON OR WAYNE - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979

9. Marion Mitchell Morrison - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979 Newport Beach, Orange, California

10. Marion Mitchell Morrison - International Genealogical Index / NA

Gender: Male Death: 11 JUN 1979 Newport Beach, Orange, California

I don't know if that means that he has been baptized 9 times, but there were sure a lot of people trying to submit his name(s).

[abqfriend]

I do not agree with some of my Catholic members on here. Although baptism is important, I would not baptize any infant/child who I know who's parents are of another faith tradition that does not believe in infant baptism.

-That would be putting my religious values on another faith tradition without their permission.

As a Catholic institution is mentioned-I do not know the policy of those institutions.

As 1960's were mentioned-that was before the implementation of Vatican II. I do not know what happened in Catholic institutions 50 years ago.

Baptizing of infants in medical distress and near death-does occur on rare occasions -in hospitals with the expressed or implied permission of the parent.

-however religious values of others should be respected-if we wish our own values to be respected equally.

The Church does not teach that an unnbaptized infant goes to hell if not baptized.

The Church has clarified it's position on this in they say they place such a child in the hands of a loving God.

My grand daughter is 3 years old. My daughter goes to no church. My grand daughter is un-baptized.

I have encouraged my daughter's involvement in any church of her choice.

I would not secretly baptize my grand daughter-as that would show disrespect for the religious values-or lack of them by my daughter.

My husband is an RN. He has been at the death of infants of various faith traditions. He has never baptized any infant nor would he have done so without the expressed permission of the parent.

-Carol

[Stargazer]

I wrote:

This is annoying, you know? You are offended because, as you say, we insist only a Mormon baptism will suffice to for one to be with God. While your church insists that only a Catholic baptism will suffice.

And you think WE'RE being offensive?

Please.

BTW, I am not offended that the RCC believes this. They're entitled. I just expect the return favor.

And you responded:

So don't be Catholic. It is your choice, IN THIS LIFE.

Now, kindly explain to me how what you wrote was an answer to what I wrote. I kind of, you know, was expecting that an answer to my post would at least have some kind of nodding acquaintanceship with my post. Maybe I missed something.

[Stargazer]

In spite of my contempt for "Independent Researcher" Helen Radkey, this wouldn't come up as an issue so often if members weren't disobeying church guidelines in their zeal to perform baptisms for celebrities and noted groups like holocaust victims.

If you look at the records, not only have most deceased celebrities (actors, politicians, royalty, etc) had their temple work done, they have had them done numerous times, not only under their actually names, but under their stage names as well.

John Wayne has nine entries in the IGI:

I don't know if that means that he has been baptized 9 times, but there were sure a lot of people trying to submit his name(s).

A while back we did some work for some of my newly-discovered ancestors, only to find that at around the same time the work had been performed three or four times by persons who turned out to be unknown relatives of mine, in widely dispersed locations in the US. We overlapped and duplicated each other about three ways, with no collaboration at all. It was very interesting, and since none of the work had ever been done up until this time, it seemed to me that there must have been some kind of divine intervention to get all of our attentions focused on this branch of the family. The duplicate-catching process in place at the time was clearly inadequate, but it was very instructive regarding how this seems to work.

Based on what I have seen, it is entirely conceivable that John Wayne has LDS relatives, too, who want to see that the work is done. Doesn't necessarily mean that unrelated persons submitted his name (although of course this happens).

The church has just recently launched a far more effective duplicate-catching process (new.familysearch.org), and this should be cleared up as time goes on.

[saemo]

Now, kindly explain to me how what you wrote was an answer to what I wrote. I kind of, you know, was expecting that an answer to my post would at least have some kind of nodding acquaintanceship with my post. Maybe I missed something.

Response to you assertion that we only accept Catholic baptism. Where you said it was a) offensive.

Then, you say it isn't offensive.

I was responding to a) you find the catholic non-acceptance of LDS baptism as offensive.

[Stargazer]

Response to you assertion that we only accept Catholic baptism. Where you said it was a) offensive.

Then, you say it isn't offensive.

I was responding to a) you find the catholic non-acceptance of LDS baptism as offensive.

No, I didn't. What I found annoying (that was the word I used, not "offensive") was that certain Catholics find it offensive that Mormons don't think that Catholic baptisms are efficacious (an expression of this being that we frequently proxy baptize deceased Catholics -- and everyone else, too) , then in practically the same breath say that Mormon baptisms are not efficacious -- not noticing that they are doing the same thing to Mormons that they don't like Mormons doing to them.

Actually, I find it actually a bit more amusing than annoying. And I would be totally floored if Pope Benedict were to declare Mormon baptisms to be acceptable for salvation. I rather expect the opposite to be the case, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

And just to make sure you understand my feelings toward the Roman Catholic Church, when you get right down to brass tacks, I really like the RCC, and respect its members as well. I have huge respect for the Catholic clergy, in general, and am a particular admirer of the Society of Jesus. That's not an easy path of service, and those who devote themselves so selflessly are deserving of great respect. I find it kinda cool that the Pope is German, and nicely dovetails with the LDS 1st Presidency counselor who is German. I expect that when the LDS temple in Rome, Italy is completed, the Pope will get a special guided tour and President Uchtdorf will probably be the one to conduct it.

[saemo]

No, I didn't. What I found annoying (that was the word I used, not "offensive") was that certain Catholics find it offensive that Mormons don't think that Catholic baptisms are efficacious (an expression of this being that we frequently proxy baptize deceased Catholics -- and everyone else, too) , then in practically the same breath say that Mormon baptisms are not efficacious -- not noticing that they are doing the same thing to Mormons that they don't like Mormons doing to them.

Actually, I find it actually a bit more amusing than annoying. And I would be totally floored if Pope Benedict were to declare Mormon baptisms to be acceptable for salvation. I rather expect the opposite to be the case, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

And just to make sure you understand my feelings toward the Roman Catholic Church, when you get right down to brass tacks, I really like the RCC, and respect its members as well. I have huge respect for the Catholic clergy, in general, and am a particular admirer of the Society of Jesus. That's not an easy path of service, and those who devote themselves so selflessly are deserving of great respect. I find it kinda cool that the Pope is German, and nicely dovetails with the LDS 1st Presidency counselor who is German. I expect that when the LDS temple in Rome, Italy is completed, the Pope will get a special guided tour and President Uchtdorf will probably be the one to conduct it.

Mormons say this a lot, or at least they do to me. I have yet to figure out why, when everything you believe begins with the Catholic, and all Churches, being an abomination and we who profess the creed as corrupt.

It is like you're beating on a person daily while telling them you love them.

I can only conclude that it is a proselytizing sort of "thing". And what you type here about the Pope includes giving him a BoM and asking him if he'd like to have the missionaries over.