IGI - Complete?

[Nick29]

As far as I'm aware, they don't need the relative's permission, only the holder of the records.  Since census records are freely available online, there's no reason why I (or anyone else) couldn't "baptise" your post-1841 relatives into the "sugar puff eaters" or any other religion that I might come up with. 

[Lavenda]

Thanks for your reply Nick.

Now to be absolutely clear, can you tell me is that how the LDS see it?   What is their criteria for ordinance or not?

[Guy Etchells]

Guy sorry to be so dense but can you tell me , does this mean my relative whose marriage banns I found on the IGI has had an "ordinance"applied to them? Does this mean someone at the LDS  has applied for that to be done? Does this mean that they have  a family connection to the person in the IGI ?

Yes it means the person you are related to (and incidentally the person thousands of other people living and dead are related to) has had at least one of the three ordinances carried out for them.

No it does not mean that the person who submitted the individual for an ordinance was/is related to them.

The LDS believe that there is life after death and that the deceased person is able to accept the proxy ordinance or refuse it, therefore according to their beliefs there is no conflict of interest.
Cheers
Guy

[Lavenda]

Thank you Guy that is very clear.

Rainie

[Simon G.]

his response was that the Mormons were heretics and he would not allow them access to any register he had control of, nor would he do family history research with them!

That's an awfully extreme view for him to take, in my opinion.  While I personally don't agree with the practice of "baptising" everyone into their faith irregardless of who they were in life, we do need to accept that the LDS has helped genealogy in general and we should show respect to other people's beliefs.  At the end of the day we can disagree with someone without condemning them.

[MarieC]

Simon,

I agree.  This man is normally quite liberal in his views, that is why I was so shocked and couldn't even respond adequately!  I told this story simply to illustrate some attitudes in the Church, which explain why the LDS have not been able to access all parish records.

If I had thought quickly enough, I would have said that either the LDS are right, in which case they are doing the dead a favour, or they are wrong, in which case what they do does not affect either the dead person or his/her relatives, so where is the harm??

MarieC

[Simon G.]

As I understand it, even if the LDS is right in their beliefs the dead apparently can choose to reject these endowments so in a way it doesn't really matter one way or another.  It's certainly not worth condemning people over.

[MarieC]

I didn't know that about the LDS beliefs, Simon!  Yes, it demonstrates what a narrow attitude that is - and at the end of the day, it is we, family historians, who suffer because the LDS has not been permitted to film some church records!  (Says she who has just gratefully ordered a film of the burial indexes for the Mt Jerome cemetery in Dublin!  It's amazing what they have filmed!!  )

[legaleagle]

it means that ancestors who died long before the Mormon Church was founded can be retrospectively  baptised into their church in order that they will meet them up there in heaven.   It is in theory a form of  Ancestor worship.

The Roman Catholic Church object to this as the deceased did not choose to belong to that religion in life.