Vatican trying to avoid baptism by proxy
clifto
"The Roman Catholic Church has recently directed dioceses worldwide not
to give parish information to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. The move is to prevent LDS Church members from baptizing by proxy
Catholic ancestors."
--
"[I]t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Barack Obama at a meeting with his equals, the elitist bourgeoisie
Carole Allen
>http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9155036
>
>"The Roman Catholic Church has recently directed dioceses worldwide not
>to give parish information to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>Saints. The move is to prevent LDS Church members from baptizing by proxy
>Catholic ancestors."
>
This is discouraging.
It is precisely because the LDS has films of Croatian Catholic
registers going back to the 1700s (and in some cases further, some in
Croatian, some in Latin) that I have been able to trace not only many
generations (all my grandparents were from Croatia), but by cross
referencing birth, death and marriage records I have been able to
create whole families of cousins, and even determine the layout of
their homes (the registers often list house number and village) within
several villages.
the_ver...@comcast.net
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:43:08 -0500, clifto <cli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9155036
>
> >"The Roman Catholic Church has recently directed dioceses worldwide not
> >to give parish information to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> >Saints. The move is to prevent LDS Church members from baptizing by proxy
> >Catholic ancestors."
>
> This is discouraging.
>
Blame it on the Mormons.
I have no problem with them "sealing" those who were actually members
of their faith;
but to run around willy-nilly doing it to practically anyone they can
make a connection to -
even those long dead before Mormonism was founded- strikes me as odd
in the extreme.
Bruce S
<the_ver...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:33302e05-dec4-460e...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Worse than odd - I find it offensive. I have ancestors who were ministers
in strict protestant sects, they would not have been Mormons when they were
alive, and it is insulting to their faith to baptize and seal them now.
Bruce
Carole Allen
>
>I have no problem with them "sealing" those who were actually members
>of their faith;
>but to run around willy-nilly doing it to practically anyone they can
>make a connection to -
>even those long dead before Mormonism was founded- strikes me as odd
>in the extreme.
>
someone long dead...it is really meaningless to deceased ancestors....
Steve Hayes
The problem is, it is precisely their interest in preselytising ancestors that
motivated them to collect genealogical records kept by other religious bodies
in the first place.
Genealogists of all religions or none have indirectly benefited from this
since it is often easier to use the copies of the records the LDS have
collected than it is to use the originals, but that doesn't dispose of the
theological objections, which in this case are that the information in the
registers will be misused, in the view of the body theat collected the
information in the first place.
Some Anglicans have had similar objections, which is why the IGI coverage of
some parts of England has been much much thinner than in others.
For myself, When I first started doing genealogy some 30 years ago, I was
quite surprised to see that my grandparents, who were Methodists when they
died, had been baptised into the LDS Church, and wondered which relative had
done the proxy baptism on their behalf.
Again, speaking personally, though I am not a member of the LDS, I think that
the theological objection can be overcome by the thought that if the LDS
religion is not true, proxy baptism on their behalf will make no difference
whatever to the eternal destiny of my ancestors or those of anyone else.
But I suggest that prolonged discussion of the theological points involved
preferably not take place in genealogy newsgroups.
[Crossposted to some religious NGs, suggest that follow-ups be set to those
groups if discussion gets too theological ]
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Charani
> Seriously, this is a piece of paper...they can't actually "baptize"
> someone long dead...it is really meaningless to deceased ancestors....
Yes, it is meaningless to those already deceased but I agree with
Bruce. I find it offensive and insulting to the memories of those who
have gone before too (and I have a Mormon cousin).
I think the LDS beliefs will always be sit extremely uncomfortably
with those who don't follow those beliefs.
Lesley Robertson
"Charani" <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> wrote in message
news:48216732$0$26084$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
The way it was explained to me was that if the ceremony is held, this has
the result that baptism and church membership are OFFERED to people in the
afterlife. There's no compulsion just because a descendant has arranged the
process. Now, assuming for a moment that there IS an afterlife, I think that
my ancestors would be perfectly capable of choosing for themselves, and
standing up for their own beliefs. After all, they were strong enough to
bring up children in difficult circumstances, get them educated and
gradually improve the situation of the family.
Since I don't actually believe in an afterlife, I can't see what harm
they're doing - indeed they're doing a lot of good by making all sorts of
ducumants available to the rest of us (I can remember how long everything
took when I relied on the postman to deliver documents). Their ceremonies
don't hurt anyone.
Lesley Robertson
Texas Gen
to us, and for freely sharing it rather than keeping these records for the
use of LDS members only.
GeorgeD
First of all, I am very thankful for the genealogical database that the
Mormons created and for them making it available to all of us.
I don’t understand why anyone objects to the Mormons baptizing deceased
ancestors. If you don’t subscribe to the beliefs of the LDS, it is a
totally meaningless gesture.
Tony H.
GeorgeD wrote:
> the_ver...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On May 6, 9:57 pm, carol...@comcast.net (Carole Allen) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 09:43:08 -0500, clifto <cli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9155036
>>>> "The Roman Catholic Church has recently directed dioceses worldwide not
>>>> to give parish information to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>>>> Saints. The move is to prevent LDS Church members from baptizing by
>>>> proxy
>>>> Catholic ancestors."
>>>
>>> This is discouraging.
>>>
>>
>> Blame it on the Mormons.
>>
>> I have no problem with them "sealing" those who were actually members
>> of their faith;
>> but to run around willy-nilly doing it to practically anyone they can
>> make a connection to -
>> even those long dead before Mormonism was founded- strikes me as odd
>> in the extreme.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> First of all, I am very thankful for the genealogical database that the
> Mormons created and for them making it available to all of us.
I'm also thankful, but for my own selfish genealogical reasons.
>
> I don’t understand why anyone objects to the Mormons baptizing deceased
> ancestors. If you don’t subscribe to the beliefs of the LDS, it is a
> totally meaningless gesture.
It is a totally meaningless gesture, but it is also offensive and IMHO
very disrespectful to my ancestors and their faith.
Lesley Robertson
"Tony H." <punkyNOSP*M...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:kaSdnRRb8aoxP7zV...@insightbb.com...
>
>
> It is a totally meaningless gesture, but it is also offensive and IMHO
> very disrespectful to my ancestors and their faith.
How can something that's meaningless be offensive? In any case, I don't see
why it's offensive if they invite people to join them - surely it's a
definition of any faith group that they're convinced that THEY are right and
everyone else is wrong? It would almost be offensive and lacking in respect
if they didn't invite people to join....... You wouldn't invite people to
join you if you didn't respect them, would you?
If you believe that any faith system is correct, then the ceremonies
associated with that faith system are of great significance. If you don't
believe, then such ceremonies are of no significance, won't do anything, and
therefore don't matter.
Lesley Robertson
Tony H.
It's a meaningless gesture because a baptism by proxy by the Mormons of
my ancestors means nothing to me or my ancestors faithwise.
I don't have a problem with the Mormons or their faith. As far as I'm
concerned, it's their right to believe and worship however they want.
As far as being disrespectful to my ancestors and their religious faith,
it is disrespectful for one religious group to say that "THEY are right
and everyone else is wrong". It would be equally as disrespectful to
the Mormon religion for my faith or any other faith to baptize by proxy
a member of the Mormon faith for whatever reason. BWT, I don't recall
that my ancestors were invited to join the Mormons before the Mormons
took it upon themselves to baptize my ancestors into their faith.
Bruce Remick
>
>
> Lesley Robertson wrote:
>> "Tony H." <punkyNOSP*M...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:kaSdnRRb8aoxP7zV...@insightbb.com...
>>
>>>
>>>It is a totally meaningless gesture, but it is also offensive and IMHO
>>>very disrespectful to my ancestors and their faith.
>>
>>
>> How can something that's meaningless be offensive? In any case, I don't
>> see why it's offensive if they invite people to join them - surely it's a
>> definition of any faith group that they're convinced that THEY are right
>> and everyone else is wrong? It would almost be offensive and lacking in
>> respect if they didn't invite people to join....... You wouldn't invite
>> people to join you if you didn't respect them, would you?
>>
>> If you believe that any faith system is correct, then the ceremonies
>> associated with that faith system are of great significance. If you don't
>> believe, then such ceremonies are of no significance, won't do anything,
>> and therefore don't matter.
>> Lesley Robertson
>>
>>
>
> It's a meaningless gesture because a baptism by proxy by the Mormons of my
> ancestors means nothing to me or my ancestors faithwise.
>
> I don't have a problem with the Mormons or their faith. As far as I'm
> concerned, it's their right to believe and worship however they want.
>
> As far as being disrespectful to my ancestors and their religious faith,
> it is disrespectful for one religious group to say that "THEY are right
> and everyone else is wrong".
Don't followers of most every religion believe that theirs is the "right"
one, and that the others are either "wrong" or simply not quite as "right"?
I see no disrespect in that.
> It would be equally as disrespectful to the Mormon religion for my faith
> or any other faith to baptize by proxy a member of the Mormon faith for
> whatever reason. BWT, I don't recall that my ancestors were invited to
> join the Mormons before the Mormons took it upon themselves to baptize my
> ancestors into their faith.
I get occasional knocks on the door with invites to learn more about or to
consider joining the Mormon faith. No reason to believe my ancestors didn't
have the same experience. BTW, I don't recall in any of those brief
doorway conversations that the Mormon missionaries were in any way
disrespectful to my faith during their spiel.
Mary_...@tvo.org
think of themselves as the one true church, with a direct pipeline to
the almighty..
I mean, seriously, if a person is already dead, from a religious point
of view, they've already had their shot at avoiding sin, and have gone
on to their subsequent reward or punishment - everything to do with
that person is in the hands of God, not man. Any ceremony anyone
outside the Catholic Church performs, in theory should have no meaning
or impact. It can't hurt or help the already dead.
I personally find the general premise offensive from a philosophical
point of view (i.e. that there is something wrong with the sincere
religious orientations of prior generations, and that any kind of
loving creator would exclude someone from the hereafter because they
weren't members of a faith that didn't even exist when most of them
lived).
M
clifto
> I don?t understand why anyone objects to the Mormons baptizing deceased
> ancestors. If you don?t subscribe to the beliefs of the LDS, it is a
> totally meaningless gesture.
If you believe that baptism can take place without the full knowledge and
consent of the baptized, as Catholics among others do, it's meaningful.
--
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some
environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294959230563446
Brian
>I don’t understand why anyone objects to the Mormons baptizing deceased
>ancestors. If you don’t subscribe to the beliefs of the LDS, it is a
>totally meaningless gesture.
I wonder how atheists would feel about being made Catholics, etc.
after death and then showing up that way in the records.
Tony H.
Yes and that per se is not disrespectful. However, IMHO it does become
disrespectful when one religion's believer continuously persists in
trying to convert another religion's believer...in other words, cram
their "right" religion down one's throat.
>
>
>>It would be equally as disrespectful to the Mormon religion for my faith
>>or any other faith to baptize by proxy a member of the Mormon faith for
>>whatever reason. BWT, I don't recall that my ancestors were invited to
>>join the Mormons before the Mormons took it upon themselves to baptize my
>>ancestors into their faith.
>
>
> I get occasional knocks on the door with invites to learn more about or to
> consider joining the Mormon faith. No reason to believe my ancestors didn't
> have the same experience. BTW, I don't recall in any of those brief
> doorway conversations that the Mormon missionaries were in any way
> disrespectful to my faith during their spiel.
>
I get those occasional visits from Mormon missionaries too. You are
totally correct. All of the missionaries that I've spoken to were
polite, cheerful and absolutely respectful to me and my religion when
told that I have one. I always wish them well in their travels and also
tell them how much I appreciate all that their church has done for the
world of genealogy.
However, even though I appreciate the work of the Mormon church and
respect them for their religious diligence, that does not mean that I
want to be baptized by proxy into their church. Nor does it mean that I
want my very strict Baptist preacher gr-gr-grandfather or my Catholic
nun gr-grandaunt baptized by proxy into the Mormon church. For the
Mormon church to do so on their own, is IMO offensive and disrespectful.
If anyone else has a different opinion, that's fine. Everybody is
entitled to their own opinion just as they are entitled to their own
religious beliefs or non-beliefs without interference from others.
Dr. Grok
@news.individual.net:
Either you believe in the tenants of the Mormon faith or you don't.
If you do then these "Baptisms" have some relevance and meaning to you.
If you don't then it's just a useless exercise, waste of time, load of
crap, meaningless practice -- so don't get worked up about it.
What if a religion was started which held the belief that they could
"Baptise" or otherwise induct people just by reading their names 3 times
out loud from the phone book? Would you want to purge your name and
those of your ancestors from any phone books to prevent this? Of course
not -- you'd say that it was a useless exercise, etc. and go on about
your life. Do the same here.
Bruce Remick
Do you really believe that's the case here? Do you really consider the LDS'
activities with regards to proxy baptisms to be "cramming their religion
down your throat"? Would you have ever even known about it at all had you
not become interested in genealogy? Do you consider your non-Mormon
ancestors to have been harmed or disgraced or their personal religion
defamed by these LDS' efforts? Wouldn't a simple "Thanks, but no thanks"
be a more reasonable attitude?
the_ver...@comcast.net
> "Tony H." <punkyNOS...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:DcqdnQfEMP7Kp7_V...@insightbb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bruce Remick wrote:
> >>news:ubGdnWhuE95qI7zV...@insightbb.com...
>
> >>>Lesley Robertson wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I only have one other "beef" with the genealogy work done by the LDS.
I consider it great that they filmed and extracted original records
and made them available to the public.
Would to heaven they would NOT have done the same with all that
"Patron Submitted' dreck.
IMHO, that has done more to degrade online genealogy than any single
act in history.
Allen
<snip>
> I get those occasional visits from Mormon missionaries too. You are
> totally correct. All of the missionaries that I've spoken to were
> polite, cheerful and absolutely respectful to me and my religion when
> told that I have one. I always wish them well in their travels and also
> tell them how much I appreciate all that their church has done for the
> world of genealogy.
>
missionary problem in an interesting way. One time, when they knocked on
his door he invited them in and listened patiently. When they finished,
he said "Now let me tell you about the Presbyterian Church" and went
into the theology and governance of the Presbyterians in great depth and
detail. After a good while they were fidgeting and looking at their
watches, and finally stood up and told him politely that they had to go.
That was perhaps ten years ago and no more of them have stopped there. I
think they might have a little list of places to avoid.
Allen
Tony H.
Bruce Remick wrote:
>>>Don't followers of most every religion believe that theirs is the "right"
>>>one, and that the others are either "wrong" or simply not quite as
>>>"right"? I see no disrespect in that.
>>
>>Yes and that per se is not disrespectful. However, IMHO it does become
>>disrespectful when one religion's believer continuously persists in trying
>>to convert another religion's believer...in other words, cram their
>>"right" religion down one's throat.
>
>
> Do you really believe that's the case here? Do you really consider the LDS'
> activities with regards to proxy baptisms to be "cramming their religion
> down your throat"? Would you have ever even known about it at all had you
> not become interested in genealogy? Do you consider your non-Mormon
> ancestors to have been harmed or disgraced or their personal religion
> defamed by these LDS' efforts? Wouldn't a simple "Thanks, but no thanks"
> be a more reasonable attitude?
>
Perhaps I should have been more precise in my answer so that you would
understand.
You asked: "Don't followers of most every religion believe that theirs
is the 'right' one, and that the others are either 'wrong' or simply not
quite as 'right'?"
I assumed you were speaking of religions in general and I replied: "Yes
and that per se is not disrespectful."
When I continued my reply about religious believers trying the "cram
their 'right' religion down one's throat", I was speaking any religion
that persists in such tactics. My reply had nothing whatsoever to do
with the Mormons. I was thinking more of the diatribes that I have been
subjected to over the years by different religious factions that are
certain that my soul is doomed to eternal damnation because I won't
convert to their "right" religion.
I say again this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mormons! I have
never been treated this way by any Mormon missionary or prayed over by
any Mormon missionary.
So to answer your further questions.
"Do you really believe that's the case here?" ___No
"Do you really consider the LDS' activities with regards to proxy
baptisms to be 'cramming their religion down your throat'?" ___No
"Would you have ever even known about it at all had you not become
interested in genealogy?" ___I don't know
"Do you consider your non-Mormon ancestors to have been harmed or
disgraced or their personal religion defamed by these LDS' efforts?"
___No, not harmed or disgraced. Their personal religion defamed? Yes
maybe, but I'm not sure that's the word I would use. Certainly the
Mormons show a lack of respect or religious tolerance for the fact that
my ancestors DID have a religion other than Mormon. You just can't say
you're not a Mormon, so you must be a heathen and I'm going to baptist
you as a Mormon so your soul will be safe.
"Wouldn't a simple 'Thanks, but no thanks' be a more reasonable
attitude?" ___Yes, absolutely IF my ancestors or I had been asked and
given the opportunity to say "Thanks, but no thanks", but that didn't
happen.
D. Stussy
news:xkrUj.71336$y05....@newsfe22.lga...
I find it offensive and improper for a member of any religion to attempt to
impose his views on a person not of that same religion (or open to it).
Where the dead are concerned, they already have been or will never be part
of that religion, so it is offensive to attempt to retroactively impose the
view. It's not meaningless.
In the U.S., one's right to practice a religion stops where it is in
conflict with someone else's right to do the same. Proxy baptisms overstep
that right. LDS members can baptize their own as LDS all they want, but
they have no right to do that to non-church members - because that
interferes with the non-members' right to practice and enjoy their own
religion.
In parallel, should we allow the radical muslim to practice what his
religion dictates - kill infidels and get 72 virgins in heaven? Hell no!
LDS members may not be killing people, but it is imposition just the same.
If my ancestors wanted to be Mormons, they would have joined the LDS church
themselves. The fact that they did not means that they either predeceased
the founding of the church and/or wanted no part of it. For Mormons to then
come around and proxy baptize them into the LDS version of Christianity
violates my ancestors' beliefs. I also believe that it might violate U.S.
law since it could be construed to have retroactively denied my ancestors
their First Amendment Right of freedom of religion (and thus be a felony
under 18 U.S.C. 241 ["Conspiracy to deny a civil right of another"] should
two or more people be involved in the "proxy baptism" - and two are - the
baptiser and the proxy).
My knowledge of LDS practice has nothing to do with genealogy.
I may not be Catholic myself nor agree with the Catholic Church, but this
time, they have hit on something where they (Catholics) are correct.
Tony H.
D. Stussy wrote:
Very well said!
--Tony
Bruce Remick
Gotcha. I presumed you still were referring to the Mormons. I guess I've
been lucky in that I have never been proselytized by members of any religion
or group in my 65+ years, other than maybe those krishnas who used to camp
out at airports 20-30 years ago, and that was really only being badgered for
money.
Bruce Remick
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:fvtmeq$ts5$1...@snarked.org...
Howzat? How do LDS proxy ancestral baptisms interfere with your right to
practice and enjoy your own religion, assuming you have one? Were you
practicing and enjoying your religion before you ever learned of these
"baptisms"?
Tony H.
Bruce Remick wrote:
At least the Krishnas were entertaining. :)
D. Stussy
Even if I do not know about it, NOTHING gives them the right to baptize me
into their religion AGAINST MY WILL.
Bruce Remick
>
>
> D. Stussy wrote:
>
>
>
>> I find it offensive and improper for a member of any religion to attempt
>> to
>> impose his views on a person not of that same religion (or open to it).
>> Where the dead are concerned, they already have been or will never be
>> part
>> of that religion, so it is offensive to attempt to retroactively impose
>> the
>> view. It's not meaningless.
>>
>> In the U.S., one's right to practice a religion stops where it is in
>> conflict with someone else's right to do the same. Proxy baptisms
>> overstep
>> that right. LDS members can baptize their own as LDS all they want, but
>> they have no right to do that to non-church members - because that
>> interferes with the non-members' right to practice and enjoy their own
>> religion.
>>
>> In parallel, should we allow the radical muslim to practice what his
>> religion dictates - kill infidels and get 72 virgins in heaven? Hell no!
>> LDS members may not be killing people, but it is imposition just the
>> same.
Where's the imposition? You likely didn't even know what they were doing
until you read about it.
>> If my ancestors wanted to be Mormons, they would have joined the LDS
>> church
>> themselves. The fact that they did not means that they either
>> predeceased
>> the founding of the church and/or wanted no part of it. For Mormons to
>> then
>> come around and proxy baptize them into the LDS version of Christianity
>> violates my ancestors' beliefs.
The Mormons can do whatever they like. Unless you place some validity in
what they're doing with ancestral baptisms-- and I presume you don't-- why
should it upset you? If I were to claim to baptize your late grandparents
into my own personal religion would you actually consider it a violation of
your ancestors' beliefs and rights? If not, why worry about what the
Mormons claim to be doing?
>> I also believe that it might violate U.S.
>> law since it could be construed to have retroactively denied my ancestors
>> their First Amendment Right of freedom of religion (and thus be a felony
>> under 18 U.S.C. 241 ["Conspiracy to deny a civil right of another"]
>> should
>> two or more people be involved in the "proxy baptism" - and two are - the
>> baptiser and the proxy).
Are you serious? Do you consider the Mormon proxy "baptisms" to be official
acts that somehow illegally brand your ancestors and deny their civil rights
posthumously? Freedoms and rights they thought they had while alive, but
which these baptisms deny them retroactively?
Bruce Remick
Okay. Against your will, I have just baptized you into my personal
religion. Your ancestors, too. Hows that? You actually should stockpile
as many of these baptisms as you can. One of them may be the one that saves
you.
Lesley Robertson
"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4jc424lpdhdumprsp...@4ax.com...
because people can't MAKE me a Catholic or anything else without my
knowledge or consent. They can have all sorts of ceremonies, burn incense,
sacrifice cockerels, dance naked when the moon is full - whatever turns them
on - but unless I consent, it doesn't make me anything other than what I
am - a perfectly content atheist. Calling me the Tooth Fairy wouldn't make
me the Tooth Fairy, so why should I worry if someone calls me a Catholic, or
a Mormon, or a Jedi Knight or a member of the Church of Elvis the King?
This is why I don't understand the fuss about the efforts of the LDS - if
you don't believe in what they are doing, why give it significance by caring
about it?
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
> ___No, not harmed or disgraced. Their personal religion defamed? Yes
> maybe, but I'm not sure that's the word I would use. Certainly the Mormons
> show a lack of respect or religious tolerance for the fact that my
> ancestors DID have a religion other than Mormon. You just can't say
> you're not a Mormon, so you must be a heathen and I'm going to baptist you
> as a Mormon so your soul will be safe.
>
> "Wouldn't a simple 'Thanks, but no thanks' be a more reasonable attitude?"
> ___Yes, absolutely IF my ancestors or I had been asked and given the
> opportunity to say "Thanks, but no thanks", but that didn't happen.
>
>
wandering the earth, their attitude is that people should be given the
retrospective chance to take advantage of such "revelations". No compulsion,
simply a chance say "yes" or "no".
In my experience, most organised religions have the 'if you're not one of
us, you're a heathen" attitude - especially when I say I'm not a believer at
all.
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
>
> In parallel, should we allow the radical muslim to practice what his
> religion dictates - kill infidels and get 72 virgins in heaven? Hell no!
> LDS members may not be killing people, but it is imposition just the same.
Are you really equating someone else's religious practice with mass murder?
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are actively using
the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided by the LDS, depsite the
fact that the main reason for this enormous genealogical effort is in order
that their ancestors can be retrospectively "baptised"?
And how many are aware that any 19th century ancestor can have a LOT of
descendants, all of whom have equal rights?
Lesley Robertson
Hugh Watkins
> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so
> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are actively using
> the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided by the LDS, depsite the
> fact that the main reason for this enormous genealogical effort is in order
> that their ancestors can be retrospectively "baptised"?
snip
reunitng families is the main pupose
see http://labs.familysearch.org/ and follow the links for a more up to
date version http://new.familysearch.org/
they are fully aware of the problemsof the old data
Huh W
--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Bruce Remick
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:96957$4822a9c6$83b4502b$50...@news1.tudelft.nl...
That pretty much says it all. It's amazing how upset some people get over
this, as if when the LDS baptism project records one's long-dead non-Morman
ancestor, that ancestor suddenly is transformed into an official Mormon,
erasing whatever beliefs held during life.
JJ206
> http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9155036
>
> "The Roman Catholic Church has recently directed dioceses worldwide not
> to give parish information to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> Saints. The move is to prevent LDS Church members from baptizing by proxy
> Catholic ancestors."
Hmmmm, this is posturing and territorial. On both sides. Thankfully
neither religion matters in the universal scheme of things.
William Bojanowski
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
This is an extreme example, but if you were in Nazi Germany and
someone, especially someone with some authority, called you a Jew, you
would have plenty to worry about.
Boj
Henry Brownlee
|| As far as being disrespectful to my ancestors and their religious faith,
| it is disrespectful for one religious group to say that "THEY are right
| and everyone else is wrong". It would be equally as disrespectful to
| the Mormon religion for my faith or any other faith to baptize by proxy
| a member of the Mormon faith for whatever reason. BWT, I don't recall
| that my ancestors were invited to join the Mormons before the Mormons
| took it upon themselves to baptize my ancestors into their faith.
I do not know of any religious sect which does not believe that theirs is
the
"true" religion. (Some may not express it in just those words.)
BTW, I don't think the LDS took it upon themselves to baptize your ancestors
in their faith. Someone in your family submitted their names to be baptized
and sealed in their faith.
I do not personally believe what the Mormons believe about their Prophet
receiving those tablets in an unknown language - which he translated.
However, since I was not there, I cannot say it didn't happen. And I respect
and thank them for sharing all of the information they gather with us
non-believers.
--
Henry F. Brownlee
Hunting Forebears
(With a little help from my Mormon friends.)
D. Stussy
For you to say that I subscribed in any way to "Remickism" (since you
haven't otherwise told me your religion uses another name), you have
effectively defamed my character as I have nor want any relationship
to/from/with you. Tell me where your legal representative is so I can serve
him with a law suit.
singhals
How did the Jehovah's miss you?!?
Cheryl
singhals
Assuming that St Peter or someone will ASK my kinfolk their
preference, I can't see any of 'em being shy about stating
it. And, if they're not asked, I can well imagine many of
them speaking up anyway. (g)
Cheryl
singhals
I _do_ see your point, but if a name is in the IGI, they're
dead and have been for at least a year. A Jew who was
already dead in Nazi Germany didn't have any more to fret
over than a dead Lutheran.
If someone is living, the LDS baptism cannot be done except
in person for him/her self.
I happen not to be LDS.
Cheryl
Brian
wrote:
>How did the Jehovah's miss you?!?
>
>Cheryl
There were three teams in our neighborhood just today.
NoSpam
> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so
> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are
> actively using the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided
> by the LDS, depsite the fact that the main reason for this enormous
> genealogical effort is in order that their ancestors can be
> retrospectively "baptised"?
That's just plain stupid said by someone who knows nothing about the
subject. I'm an atheist and my hobby is genealogy. The LDS does
gemology for your stated reason but it's clear that you have never
stepped foot in one of their libraries. Their libraries are staffed by
lds members and they are strictly forbidden to say anything about
their religion. It looks like a secular reference library. It also
happens to be the best in the world and the staff are very helpful.
>
> And how many are aware that any 19th century ancestor can have a LOT
> of descendants, all of whom have equal rights?
> Lesley Robertson
Are you saying that someone living in Nazi Germany has the same rights
as you do? See how stupid you sound?
They keep their religion in their church, which is much better than
the damm Christians who are the most intolerant people in the world,
except the Arabs.
Bruce Remick
"singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:osGdnXZC2rM5HL7V...@rcn.net...
Oh, they come around sometimes, too. If I spot them turning into the drive,
I press a button and a Virgin Mary statue pops up out of the lawn. And the
sign on my mailbox rotates to read Rev. & Mrs. Remick. Seems to eliminate
awkward attempts at conversation.
Bruce Remick
I never claimed you do or ever will subscribe to "Remickism". I simply
decided to baptize you, period. You said I had no right to do that if you
didn't want me to. I believe I do. I could even put a spell on you, or
revoke your recent batism, but you seem like a nice enough person. I don't
anticipate a future relationship with you, either. It's not part of the
process. Any character defamation as a result of my action is all in your
mind, especially if your character is that fragile.
I have never needed a legal representative because no one has ever
questioned by right to baptize people. Of course you have the right to
reject the baptism I performed. Why not simply do that if you feel imposed
upon?
JJ206
> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so
> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are actively using
Just pretend that you are in heaven sipping on a really good strawberry
smoothie on a cloud and humming a happy tune with your family and
friends chatting about the old adventures. Then pops in a serious LDS
suit and you spill smoothie on your white clothes and he loudly
proclaims "Hey, would you like to be baptised Mormon and move to this
other cloud and sip these other strawberry smoothies with total
strangers ?
You wouldn't be "mortally" offended because you are already dead, but
you might be "spiritually" offended. And the devil would laugh every
time it happens.
Perhaps if you were in hell, and the same question was asked, then maybe
you would be glad to jump at the chance to be baptized, but I doubt you
could hear the message over the noise of the meat grinders and volcano
explosions.
> And how many are aware that any 19th century ancestor can have a LOT of
> descendants, all of whom have equal rights?
No clue what that means. Please rephrase and expand.
> Lesley Robertson
Jonathan M.
JJ206
Salt Lake City is in a desert ! Baptizing little pieces of paper is a
waste of water and time they could be scanning documents and census
pages...etc... *smile* Now I'm curious if the proxy baptisms are a paid
job, salary, or charity volunteer work someone does ?
I love threads like this.
Jonathan M.
Lesley Robertson
"NoSpam" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:YoMUj.2093$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
> news:e9e4d$4822adde$83b4502b$63...@news1.tudelft.nl...
>> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so
>> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are actively
>> using the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided by the LDS,
>> depsite the fact that the main reason for this enormous genealogical
>> effort is in order that their ancestors can be retrospectively
>> "baptised"?
>
> That's just plain stupid said by someone who knows nothing about the
> subject. I'm an atheist and my hobby is genealogy. The LDS does gemology
> for your stated reason but it's clear that you have never stepped foot in
> one of their libraries. Their libraries are staffed by lds members and
> they are strictly forbidden to say anything about their religion. It looks
> like a secular reference library. It also happens to be the best in the
> world and the staff are very helpful.
So how does that make my question stupid? I didn't mention their staff. It
is a simple question. How many of the folk who spend all their time
complaining about the LDS use their facilities?
Do read messages carefully before attacking or name-calling.
>>
>> And how many are aware that any 19th century ancestor can have a LOT of
>> descendants, all of whom have equal rights?
>> Lesley Robertson
>
> Are you saying that someone living in Nazi Germany has the same rights as
> you do? See how stupid you sound?
Where did I mention Germany? What is this obsession with the Nazis? If you
want opressed people to refer to, there's plenty of modern examples, but
it's not relevant to what I said.
My point is that ancestor A from 1850 could have had 10 kids, some of whom
stayed home, some of whom crossed the ocean. It's easily possible that the
descendants of those kids now number hundreds if not thousands, some of whom
took different turns in their religious beliefs, which makes the picture of
someone saying "Nobody is making MY ancestors into members of any faith"
pretty silly. Someone else from another faith, or none, could be sitting
parroting the same sentiment about the same ancestor... And they both have
an equal right to do so. It's a bit like kids squabbling over a toy -
"They're MY ancestors!" No they're MY ancestors!".
As I said, it's a good idea to read and understand what's being said before
attacking. Do tell me if you still don't understand and I'll see if I can
find simpler words.
Lesley Robertson
Bruce Remick
"JJ206" <jj...@remooooooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in message
news:12103193...@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
> Lesley Robertson wrote:
>> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so
>> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are actively
>> using the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided by the LDS,
>> despite the fact that the main reason for this enormous genealogical
>> effort is in order that their ancestors can be retrospectively
>> "baptized"?
>
> Just pretend that you are in heaven sipping on a really good strawberry
> smoothie on a cloud and humming a happy tune with your family and friends
> chatting about the old adventures. Then pops in a serious LDS
> suit and you spill smoothie on your white clothes and he loudly proclaims
> "Hey, would you like to be baptised Mormon and move to this other cloud
> and sip these other strawberry smoothies with total
> strangers ?
>
> You wouldn't be "mortally" offended because you are already dead, but you
> might be "spiritually" offended. And the devil would laugh every time it
> happens.
>
> Perhaps if you were in hell, and the same question was asked, then maybe
> you would be glad to jump at the chance to be baptized, but I doubt you
> could hear the message over the noise of the meat grinders and volcano
> explosions.
You sound like you believe that your long-dead ancestors will actually
"feel" their names being recorded or "baptized" by the LDS researchers, and
might be offended by it. And that those ancestors will forever more be
considered Mormon by posterity.
Lesley Robertson
news:12103193...@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
>
> but you might be "spiritually" offended. And the devil would laugh
> every time it happens.
>
power over you since that's the reaction they're looking for. It
annoys them if you just smile and ignore them, rather than getting
upset. If I got offended every time someone tried to impose their
religious beliefs on me, I'd be in a permanent bad temper.
Life's too short....
Lesley Robertson
William Bojanowski
singhals <sing...@erols.com> wrote:
> William Bojanowski wrote:
> >>on - but unless I consent, it doesn't make me anything other than what I
> >>am - a perfectly content atheist. Calling me the Tooth Fairy wouldn't make
> >>me the Tooth Fairy, so why should I worry if someone calls me a Catholic,
> >>or
> >>a Mormon, or a Jedi Knight or a member of the Church of Elvis the King?
> >>
> >>This is why I don't understand the fuss about the efforts of the LDS - if
> >>you don't believe in what they are doing, why give it significance by
> >>caring
> >>about it?
> >>Lesley Robertson
> >
> >
> > This is an extreme example, but if you were in Nazi Germany and
> > someone, especially someone with some authority, called you a Jew, you
> > would have plenty to worry about.
>
>
> I _do_ see your point, but if a name is in the IGI, they're
> dead and have been for at least a year. A Jew who was
> already dead in Nazi Germany didn't have any more to fret
> over than a dead Lutheran.
>
> If someone is living, the LDS baptism cannot be done except
> in person for him/her self.
>
> I happen not to be LDS.
>
> Cheryl
But that dead Jew's children and grand children would have plenty to
worry about also, because that record, if it could be connected to one's
child or grandchild, would target that live person as a Jew; even if
that live person was living as a Lutheran. Take for another example,
the relatively recent events in Rawanda, where Hutus were killing Tutsis
or vice versa (I can't access Google right now). The designation of
Hutu or Tutsi was randomly assigned by their Belgium colonizers, and had
nothing to do with any genetic, ethnic, or cultural heritage prior to
that designation. Yet fewer than a hundred years later people were
killing each other based on that random designation. Like I said,
extreme examples, but real enough and recent enough to convince me that
people who don't want to be "baptised" by the Mormons are not paranoid
nut cases. Now my personal point of view is that I don't care one way
or another; their baptism has no real effect on me or my ancestors, as I
don't believe in original sin, nor any of the dogma or nonsense ascribed
to God by any religion. The probability of persecution in the US based
on an LDS baptism is extremely, ridiculously low; and I think that
Mormons are wonderful people, and that their genealogical research and
record keeping has been a great resource for my own research.
Boj
NoSpam
It would be a lot easier for you to engage your brain before you
opened your mouth.
singhals
If they weren't wishing to do the proxy baptisms, they'd
have no _reason_ to want to "waste" their tithes on scanning
old documents, building the indexes and search engines and
supporting the server farms. I mean, the other
denominations all had their chance to pick up the historical
slack there, and passed? (g)
Those who serve as the proxies are generally family members
doing their religious duty. The proxies who aren't family
members are devout volunteers assigned to the task.
Those who have a personal knowledge of Temple-work may
correct that to their satisfaction. Not being Mormon, all I
know is what I'm told.
Cheryl
JJ206
> "JJ206" <jj...@remooooooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:12103193...@bubbleator.drizzle.com...
>> Lesley Robertson wrote:
>>> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so
>>> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are actively
>>> using the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided by the LDS,
>>> despite the fact that the main reason for this enormous genealogical
>>> effort is in order that their ancestors can be retrospectively
>>> "baptized"?
>> Just pretend that you are in heaven sipping on a really good strawberry
>> smoothie on a cloud and humming a happy tune with your family and friends
>> chatting about the old adventures. Then pops in a serious LDS
>> suit and you spill smoothie on your white clothes and he loudly proclaims
>> "Hey, would you like to be baptized Mormon and move to this other cloud
>> and sip these other strawberry smoothies with total
>> strangers ?
>>
>> You wouldn't be "mortally" offended because you are already dead, but you
>> might be "spiritually" offended. And the devil would laugh every time it
>> happens.
>>
>> Perhaps if you were in hell, and the same question was asked, then maybe
>> you would be glad to jump at the chance to be baptized, but I doubt you
>> could hear the message over the noise of the meat grinders and volcano
>> explosions.
> You sound like you believe that your long-dead ancestors will actually
> "feel" their names being recorded or "baptized" by the LDS researchers, and
> might be offended by it. And that those ancestors will forever more be
> considered Mormon by posterity.
I used the word "pretend". You might pretend to feel how others feel.
One time awhile ago, I was cross country skiing in a snow covered
cemetery. Someone yelled at me that I was skiing on graves. They clearly
were offended at what I was doing. Yes, I was on the snow and not on the
graves. Yes, they are dead. Yes, I didn't 100% understand what they
meant. But I could feel their offense and I told them I would no longer
ski on graves and only ski to the outside areas of the cemetery where no
graves were. Did I have to do this ? No.
Yes, I think and feel that the whole baptism by proxy debate is foolish.
But I have the manners to not keep offending people who are offended in
a spiritual manner.
The Mormon faith used to practice polygamy. But it was considered
offensive to a majority of other people in the united states and the
Mormons gave it up in trade for statehood. Was it manners that led the
Mormons to give up a foolish practice to not offend their neighbors ?
As to your point that if we use IGI or other Mormon family tree data,
then we must accept all Mormon things as a whole unit. I disagree. If
I go to a grocery store and the bakery department acts in some way that
is offensive to me, then I would not blame the rest of the store as a
whole nor stop shopping in the meat department or produce department.
My complaint card would state "bakery department" not the store as a
whole. The "baptize by proxy" department is not the same people nor the
same building or street as "the family tree" genealogy building.
That said, this topic is amazingly complicated as this site shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead
Jonathan
Charani
> As I said, it's a good idea to read and understand what's being said before
> attacking. Do tell me if you still don't understand and I'll see if I can
> find simpler words.
You wouldn't find words simple enough. It's a troll of little brain
(apologies to Pooh, who has a lot more brain).
Charani
> The way it was explained to me was that if the ceremony is held,
> this has the result that baptism and church membership are OFFERED
> to people in the afterlife. There's no compulsion just because a
> descendant has arranged the process. Now, assuming for a moment
> that there IS an afterlife, I think that my ancestors would be
> perfectly capable of choosing for themselves, and standing up for
> their own beliefs. After all, they were strong enough to bring up
> children in difficult circumstances, get them educated and
> gradually improve the situation of the family.
It's a matter of respect for others.
There are some who believe that it's bad kharma for those like the LDS
and Jehovahs Witnesses to call, uninvited, on people only to be told
"goodbye" or "get lost" at best, and a load of four letter abuse at
worst.
> Since I don't actually believe in an afterlife, I can't see what
> harm they're doing - indeed they're doing a lot of good by making
> all sorts of ducumants available to the rest of us (I can remember
> how long everything took when I relied on the postman to deliver
> documents). Their ceremonies don't hurt anyone.
I do believe in the Afterlife.
Next time I hear a thunderstorm, I'll know it's the Bishop launching
theological counter arguments against the LDS whilst thumping his
cloud with his crozier ;)) He'd no doubt be supported by those of his
cousins who were priests. The Bishopand his cousins, incidentally,
were Roman Catholic.
Charani
> Just out of idle interest, how many of the people who claim to be so
> mortally offended by the religious activities on the LDS are
> actively using the IGI and the other genealogical sources provided
> by the LDS, depsite the fact that the main reason for this
> enormous genealogical effort is in order that their ancestors can
> be retrospectively "baptised"?
I'm not mortally offended but I don't agree with the LDS baptising or
offering to baptise my ancestors inc my father, as Mormons. They
wouldn't have agreed in life, so they wouldn't agree in the afterlife
either.
It's a particularly complex situation for me because one of my cousins
is a Mormon! I find it hard to comprehend why he thinks he's got the
right, moral or otherwise, to baptise us into his church. It's not
something I agree with at all.
It's like Jonathan says: some people are shocked that others will walk
(or ski) across graves. It's all down to respect for the dead. I
avoid walking on graves and have taught my children not to do so. If
I do have to step on one, I apologise to the occupant :))
I rarely use the IGI or any of their other genealogical resources
unless I have no other option, such as the fiche of the parish
registers at the record office because the originals won't be
produced.
Bruce Remick
No need to pretend. One can either put himself in another's shoes, or not.
>
> One time awhile ago, I was cross country skiing in a snow covered
> cemetery. Someone yelled at me that I was skiing on graves. They clearly
> were offended at what I was doing. Yes, I was on the snow and not on the
> graves. Yes, they are dead. Yes, I didn't 100% understand what they meant.
> But I could feel their offense and I told them I would no longer
> ski on graves and only ski to the outside areas of the cemetery where no
> graves were. Did I have to do this ? No.
Simple courtesy, like respecting an ancient trail or crumbling ruin. I
would consider walking (or skiing) indiscriminately over marked graves in
established cemeteries to be somewhat disrespectful. But I wouldn't compare
it to Mormon proxy baptisms. The "baptism" is purley abstract, as far as
the subject or descendants are concerned. It changes nothing from his or
her life.
>
> Yes, I think and feel that the whole baptism by proxy debate is foolish.
> But I have the manners to not keep offending people who are offended in
> a spiritual manner.
I wouldn't use the word "foolish", but as a non-Mormon, I do consider the
"baptism" as insignificant and a non-issue to me.
>
> The Mormon faith used to practice polygamy. But it was considered
> offensive to a majority of other people in the united states and the
> Mormons gave it up in trade for statehood. Was it manners that led the
> Mormons to give up a foolish practice to not offend their neighbors ?
I doubt they considered the practice "foolish". And I doubt they ceased
simply to show good manners, either.
>
> As to your point that if we use IGI or other Mormon family tree data, then
> we must accept all Mormon things as a whole unit. I disagree. If
> I go to a grocery store and the bakery department acts in some way that is
> offensive to me, then I would not blame the rest of the store as a whole
> nor stop shopping in the meat department or produce department.
> My complaint card would state "bakery department" not the store as a
> whole. The "baptize by proxy" department is not the same people nor the
> same building or street as "the family tree" genealogy building.
This was no point of mine. I don't know who made it, but you should work
your way back up this thread to see who your comments apply to.
Hugh Watkins
all religions are an illusion
"the opium of the people"
just a game human beings play each according to their local rules
Hugh W
--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Lesley Robertson
news:4826ea44$0$2487$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> I'm not mortally offended but I don't agree with the LDS baptising
> or
> offering to baptise my ancestors inc my father, as Mormons. They
> wouldn't have agreed in life, so they wouldn't agree in the
> afterlife
> either.
>
choice. I was warned (by a lovely lady with no memory at all for
modern times, but chrystal sharp memories of the 40s and 50s, and
before) to be polite to Mrs Robertson - slightly spooky since Gran
died before I was born.
Mind you, I don't think Gran'd thank me for making decisions for her,
either. She was proud of the being able to look after herself and
raise her 4 boys after an early widowhood.
Lesley Robertson
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Simple courtesy, like respecting an ancient trail or crumbling ruin. I
> would consider walking (or skiing) indiscriminately over marked graves in
> established cemeteries to be somewhat disrespectful.
How do you cope with the average English Church?
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy>
Bruce Remick
"Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f1b3da9d4f%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <cyCVj.281$CE1...@newsfe23.lga>
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Simple courtesy, like respecting an ancient trail or crumbling ruin. I
>> would consider walking (or skiing) indiscriminately over marked graves in
>> established cemeteries to be somewhat disrespectful.
>
> How do you cope with the average English Church?
You lost me there. I don't live in England. And I don't get the connection
to walking or skiing over graves.
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
People are buried in the aisles so as you walk through the church you have to
walk on the graves.
Mary_...@tvo.org
North America and in the UK. Certainly in Scotland, I note my
relatives avoided walking on the graves, which were much more lined up
in straight rows than I've seen in most Canadian cemeteries. I was
also interested in the marked walkways or carriageways I saw in some
Scots yards (plus the paint or gilding in the carved lettering, which
looked strange to me!!).
Jewish cemeteries are packed tight here in Canada, in very straight
rows, with the headstones perfectly aligned, often all on a low
concrete curb. Other denominations....not so much. Most of the older
Christian cemeteries here are pretty free form in terms of layout -
not so much straight lines or rows, lots of curved lanes, which
probably has to do with the abundance of land - and the graves are
often sort of scattered about randomly. Like many hobby genealogists,
I've spend a LOT of time hanging out in cemeteries, and for the most
part, given the lack of a geometric layout, it would be impossible to
look for family stones and NOT walk on the graves (mostly because
there is no way to tell where some of them are), and I've never had
anyone object or suggest it's disrepectful.
I have a large cemetery near my house (Mount Pleasant), and its a
common biking and jogging destination, on the narrow roads that loop
and meander through it. I took a tree identification course in
university, and we did field trips to various cemeteries as part of
the course, because they are like arboritums, and full of unusual
species planted by graves.
M.
Bruce Remick
Well, having visited Westminster Abbey for one, tour guides seem to
encourage strolling over certain "graves" which were located beneath where
people are expected to walk. I believe that outdoor cemeteries were what
were being referred to here.
Jaqian
others baptisms by Christian churches whether it is by Catholic,
Methodist, Anglican etc are invalid and only their baptism is valid.
This is very insulting and disrespectful by what is essentially a
cult.
I don't believe in their rituals but I find their proletysing
insulting.
Lesley Robertson
news:5a6c8d93-922a-4caa...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> There is a difference between how graves are generally regarded in
> North America and in the UK. Certainly in Scotland, I note my
> relatives avoided walking on the graves, which were much more lined
> up
> in straight rows than I've seen in most Canadian cemeteries. I was
> also interested in the marked walkways or carriageways I saw in some
> Scots yards (plus the paint or gilding in the carved lettering,
> which
> looked strange to me!!).
>
In many older scottish burial grounds, the stones no longer actually
mark the graves as they've been moved into straight lines to
facilitate grass mowing, etc. There's also a lot of unmarked graves
(I've seen it claimed tyhat only about 1/3 of burials had stones that
have lasted) - it would be fairly impossible to avoid walking on any
graves.
As someone else has already pointed out, people were often buried
within the church, and their stones make up the flagstones of the
aisles so this idea that walking over the graves showed disrespect is
obviously a fairly new thing.
Lesley Robertson
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> "Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ab34e59d4f%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <zaFVj.1429$yP7...@newsfe18.lga>
> > "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:f1b3da9d4f%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> >> > In message <cyCVj.281$CE1...@newsfe23.lga>
> >> > "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple courtesy, like respecting an ancient trail or crumbling ruin.
> >> >> I
> > > > > would consider walking (or skiing) indiscriminately over marked
> > > > > graves in established cemeteries to be somewhat disrespectful.
> > > >
> > > > How do you cope with the average English Church?
> > >
> > >
> > > You lost me there. I don't live in England. And I don't get the
> > > connection to walking or skiing over graves.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > People are buried in the aisles so as you walk through the church you
> > have to walk on the graves.
>
> Well, having visited Westminster Abbey for one, tour guides seem to
> encourage strolling over certain "graves"
Why the quotes?
> which were located beneath where
> people are expected to walk. I believe that outdoor cemeteries were what
> were being referred to here.
>
I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in an
outdoor cemetary.
Hugh Watkins
>
>>
>
> I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in an
> outdoor cemetary.
>
Sir Creep
>
> Where the dead are concerned, they already have been or will never be part
> of that religion, so it is offensive to attempt to retroactively impose the
> view. It's not meaningless.
1. A church leader 'baptizing' a list of dead persons' names written
on a piece of paper is an event that has MEANING? You are over-
stimulated. Do you see 'meaning' in everything? I bet your feelings
are hurt at the drop of a hat. How do you survive this world?
2. I cut the rest of your drivel....seeing as you want to pontificate
as an advocate of the list of dead persons' names in a manner that is
consistent yet contrapositive of the Mormon Church and it's
rediciulous nonsense. That's right...you are USING the dead people as
much as LDS, and quite frankly, you should be insulted, as you say, at
your own actions.
Sir C.
Sir Creep
> GeorgeD wrote:
> > I don?t understand why anyone objects to the Mormons baptizing deceased
> > ancestors. If you don?t subscribe to the beliefs of the LDS, it is a
> > totally meaningless gesture.
>
> If you believe that baptism can take place without the full knowledge and
> consent of the baptized, as Catholics among others do, it's meaningful.
I"m Catholic, and you are a twit. Thanks for explaining the beliefs
of my religion re: dead souls. Where do you worship?---cuz I wanna
make sure I never attend said Catholic 'church'.
You DO realize that a deceased body isn't a 'person' any more...not in
a legal or physical or even SPRITIUAL sense? Apparently not.
Baptizing a living CHILD who is unaware of the event is so far beyond
trying to tie a similar event being done to a dead lump of flesh in a
pine box that it isn't worth discussing....any more. How diminished
capacity one must have to honestly believe those two events are
parallels.....absurd.
SC
Bruce Remick
> In message <k2MVj.73700$y05....@newsfe22.lga>
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ab34e59d4f%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> > In message <zaFVj.1429$yP7...@newsfe18.lga>
>> > "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:f1b3da9d4f%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> >> > In message <cyCVj.281$CE1...@newsfe23.lga>
>> >> > "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple courtesy, like respecting an ancient trail or crumbling
>> >> >> ruin.
>> >> >> I
>> > > > > would consider walking (or skiing) indiscriminately over marked
>> > > > > graves in established cemeteries to be somewhat disrespectful.
>> > > >
>> > > > How do you cope with the average English Church?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > You lost me there. I don't live in England. And I don't get the
>> > > connection to walking or skiing over graves.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > People are buried in the aisles so as you walk through the church you
>> > have to walk on the graves.
>>
>> Well, having visited Westminster Abbey for one, tour guides seem to
>> encourage strolling over certain "graves"
>
> Why the quotes?
No one would realize there were people entombed under the floor unless they
were told so.
>
>> which were located beneath where
>> people are expected to walk. I believe that outdoor cemeteries were what
>> were being referred to here.
>>
>
> I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in an
> outdoor cemetary.
I guess that explains it in your case then.
singhals
There's a church in the Tidewater, where the one built in
the mid- to late- 1600s was rebuilt after The Late
Unpleasantness, and a new walkway was laid. It later turned
out that there were some poorly-marked graves under the new
walk -- laying a walk in those days didn't involve digging a
footer and pouring concrete! -- so anyone using the official
front door of the church walks over graves.
Anyway, the expression "I got goosebumps, someone must be
walking over my grave" sort of implies it isn't unknown?
Cheryl
Lesley Robertson
news:28XVj.42193$KJ1....@newsfe19.lga...
>
> No one would realize there were people entombed under the floor
> unless they were told so.
>
of...." are a bit of a give-away?
Lesley Robertson
Bruce Remick
"singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:nbudnSNISb1-_rXV...@rcn.net...
Then there in Lenin's mausoleum in Red Square upon which the leaders used to
stand to review the parades. I presume there was an area on top where
people were meant to stand (don't know if it was literally above the
remains), so no disrespect was involved.
>
> Anyway, the expression "I got goosebumps, someone must be walking over my
> grave" sort of implies it isn't unknown?
It seems to me that well-marked cemeteries and graveyards with clear
walkways are the places where it might be considered disrespectful to veer
off the path and intentionally trod on the burial place, unless you're
visiting the grave or maintaining it. As a kid, one of my chores was to mow
the grass on my great grandparents cemetery plot and it often made me feel a
bit uneasy.
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
So the carving saying Here Lies Piegi McMuppet, Relict of Kermit McMuppet,
Died 21st Ian 1763' isn't a clue?
>
> >
> > > which were located beneath where people are expected to walk. I
> > > believe that outdoor cemeteries were what were being referred to here.
> >>
> >
> > I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in an
> > outdoor cemetary.
>
> I guess that explains it in your case then.
>
Explains what?
Bruce Remick
If it's on the wall, I'd presume McPuppet was interred in a wall vault near
the carving. If he were buried directly beneath where people always walked,
I presume future foot traffic was expected.
>> > > which were located beneath where people are expected to walk. I
>> > > believe that outdoor cemeteries were what were being referred to
>> > > here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in an
>> > outdoor cemetary.
>>
>> I guess that explains it in your case then.
>>
>
> Explains what?
That you see no difference between the two.
Carole Allen
wrote:
>Well, having visited Westminster Abbey for one, tour guides seem to
>encourage strolling over certain "graves" which were located beneath where
>people are expected to walk. I believe that outdoor cemeteries were what
>were being referred to here.
>
>
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
So you are talking about a memorial, not a grave stone.
>
> >> > > which were located beneath where people are expected to walk. I
> >> > > believe that outdoor cemeteries were what were being referred to
> >> > > here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in an
> >> > outdoor cemetary.
> >>
> >> I guess that explains it in your case then.
> >>
> >
> > Explains what?
>
> That you see no difference between the two.
>
>
That's a circular arguement if ever I saw one. What are you talking about?
Bruce Remick
I thought that was what YOU were talking about with your example of memorial
carvings, responding to my mention of Westminster Abbey. Both a carved
inscription on a wall and a grave stone would be considered memorials.
Otherwise, I don't recall seeing grave stones inside buildings-- crypts and
vaults, maybe. In buildings like Westminster Abbey, it's often unclear
exactly where the individual memorialized on a wall plaque is interred.
>
>>
>> >> > > which were located beneath where people are expected to walk. I
>> >> > > believe that outdoor cemeteries were what were being referred to
>> >> > > here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in
>> >> > an
>> >> > outdoor cemetary.
>> >>
>> >> I guess that explains it in your case then.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Explains what?
>>
>> That you see no difference between the two.
>>
>>
>
> That's a circular arguement if ever I saw one. What are you talking
> about?
Circular, perhaps. Do you see a difference between a crypt in a mausoleum
or church and a slate stone marker in a grassy cemetery? I do. In a
well-maintained cemetery, to purposely walk across a marked grave site, just
because you can, would be considered disrespectful by many people. Inside a
church, you could walk just about anywhere the layout guides you without
being disrespectful, regardless of whether there are people interred there
or not.
Nothing profound here.
JJ206
Hmmmm, in this picture, this floor looks a lot like grave markers to me.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1324/821155560_9f445356b3.jpg?v=0
That said, I think I have exhausted this thread, so I'll bow out now.
(^: It's been internesting. (Sorry, bad pun, hope you all groaned loudly.)
Jonathan M.
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
It's many years since I've been in the Abbey, but I suspect it is much the
same as other major English churches of the same era, you will find many
graves under the floor of the nave. These graves are generally marked by a
carved inscription in the relevant slab. There may also be a memorial plaque
on the wall but the latter doesn't necessarily refer to a grave in the church
or even in the adjacent cemetary.
Which memorial were you talking about?
> >
> >>
> >> >> > > which were located beneath where people are expected to walk. I
> >> >> > > believe that outdoor cemeteries were what were being referred to
> >> >> > > here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I can't see a difference between a grave inside a church and one in
> >> >> > an
> >> >> > outdoor cemetary.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess that explains it in your case then.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Explains what?
> >>
> >> That you see no difference between the two.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's a circular arguement if ever I saw one. What are you talking
> > about?
>
> Circular, perhaps. Do you see a difference between a crypt in a mausoleum
> or church and a slate stone marker in a grassy cemetery?
No, they are all someone's grave and are all equally deserving of respect.
> I do. In a well-maintained cemetery, to purposely walk across a marked
> grave site, just because you can, would be considered disrespectful by
> many people.
I suspect those who are offended are those who want to be offended. If you
visit one of the many war grave sites in Europe, both British Commonwealth
and American[1], you will see rows of tombstones about 6 feet apart. If you
walk between the rows to find a particular tombstone you will, perforce, be
walking on the actual graves the stones are marking. I've yet to find anyone
who finds this disrespectful.
> Inside a church, you could walk just about anywhere the layout guides you
> without being disrespectful, regardless of whether there are people
> interred there or not.
How so?
>
> Nothing profound here.
>
[1] Also the German ones I've come across in France.
Allen
walk on a grave in the US. Nowadays, though, no one seems to pay any
attention to it at all. When attending a graveside service you will see
people standing on as many graves as necessary to handle the crowd. To
the non-religious, those people are just like Francisco Franco--still
dead. To the religious, the part that matters is in a different place.
Allen
Henry Brownlee
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:B-SdnaF59OvNZrrV...@infopact.nl...|SNIP
| As someone else has already pointed out, people were often buried
| within the church, and their stones make up the flagstones of the
| aisles so this idea that walking over the graves showed disrespect is
| obviously a fairly new thing.
| Lesley Robertson
Doc,
When I was a kid (a little while back) we always avoided walking on the
cracks in sidewalks. The saying was, "Step on a crack, break your mother's
back!" May have been the same with stepping on graves - childish praddle.
But just to be safe, I do try to not walk on graves intentionally. ;~)
--
Henry Brownlee
Houma, Louisiana
Manaia Alofa
--Manaia
++++
Bruce Remick
The ficticious(?) McPuppet one you brought up.
So you condemn the motives of all those who would be offended based on your
suspicions?
If there is no option except to walk upon graves in a crowded cemetery,
especially a military one, I'm sure there's no disrespect involved. Most of
the larger cemeteries around here have clear walking paths to follow that
presumably avoid graves. There would be no reason to leave the path and
walk over a grave, unless you are visiting or inspecting a specific grave
site. I have seen custodians admonish people who were simply strolling
across the graves, so I guess enough people had made it know they consider
it disrespectful.
>
>> Inside a church, you could walk just about anywhere the layout guides
>> you
>> without being disrespectful, regardless of whether there are people
>> interred there or not.
>
> How so?
What exactly do you need clarified or explained?
Charles Ellson
wrote:
In many cemeteries there is no guarantee that keeping to the path or
walking in the gaps doesn't involve walking over a grave. Very old
cemeteries are likely to have unmarked graves whose positions were
forgotten long before any hard paths were constructed. Even recent
cemeteries can have something similar - Kingussie cemetery (i.e. the
"new" one on the road to Aviemore) in Invernessshire has a newer
section behind the original one which involved the removal of about
half a dozen headstones in the area now occupied by the connecting
pathway.
Bruce Remick
"Charles Ellson" <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b7ek241rhc9rksp4p...@4ax.com...
I agree that this is the case. Especially where low tiny stones, often for
infants, were placed where it is impossible to determine today where the
person actually is buried.
cecilia
>>[...] Westminster Abbey for one, tour guides seem to
>>
>And the Crypt Cafe at St Martin in the Fields...
And Great St Mary's, Cambridge, where the grave stone of Charles
Bottomley (mentioned in http://tinyurl.com/4tdmoc as stone mason who
"signed" an obelisk in a field; also known to have work on repairs to
Trinty College) is rapidly (much fainter in the last 10 years) losing
its wording because people have to walk on it to get at the material
for sale to the tourists.
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
I meant the original one you referred to in Westmister Abbey.
Where did I say I condemned anyone for anything?
>
> If there is no option except to walk upon graves in a crowded cemetery,
> especially a military one, I'm sure there's no disrespect involved. Most
> of the larger cemeteries around here have clear walking paths to follow
> that presumably avoid graves. There would be no reason to leave the path
> and walk over a grave, unless you are visiting or inspecting a specific
> grave site. I have seen custodians admonish people who were simply
> strolling across the graves, so I guess enough people had made it know
> they consider it disrespectful.
More likely they don't want you to walk on the grass.
>
> >
> > > Inside a church, you could walk just about anywhere the layout guides
> > > you without being disrespectful, regardless of whether there are
> > > people interred there or not.
> >
> > How so?
>
> What exactly do you need clarified or explained?
>
The idea that it is disrespectful to walk on graves in the open air but not
indoors.
Bruce Remick
I don't recall any specific burial locations in Westminster Abbey, so I
wouldn't have been referring to any one in particular. I do recall seeing
wall plaques and (thanks to the image posted in this thread) floor carvings
inside. I presumed that the plaques memorialized someone interred nearby--
in a vault or even under the floor. Assuming the stone floor carvings were
placed above where someone was buried, it indicates to me that it was
expected that people would be walking over this area as long as the church
stood. No disrespect involved.
"I suspect those who are offended are those who want to be offended." You
dismissed their motives for taking offense base on your own suspicions.
Maybe "condemned" was too strong.
>
>>
>> If there is no option except to walk upon graves in a crowded cemetery,
>> especially a military one, I'm sure there's no disrespect involved. Most
>> of the larger cemeteries around here have clear walking paths to follow
>> that presumably avoid graves. There would be no reason to leave the
>> path
>> and walk over a grave, unless you are visiting or inspecting a specific
>> grave site. I have seen custodians admonish people who were simply
>> strolling across the graves, so I guess enough people had made it know
>> they consider it disrespectful.
>
>
> More likely they don't want you to walk on the grass.
Hardly.
>
>>
>> >
>> > > Inside a church, you could walk just about anywhere the layout
>> > > guides
>> > > you without being disrespectful, regardless of whether there are
>> > > people interred there or not.
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> What exactly do you need clarified or explained?
>>
>
> The idea that it is disrespectful to walk on graves in the open air but
> not
> indoors.
When people are intentionally buried in a church beneath an aisle or
walkway, the fact that people willy be walking over that site was obviously
considered okay, or the dead would have been located somewhere else. When
people are buried in the ground in a cemetery and marked by a headstone, it
is typically considered respectful to avoid walking over the burial place
unless attending the site. Many cemeteries large enough to have a printed
brochure will ask for this courtesy in print, so walking on marked cemetery
graves-- while not against any law-- is considered disrespectful by enough
people to have it mentioned.
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
Which is where we came in I think.
Why do you say that? People walking on grass can cause a lot of damage.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > Inside a church, you could walk just about anywhere the layout
> >> > > guides
> >> > > you without being disrespectful, regardless of whether there are
> >> > > people interred there or not.
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >>
> >> What exactly do you need clarified or explained?
> >>
> >
> > The idea that it is disrespectful to walk on graves in the open air but
> > not
> > indoors.
>
> When people are intentionally buried in a church beneath an aisle or
> walkway, the fact that people willy be walking over that site was obviously
> considered okay, or the dead would have been located somewhere else. When
> people are buried in the ground in a cemetery and marked by a headstone, it
> is typically considered respectful to avoid walking over the burial place
> unless attending the site. Many cemeteries large enough to have a printed
> brochure will ask for this courtesy in print, so walking on marked cemetery
> graves-- while not against any law-- is considered disrespectful by enough
> people to have it mentioned.
>
Do these brochures actually say that it is disrespectful or do they merely
ask you not to walk on the grass?
Bruce Remick
<<Snips>>
>>
>> I don't recall any specific burial locations in Westminster Abbey, so I
>> wouldn't have been referring to any one in particular. I do recall
>> seeing
>> wall plaques and (thanks to the image posted in this thread) floor
>> carvings
>> inside. I presumed that the plaques memorialized someone interred
>> nearby--
>> in a vault or even under the floor. Assuming the stone floor carvings
>> were
>> placed above where someone was buried, it indicates to me that it was
>> expected that people would be walking over this area as long as the
>> church
>> stood. No disrespect involved.
>
> Which is where we came in I think.
Seems you're right.
Hundreds of people a day maybe. Otherwise, damage to grass isn't a concern.
Many of the pathways are of the same grass as the cemetery plots.
As I recall, they typically remind visitors simply to respect the graves,
the implication being to keep your kids from running around the gravesites
and climbing on the stones or crypts. Not because of any potential damage
to grass or structures as much as a respect for the dead and their living
families. Your opinion may differ.
Graeme Wall
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> "Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:25c689f4f%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > When people are intentionally buried in a church beneath an aisle or
> > > walkway, the fact that people willy be walking over that site was
> > > obviously considered okay, or the dead would have been located
> > > somewhere else. When people are buried in the ground in a cemetery and
> > > marked by a headstone, it is typically considered respectful to avoid
> > > walking over the burial place unless attending the site. Many
> > > cemeteries large enough to have a printed brochure will ask for this
> > > courtesy in print, so walking on marked cemetery graves-- while not
> > > against any law-- is considered disrespectful by enough people to have
> > > it mentioned.
> > >
> >
> > Do these brochures actually say that it is disrespectful or do they
> > merely ask you not to walk on the grass?
>
> As I recall, they typically remind visitors simply to respect the graves,
> the implication being to keep your kids from running around the gravesites
> and climbing on the stones or crypts. Not because of any potential damage
> to grass or structures as much as a respect for the dead and their living
> families. Your opinion may differ.
>
So it's all implication and supposition, my opinion is my own.
Gene Y.
>> As I recall, they typically remind visitors simply to respect the graves,
>> the implication being to keep your kids from running around the gravesites
>> and climbing on the stones or crypts. Not because of any potential damage
>> to grass or structures as much as a respect for the dead and their living
>> families. Your opinion may differ.
>>
>
> So it's all implication and supposition, my opinion is my own.
>
Actually its more a question of location. The customs of Great Briton are different than the
customs in the U.S. Customs in different areas of the U.S. can differ a great deal even. Where I
come from it is a sign of disrespect to the deceased and their survivors to walk on a grave.
I think you are arguing oranges and apples and will never agree. I also believe that this equine
has been thoroughly flogged to the point of expiration. <g>
--
Gene Y.
n2kvs
Researching Young, Zies, Harer & Cox with
Legacy Family Tree
http://h1.ripway.com/egptech/
Charani
> I suspect those who are offended are those who want to be offended
That may be true of some people, but not of everyone.