Which Revelations Provide My LDS Friends with Certainty that Baptisms are the Means by which Sins are Forgiven?

[InCognitus]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I have to run, but I will try and answer. My comment about the Godhead's agency was specifically about Their ability and agency to do as they will, including in the case of granting the authority to lead and perform ordinances, including baptism to whomever They will of whichever Christian group They will whenever They will. After the years of my familiarity with the LDS and direct and personal observation of them, I am still trying to process the concept that God has uniquely and exclusively given them any unique spiritual attribute, especially if that, as it seems results in the Godhead binding or limiting itself by that action. Of course, I am sifting my questions through the filter of my own experience, in which my ordination and receiving of the ministerial priesthood to perform ordinances was a deeply meaning, spiritual, and personal experience, which for some reason you all choose to deny me. I am still trying to figure out that reason other than, "that is what our church teaches" and we believe it.

More important, the purpose of my thread was to better get my head around what or which revelational claims my LDS friends rely on to shape and form that kind of doctrine. This will probably upset some of my friends here, but I still don't understand the genesis of the concept, because no one has shared a specific revelation with me that in its plain readable text says "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has this and no one else does since 1830." Even in the NT, Christ, in his earthly ministry in no way limits the granting of His authority to twelve men. So, I am trying to understand. I am not as some suggest trying not to understand. If that was my goal, I wouldn't take the time to ask as many questions as I have. I want to understand, but some of the replies sound like those of my mom when I was a kid? "Why? Because I said so!" At the same time I was raised to keep seeking and asking questions. Thanks for caring enough to give me the opportunity to clarify, even if my clarification is not adequate. Best!

I greatly appreciate your answer and clarification.  I think some here have tried to answer your questions.  I have some thoughts that I'd like to share myself, but I'm not very quick at organizing my thoughts and typing them up, and I've had many distractions from work and family.  It may take me a day or so before I have an evening to type up what's on my mind.

[Leaf474]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok my friends. I won't remain on a forum that mocks me and maligns my intent, deeming me as laughingly absurd. My journey into the world of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now officially ended on both a local level and on this forum. You may all now officially label me as one who is anti-Mormon or laughingly absurd, or any way you want. The moderators are free to remove my account from the forum. Hopefully I will meet you all some day in the celestial city. Until then, best wishes to you all. Even though you don't know it, you have lost a friend.

Dude, don't go away mad. I'd love to talk with you some more ❤️

 

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

- Corinthians

[mfbukowski]

https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/all-their-creeds-were-abomination

I hope you stay.

What was wrong was the WRITTEN CREEDS (Nicene etc) which caused Christianity "go wrong" over more than a thousand years of teaching them.

I hope this helps. Don't leave for emotional reason, when imo, the problem is a logical one.

The condemnation against existing Christianity was about philosophy, mainly Greek philosophy, which infiltrated the Creeds, NOT ABOUT THE SPIRIT OR THE GOOD PEOPLE WHO WERE OBEDIENTLY OBEYING what they were taught.

The reason was "the philosophies of men MINGLED WITH SCRIPTURE.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Hey Navidad,

I know you said you're going away, but I still wanted to share my thoughts on why you might be getting the strong pushback here that has ultimately bothered you. Of the time you've spent posting here, I think you've been trying to view the LDS church in a way that the LDS church does not and indeed cannot view itself. Of course you are going to look at it through the lens of your experiences and beliefs, but it seems like you are trying to put those on the LDS church and ask the church to view itself that way, too. The LDS church does not view itself as equal to other Christian churches. It views itself as the only Christian church authorized by God to perform valid ordinances for all of Christendom. It does not accept the idea of valid ministerial priesthood in other churches. This seems to be the major primary difficulty you have with the LDS church, because this belief obviously makes a sharp distinction and is clearly exclusive. But that is what they believe and you're not going to be able to change that in any way. It is absolutely core to their belief and identity. It would be like taking away the magisterium from the Catholic Church. Impossible -- it would no longer be the Catholic Church.

I guess I should clarify: when I say LDS church, I'm saying the way I understand the doctrines, beliefs, and practices officially endorsed by the hierarchy and accepted by most active practicing members. I obviously could be wrong in my perception/understanding, and I'm sure it would be easy enough to find LDS who disagree with this or that, but I'm trying to go with the generalities. Anyways.

In this thread you seem to have taken things a step further. You are implying that the LDS church is wrong in its belief of exclusivity because it does not understand its own founding doctrines. This is quite a thing to claim as someone who is not LDS. I know you have couched it as a question, but it's clear from the question's parameters what you are claiming. You want an answer that is a canonized revelation and won't accept other types of answers as authoritative enough (general conference talks, teaching manuals, members' beliefs). You think that these are just added on culturally, much like your experience of doctrine/beliefs when you are a Mennonite. It's one thing to say that the LDS church is exclusive and that is hurtful (as it appears to deny your baptism, your ordination, the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc.). It's a huge thing to say that the LDS church actually is not exclusive but all the members misunderstand their own doctrine.

I think it has reached the point where you just need to say that the LDS church's beliefs are wrong and not from God. I know that goes against your values of inclusivity and uncertainty, but when you are trying to redefine a religion's beliefs using that religion's own texts so they match your beliefs in contrast to what the religion's members actually believe, you've gone too far. And it's ok to say that the LDS are wrong, or at least think it. I know they are wrong about their belief that they are Christ's church. Their belief that they have God's priesthood is also wrong. I don't have to say this regularly (or really even at all) because they know I think this (because I'm actively choosing to be Catholic and not LDS) and there's no reason to say something that we all know when there's no purpose. It's similar to how they don't need tell me that my beliefs are wrong. I know that's what they believe and we're not here to tell each other we're wrong, but to learn and share and understand. But the difference is that I'm not trying to change them into what I believe and they're not trying to change me into what they believe. So we get along fine here.

When this has come up before you have brought up your personal experience being a part of an LDS ward for years in Mexico. I know this is not an experience I have had. But I think that doesn't change the fact that the founding core beliefs of the LDS church are not what you believe and in fact are incompatible. The pain and rejection you feel could simply be another piece of evidence that you can use to say/think that they are wrong in their beliefs. It is ok to believe that.

I hope you decide to return to the board. While you and I have rubbed each other here and there the wrong way in the past, I've never wanted you to go. One of the many reasons I've been here for over a decade is because there tends to be a wide variety of beliefs (like anything, it ebbs and flows). Your perspective as an inside outsider is unique and has given much. It's also been great to have someone share evangelical perspectives and beliefs.

I hope this, too, doesn't rub you the wrong way. I'm really writing this to help you understand why, from my point-of-view, LDS have reacted the way they have to this thread and your posts.

May God bless you and your wife with peace

+PAX+

Jesse

 

 

[mfbukowski]

We are Universalists.

"EVERY knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" either here or on the other side. 

There are missionaries there and temples here, during the Millennium so EVEN PERSON ever born can find the way.

Does that sound "exclusive"?

[Leaf474]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We are Universalists.

"EVERY knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" either here or on the other side. 

There are missionaries there and temples here, during the Millennium so EVEN PERSON ever born can find the way.

Does that sound "exclusive"?

If the claim is made that "the way" that every person can find is taught to the highest degree here on Earth only by the LDS Church, then exclusivity is being claimed, imo.

 

I don't see "exclusive" as a pejorative. As @MiserereNobis talked about, the Catholic Church makes exclusive claims.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

If the claim is made that "the way" that every person can find is taught to the highest degree here on Earth only by the LDS Church, then exclusivity is being claimed, imo.

 

I don't see "exclusive" as a pejorative. As @MiserereNobis talked about, the Catholic Church makes exclusive claims.

I can see both sides of this coin.

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on the earth that has the authority to administer in God's ordinances, and if those ordinances are essential for salvation, then salvation is, in that sense, exclusive to the LDS church (or at the very least it's exclusive to its teachings and ordinances).  But because the church doesn't exclude anyone from having access to those teachings and ordinances (not even after they are dead), it's preaches an inclusive gospel.

The same could be said about the Catholic church as well (except maybe the 'after they are dead' part.  I'm not sure how the Catholic church handles that).

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

The same could be said about the Catholic church as well (except maybe the 'after they are dead' part.  I'm not sure how the Catholic church handles that).

We leave it to God. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

That means that we teach that the sacraments (ordinances) are required for salvation, but then God can do whatever He wants as concerns salvation, so someone who is not baptized can certainly be saved if God so wills it. I really like this doctrine (and it's wonderfully worded).

It's also important to note that we cannot/should not apply the requirement of baptism to any individual. If someone dies unbaptized, we cannot say they are not saved. That is judging their salvation, which is left to God alone.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

We leave it to God. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

That means that we teach that the sacraments (ordinances) are required for salvation, but then God can do whatever He wants as concerns salvation, so someone who is not baptized can certainly be saved if God so wills it. I really like this doctrine (and it's wonderfully worded).

It's also important to note that we cannot/should not apply the requirement of baptism to any individual. If someone dies unbaptized, we cannot say they are not saved. That is judging their salvation, which is left to God alone.

We believe the same to an extent.  We believe that children who aren't baptized before they are accountable do not need baptism because the Atonement of Christ automatically covers them, for example.  

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I can see both sides of this coin.

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on the earth that has the authority to administer in God's ordinances, and if those ordinances are essential for salvation, then salvation is, in that sense, exclusive to the LDS church (or at the very least it's exclusive to its teachings and ordinances).  But because the church doesn't exclude anyone from having access to those teachings and ordinances (not even after they are dead), it's preaches an inclusive gospel.

The same could be said about the Catholic church as well (except maybe the 'after they are dead' part.  I'm not sure how the Catholic church handles that).

 

True, most groups are inclusive and exclusive to some degree in different areas.

 

Maybe to be more precise we would say "claims of exclusivity" or "exclusive claims".

 

"Available only at your Rolls-Royce dealer" is an exclusive claim.

 

"Only the Catholic church can trace an unbroken history back to the time of Christ" is an exclusive claim.

 

"Only the LDS Church is guaranteed to have a living prophet as its president" is also exclusive.

 

"Anyone can attend an LDS sacrament service" is an inclusive claim (which I availed myself of a month or two ago 😀 )

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

True, most groups are inclusive and exclusive to some degree in different areas.

 

Maybe to be more precise we would say "claims of exclusivity" or "exclusive claims".

 

"Available only at your Rolls-Royce dealer" is an exclusive claim.

 

"Only the Catholic church can trace an unbroken history back to the time of Christ" is an exclusive claim.

 

"Only the LDS Church is guaranteed to have a living prophet as its president" is also exclusive.

 

"Anyone can attend an LDS sacrament service" is an inclusive claim (which I availed myself of a month or two ago 😀 )

Yes, I think that's a good way to put it.  Claims of exclusivity.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

If the claim is made that "the way" that every person can find is taught to the highest degree here on Earth only by the LDS Church, then exclusivity is being claimed, imo.

Erroneous and illogical, says Mr. Spock in my head.

What about a person born in "China" (using today's names) born in 4k BCE who had no possibility of even having HEARD of Jesus?

Ordinances must be PERFORMED on earth BY PROXY if necessary, That is why we do "work for the dead" for real, named, individuals.

The belief is that brother X from "China" would hear the gospel on the other side taught by missionaries and had EXPERIENCES which indicated to him that the gospel is true.

Because the "veil would be thin" in those millenial days, when Jesus himself is King of the theocracy ( Zion) over the entire earth he would be able to indicate to SOMEONE, ideally a descendant, that he DID EXIST and that a living earthling would then cause his temple ordinances to be done on earth.

That would give him the same options as anyone to follow the gospel, and be exalted as anyone else.

That is the very Purpose of "work for the dead!!

All that effort in family history is not for fun- what a waste of time it would be without the belief that they too will have the same opportunities we all have!!

What an injustice it would be if it was all available only to the living!!

 

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Erroneous and illogical, says Mr. Spock in my head.

What about a person born in "China" (using today's names) born in 4k BCE who had no possibility of even having HEARD of Jesus?

Ordinances must be PERFORMED on earth BY PROXY if necessary, That is why we do "work for the dead" for real, named, individuals.

The belief is that brother X from "China" would hear the gospel on the other side taught by missionaries and had EXPERIENCES which indicated to him that the gospel is true.

Because the "veil would be thin" in those millenial days, when Jesus himself is King of the theocracy ( Zion) over the entire earth he would be able to indicate to SOMEONE, ideally a descendant, that he DID EXIST and that a living earthling would then cause his temple ordinances to be done on earth.

That would give him the same options as anyone to follow the gospel, and be exalted as anyone else.

That is the very Purpose of "work for the dead!!

All that effort in family history is not for fun- what a waste of time it would be without the belief that they too will have the same opportunities we all have!!

What an injustice it would be if it was all available only to the living!!

 

I think his point is the "only by the LDS church." That's exclusivity. The universalism you speak of means that eventually nearly everyone (except for some really bad people, as I recall) will accept the gospel as taught by the LDS church. There won't be Catholics, Buddhists, etc.

So while it is universal, it is also exclusive.

(nothing wrong with that)

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think his point is the "only by the LDS church." That's exclusivity. The universalism you speak of means that eventually nearly everyone (except for some really bad people, as I recall) will accept the gospel as taught by the LDS church. There won't be Catholics, Buddhists, etc.

So while it is universal, it is also exclusive.

(nothing wrong with that)

Yep!

And so are you guys! 

I am VERY familiar with the consequences of getting that choice wrong!! 🤔😳

But I think God is still merciful to those who seek Him, and done the best they could.  Not sure Sister Mary Cletus got it completely right.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Erroneous and illogical, says Mr. Spock in my head.

What about a person born in "China" (using today's names) born in 4k BCE who had no possibility of even having HEARD of Jesus?

Ordinances must be PERFORMED on earth BY PROXY if necessary, That is why we do "work for the dead" for real, named, individuals.

The belief is that brother X from "China" would hear the gospel on the other side taught by missionaries and had EXPERIENCES which indicated to him that the gospel is true.

Because the "veil would be thin" in those millenial days, when Jesus himself is King of the theocracy ( Zion) over the entire earth he would be able to indicate to SOMEONE, ideally a descendant, that he DID EXIST and that a living earthling would then cause his temple ordinances to be done on earth.

That would give him the same options as anyone to follow the gospel, and be exalted as anyone else.

That is the very Purpose of "work for the dead!!

All that effort in family history is not for fun- what a waste of time it would be without the belief that they too will have the same opportunities we all have!!

What an injustice it would be if it was all available only to the living!!

 

 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think his point is the "only by the LDS church." That's exclusivity. The universalism you speak of means that eventually nearly everyone (except for some really bad people, as I recall) will accept the gospel as taught by the LDS church. There won't be Catholics, Buddhists, etc.

So while it is universal, it is also exclusive.

(nothing wrong with that)

Yes, @MiserereNobis, that's basically the idea I was getting at 🙂

 

Building on the ideas of work for the dead and family history work, where is baptism for the dead currently being offered? AFIK, it is available exclusively at LDS temples. Does that make sense,

@mfbukowski?

________________

Not directly on the thread topic but rather on the subject of baptism for the dead, are records of who has been baptized for whom available? For example, has someone been baptized for Karl Marx?

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep!

And so are you guys!

True, and there's nothing wrong with being exclusive.

 

The Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Anything outside of that one Church would be excluded, because then there would be two.

 

I'd be very suspicious of a religious group that made no exclusive claims. Why even join the group?

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am VERY familiar with the consequences of getting that choice wrong!! 🤔😳

But I think God is still merciful to those who seek Him, and done the best they could.  Not sure Sister Mary Cletus got it completely right.

 

 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

be very suspicious of a religious group that made no exclusive claims. Why even join the group?

Understanding that one group is the only available producer of a product or service is not that big of a deal in the world and if we want the real deal and not a counterfeit, we have to go to them to get it.  This is not usually an issue unless pricing and/or availability is unfair or artificially limited to boost status value, iow it’s okay as long as that group/person does not arbitrarily restrict who has access to their product.

Being the only public golf course within reasonable driving distance for a community is very different than being the only golf course and being a private country club that only allows people earning over a certain amount of money or it belongs to a limited number of legacy families.

I believe most LDS see our faith as similar to a public course as in anyone can join who desires to (yes, there are requirements, but public golf courses have requirements and rules as well and those who don’t abide by them will not be admitted; same with public schools, etc), but others might see us as more a private club because they focus on the “members only” parts rather than the fact anyone can become a member.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think his point is the "only by the LDS church." That's exclusivity. The universalism you speak of means that eventually nearly everyone (except for some really bad people, as I recall) will accept the gospel as taught by the LDS church. There won't be Catholics, Buddhists, etc.

So while it is universal, it is also exclusive.

(nothing wrong with that)

Actually the point is not as you stated, but every person will of their own accord, "convert" to follow the words of Christ the King, NOT to follow the LDS church, but to follow His pure unadulterated gospel unchanged from the ORIGINAL gospel which had errors creep into it, INCLUDING the COJCLDS, if any , or many 😉 have crept in.

That is my belief, and I believe it is the doctrine of the LDS church.

The church at no time has stated that the leaders are infallible.

So perhaps even the staunchest Mormon will have to change at least a little, acknowledging some errors.

Lately even the temple liturgy itself is being tweaked quite often

I think we see erroneous statements all the time, right here. Not mine, of course. 🤨😏

And yes there will be Buddhists and Catholics and all the others who will convert to the gospel Christ the King secularly AND spiritually.

But I think all now are partially there already. Many Chinese worship their ancestors, not so far off from our work for the dead and seeing an embodied God as the Father of mankind.  Buddhists and Hindus concentrate on being "exalted" and perfect through meditation and the "Spirit", as we would say it.

Catholics have it all, IMO, but Greek philosophy slipped into doctrines. But that's just words, and human words and God are just a little deficient 

And so all will see the strength of Christ's own teachings purely and we will ALL become the Church of the Firstborn, not Latter Day Saints! At the end, there is no more "Latter" entity as opposed to "Former", instead "all will be made new" and Mormon doctrine is that the earth itself will be altered to be as an urim and thumim.

The idea of a "crystal ball" imo is a distortion of what the earth will be, THAT is the story at any rate!

So to me, calling us "exclusive" seems incorrect.

But again as always the argument is about semantics.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

 

Yes, @MiserereNobis, that's basically the idea I was getting at 🙂

 

Building on the ideas of work for the dead and family history work, where is baptism for the dead currently being offered? AFIK, it is available exclusively at LDS temples. Does that make sense,

@mfbukowski?

________________

Not directly on the thread topic but rather on the subject of baptism for the dead, are records of who has been baptized for whom available? For example, has someone been baptized for Karl Marx?

Look it up, on Family Search, probably a hundred times.

One of the serious problems with celebrity genealogy is that everyone wants to baptize their "idols" ☺️

[Leaf474]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Understanding that one group is the only available producer of a product or service is not that big of a deal in the world and if we want the real deal and not a counterfeit, we have to go to them to get it.  This is not usually an issue unless pricing and/or availability is unfair or artificially limited to boost status value, iow it’s okay as long as that group/person does not arbitrarily restrict who has access to their product.

Being the only public golf course within reasonable driving distance for a community is very different than being the only golf course and being a private country club that only allows people earning over a certain amount of money or it belongs to a limited number of legacy families.

I believe most LDS see our faith as public as in anyone can join who desires to (yes, there are requirements, but public golf courses have requirements and rules as well and those who don’t abide by them will not be admitted; same with public schools, etc), but others might see us as more a private club because they focus on the “members only” parts rather than the fact anyone can become a member.

I think I'm following what you're saying 🙂

 

Generally, I'm hearing that the LDS Church is the only church that is currently properly presenting the restored gospel. Every other church is excluded in that statement, they're not teaching the restored gospel.

 

Everyone is welcome to come and listen... join if they wish. Everyone is included - an inclusive Church!

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Generally, I'm hearing that the LDS Church is the only church that is currently properly presenting the restored gospel. Every other church is excluded in that statement, they're not teaching the restored gospel.

I believe adding “fullness” makes it more accurate as many faiths teach some of the truths of the Restored Gospel (“fullness” not meaning everything God intends to reveal has been revealed, but what is necessary for salvation and exaltation for mortals will be as part of this dispensation, I believe; we do have more to learn after we die according to Joseph Smith and logic, imo).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-restoration-of-the-fulness-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/a-bicentennial-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

https://www.mormonwiki.com/Fullness_of_the_Gospel#:~:text=Latter-day Saints teach that,and resurrection%2C and that these

Edited November 8, 2023 by Calm

[Leaf474]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Look it up, on Family Search, probably a hundred times.

One of the serious problems with celebrity genealogy is that everyone wants to baptize their "idols" ☺️

Well, I just said Karl Marx because it popped into my head. I did a search, but even though I put in 1818 as the birth year, it showed me people born in years around that date. So I just picked one. But I didn't see anything about baptisms for them. Maybe it was on a different page?

 

But this brings up something new and interesting to me. Multiple people can be baptized for the same dead person? Does the church keep records of all the people that are baptized for a particular dead person?

[Leaf474]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe adding “fullness” makes it more accurate as many faiths teach some of the truths of the Restored Gospel (“fullness” not meaning everything God intends to reveal has been revealed, but what is necessary for salvation and exaltation for mortals will be as part of this dispensation, I believe; we do have more to learn after we die according to Joseph Smith and logic, imo).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-restoration-of-the-fulness-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/a-bicentennial-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

https://www.mormonwiki.com/Fullness_of_the_Gospel#:~:text=Latter-day Saints teach that,and resurrection%2C and that these

Yes, adding "fullness" makes it more accurate. Thanks for the input 🙂

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Well, I just said Karl Marx because it popped into my head. I did a search, but even though I put in 1818 as the birth year, it showed me people born in years around that date. So I just picked one. But I didn't see anything about baptisms for them. Maybe it was on a different page?

 

But this brings up something new and interesting to me. Multiple people can be baptized for the same dead person? Does the church keep records of all the people that are baptized for a particular dead person?

I think a member can only see if proxy ordinances are done.  But if you want to find a specific person, I would recommend you enter the birth date, death date, and place of birth and death.  That should help you find the person.

We aren't supposed to have multiple proxy baptisms for the same person but it can be hard to know if the person is the same.  You could be baptized for Karl Marx who was born on 5 May 1818 in Trier, Germany and also be baptized for Karl Marx who was born on 5 May 1818 in Trier, Prussia.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

think a member can only see if proxy ordinances are done. 

It has been awhile since I was into this, but unless things have changed, you do have to be a member to see ordinances. My guess is they don’t want to confuse nonmembers who are using baptism and other dates for identification. Could really mess things up if they didn’t catch or know that it was performed after they had died.

They have also gotten more restrictive with showing some names that are commonly wanted for curiosity, you need to show related first, iirc.  I will try and find info on that and see if accurate. (I may be thinking of FamilySearch relative finder as it appears they don’t have living church leaders on it and they used to).

These are some of the church policies for temple ordinances:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/church-policies

Edited November 8, 2023 by Calm