Here is an intersting news article showing that the LDS have posthumously baptized, and sealed St. Damien, who was recently canonized by Pope Benedict XVI, to a wife.
Let’s see, the name wasn’t submitted by a relative, and he was a celibate priest. Isn’t there also a rule of 1 generation before ordinances can be done? He passed away in 1989, 20 years is not 1 generation.
The wacky but lovable Mormons. They’ll baptize anyone, dead or alive.
(I guess this will invalidate my Temple recommend?)
I guess I really do not care what they do. It is part of their belief system that this means something so I see no harm. I also see no benefit, but I would not expect anyone to be untrue to what they believe.
There was a typo in my OP, he passed away in 1889. not 1989. So the 20 years wouldn’t apply.
I mean, come on, they have done Obama’s mother, Hitler, many Jews (even after they signed an agreement they wouldn’t). They even did Simon Wiesenthal, one of the most famous Jewish Nazi hunters in the world.
To me, it is just a blatant disrespect, from a group that screams they aren’t being respected.
This thread is an example of the ignorant leading the ignorant. The SL Tribune is in the business of selling newspapers. Its writers would not care to figure out that someone supposedly “sealed” using the name of Damien as the surname, is not the person you people are assuming is “St. Damien” since he took that name later in his life and it was not his given name when he was born.
The assumption that the LDS church has some vast computer technology that is going to weed out every attempt by either over-zealous members or by deliberate media-seeking non-members to submit any bogus or sensationalized name in the world for temple work, is just not a valid assumption. Computers do what computers do–respond to the data that is input based on the programming. How could one design a program to “weed out” every single attempt by anyone to enter a bogus name in a database that assumes that a sincere member has complied with the training they are asked to comply with in using the entry database, including using the correct name from a valid public or family record?
And who’s fault is that? I’m sorry, but I guessed I missed the part where you demonstrated that there were any errors in what was reported. How do you know it’s not St. Damien? Let’s see the evidence for your assertion.
I see the harm in it that their belief system is erroneous and “being true” to what they believe could lead them to perdition. Simply saying that no one should be untrue to what they believe is … relativism.
I looked up the name in the database within FamilySearch. The SL Tribune article itself also gives a clue. There would be no such person as Ms. Damien in the context of a marriage to Joseph De Veuster. Damien is not the surname of either Joseph or the supposed “wife”. It is simply a bogus type of entry by a person seeking sensationalism.
It was done under his baptismal name, not the name he took when he entered his order.
Or did you bother to read that part?
As far as the computer technology that is going to weed out names, maybe you should make yourself familiar with the situation of the LDS baptizing haulocaust victims. They have in fact included filters to the programming to flag certain names, along with dates of death and place of death. This was stated by lds representatives working with the jewish community. But hey, don’t let facts get in your way there.
Enforcing the rules will be made easier, because the Church plans to have a computer program screen the names submitted through TempleReady prior to submission for temple ordinances. Names will have to get past many rules, or they will be flagged as suspect. Warning signs may include (1) submission of too many names by one person; (2) non-lineage linked names; and (3) names of famous persons. In the past, it was generally agreed by non-Mormons that the rules were often ignored.
“The church is keenly aware of those not of our faith who are concerned over the practice of temple ordinances for the dead. The First Presidency of the Church has asked members, as far as possible, to honor and protect individual privacy. In 1972 they wrote: “Persons submitting names for other than direct ancestors [should] have obtained direct approval from the closest living relative of the deceased before submitting records pertaining to persons born in the past ninety-five years.” Reminders of this policy appear each time Church computer programs and our other resources are used.”
/s/ A. Gregory Brown
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Otterson claimed the new system would “substantially reduce if not eliminate” the problem by requiring submitters to explain their own genealogical link to those they want baptized
Seems like you’re off in left field on this one Parker.
I read the name Marie Damien as in “Mormons have both baptized Damien by proxy and “sealed” him for eternity to a wife named Marie Damien.” There would of course be no such people, either as the husband or as the wife. They don’t exist. Any sincere genealogist would know this. It is a bogus entry.
It seems to me that all you’d have to do is have all submissions include who is doing the submitting, this should be easy since you all have a member number anyway. Then in those cases where the rules were not followed someone could contact the member and reiterate the rules.
No it is not relativism. You completely missed my point. If someone believes I am headed for Hell, I would expect him to try and convert me.
And I stand by that baptizing for this Saint did no harm. It’s not like it sent St. Damien to Hell. It did not change the Mormon’s belief one whit. I am not saying Mormonism does not harm, only this action.
You said, “This thread is an example of the ignorant leading the ignorant.” And that, “someone supposedly “sealed” using the name of Damien as the surname, is not the person you people are assuming is “St. Damien””. But it seems that it is in fact St. Damien, whose given name is Joseph De Veuster, who was entered in the Mormon records. So who is ignorant here? Who is making false assertions? The only false claims that I’ve seen are from you. Why don’t you just admit that this happened and point out that it was somebody abusing the system, and the media capitalizing on that in order to attack the Mormon “Church”? I would agree with you on that from the evidence that I’ve seen.