RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: captainbeecher on Thursday 26 May 11 12:43 BST (UK)
-
Just throwing this out there to see what others think but in the course of researching my family tree I have had two branches that have been sourced back a couple of hundred years through the Latter Day Saints info.
However when I have questioned both of these lines against old parish registers [which LDS state is their source for their info in both my cases] I have been unable to confirm or support any of the LDS information.
I find this a worrying development as both the lines I researched found literally dozens of links to other people's trees in ancestry.com and myheritage. I suspect people simply accepting LDS as fact without checking the source in many cases.
Also curious was that both family lines had offshoots that eventually led to Utah. I'm just sceptical that LDS can trace and confirm these two ancestral lines back to the 1600s with great accuracy yet when i try and search for them on Scotland's people or the parish registers i can find no trace at all of most of the people or if I do get a hit, they died young and unmarried and never left the British Isles, never mind making for Utah.
Does anyone else have a similar experience of the LDS genealogy or am I just being paranoid in suggesting that there may be some fabrication here to suggest that all roads eventually lead to Utah?
-
Not sure what you mean by LDS genealogy.
I use the LDS site for their index to parish registers, but try to avoid submitted entries (I think that the ones on the new site are all extracted records). In both cases I like to verify the info, either by being able to view the record myself (scan, photocopy, fiche, real thing, etc) or by a kind RC'er checking the register for me.
I don't trust anyone's online tree (genes reu, anc, etc) unless I can verify each event for myself. Anc is well known for people having "incorrect" trees. The best thing you can do is make sure your own research is as accurate as you can and document all your sources 0 for even the tiniest notes.
I'm regretting not being meticulous in documenting where I got certain pieces of info from in the earlier days of my research. At the time I thought "I'll remember" or "it's obvious" and now months/years later I'm left wondering "how do I know that?" and having to repeat my research to re-confirm things.
-
However when I have questioned both of these lines against old parish registers [which LDS state is their source for their info in both my cases] I have been unable to confirm or support any of the LDS information.
Are you sure that the records you found on the IGI were extracted records and not submitted ones?
Quite often - submitted records are "guesstimates" based on census info etc and are unreliable when researching
It's easy to check - when you find a record - scroll down and it will tell you whether it's from the original or whether it's submitted
-
I also have found details on LDS which go back to 949AD. Amazing, I thought at first.
My tree is on A******Y and no I'm not a name collector. Also it is now a private tree.
There are a great number of public trees who have just copied the LDS results back to 949AD and I have now noticed that the info is submitted.
A few weeks ago I found via TNA very old documents which are stored in a records office many many miles from where the family were living.I sent for all of these documents and they prove that the submitted info is totally incorrect. I also went to the more local records office which has the original parish records and can see where the submitter has gone wrong as well as making more progress with the correct line.
Now I feel I am probably the only person with these documents and feel responsible for passing the info on. But how do you do it and how can you tell LDS this submitted info is wrong. The researcher concerned has a lot to answer for as there are many many people who have copied his info.
-
As you mention Scotlands people OPR's - The OPR's on Scotlands people are only for the Established Church.
It is also possible that the family members concerned were members of the various secessionist churches or of faiths other than the Established Church of Scotland. and the LDS were allowed access to these other records when they first started their research although a clear distinction must be drawn between extracted records and submitted records. The latter as their name implies were submitted by members of the LDS Church and no checking was undertaken. If however the record states it was an extracted record you can be fairly certain of its accuracy as this is a transcription from the original records.
Although the LDS have made their research available for genealogists use, this was never their primary objective.
-
The LDS aren't trying to (re)construct (accurate) trees. They perform baptisms on behalf of the deceased so that they may enter heaven (I may not have explained that 100% right). Their work just happens to benefit us family history researchers.
Hampshire Lass - don't feel that responsiblity. It is any individuals own responsibility to make sure that their own reasearch is accurate. Those people who have blindly copied info are just as bad as the person who originally made the submitted entry, then again in fairness it could have been an honest mistake in the first instance.
-
Hi Justkia,
I actually think that LDS is a brilliant site and am thankful for it. I also believe that the submitter did make a genuine mistake but he now has such a lot to answer for. Because the documents I have were stored in such an obscure place I was lucky to find them and they are immensely interesting. It's a shame that all the other researchers haven't found them and so I do feel responsible for passing this information on -but don't see how I can.
The documents relate to a tree I'm researching for a friend but they are the most exciting discovery I have ever made.
-
Just Kia
I know exactly what you mean in regard to not documenting early research as I have info that I no longer remember how i sourced it. Like you I never take the word of someone else as there is so much blind copying that goes on. I use the smart matching on My heritage a lot but ask the owner of the tree to support their findings. sadly very few actually do supply reliable source material, which is what leads to widely reported errors in trees.
I see the new LDS site has sourced out much of the submitted info, which I have long been very dubious of. I do still suspect that occasional names have crept in that are not in the OPR. These being the names that always end up dying in Utah in the 1840s.
-
THere is a huge amount of information about this on the net, but Wiki is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead
Kia is correct in that the IGI is not for genealogical research however indirectly it is of great benefit to us. There was some discussion ages ago about the LDS (I wish I'd kept the link to it :-\) which said that there is/was great pressure for members of the church to collect (anyone's) ancestor's names for baptism, which is the reason there are many inaccuracies and prefabrications - all they did was collect names.
J\The safest thing is to just steer clear of submitted entries, especially those using 'about' in the date, and giving names of spouses as 'mrs john smith' or something equally as vague. However some are accurate - often those which give exact dates and names, so just use them as a guide but check for accuracy.
-
Regarding reply No.8 I concur with the caveat that if you are able to authenticate a submitted record through access to the submitter or to the source document (preferable) then such a record has to be acceptable for research.I have actually done this once out of several attempts.
-
I take all submitted entries on LDS site with a degree of sceptiscism.
Many of these entries were done many years ago, US people looking for their UK ancestors, no visits to UK, just very scant records available and they have just added people to their families 'cos right name, age etc., well we all know how accurate that type of supposition is.
Justkia - I think that a 'genuine' mistake is being very generous on your part.
I have seen people born in UK, marry in UK, then go to the US, but come back to the UK to give birth to every child (as many as 10 times!) and then their body is brought back for them to be buried in their local parish church.
Sadly the LDS records which are submitted are a guideline which needs in many instances a great deal of accurate research.
The object of the LDS church is to baptise every person who has died into their own church. Which they do in batches. Eventually we will all be baptised into this church so as to enter the kingdom of heaven!!!!
-
Many of the tools which we regard as part of genealogy were never intended for that purpose, a prime example are the census records or even birth marriage and death records.
That said they, like the LDS records, are single sources and should always be checked (and if you are as sceptical as I often am you check and check again) ;)
-
Bear in mind that parish registers are not infallible either. I eventually tracked down a marriage which doesn't appear in the PR, but does appear in the Bishop's Transcript. This I found at the county records office, there is no record of it anywhere online so far. I can well imagine someone's genuine submitted entry being binned as "dodgy" in such circumstances.
Oh, and I actually have someone in my tree who did go to Utah! He became quite a prominent Mormon, as it happens, so don't automatically dismiss the possibility. ;D
-
Bear in mind that parish registers are not infallible either. I eventually tracked down a marriage which doesn't appear in the PR, but does appear in the Bishop's Transcript.
Though this has happened to me more than once I always find the situation strange and a little confusing given that the BT is supposed to be a copy of the register.
-
I suppose it depends how the recording was done, and by whom. Some vicars or clerks would write the entry straight into the register, while others would fill it in later, having jotted down the details on a scrap of paper (or not!). Things are sometimes missed when copying. Could be that sometimes the BT was separately recorded, rather than being copied from the PR, and the clerk included an event that the vicar had forgotten - or vice versa.
-
Probably,but I think this shows that all records however compiled are open inevitably to human error. The best we can hope for is to get as close to the source document as possible.
-
A few years ago I got permission from a minister to view the church records (I had previously seen them with his predecessor) and noticed there were no baptisms recorded since he had arrived (and he'd been there quite a few years by then). I didn't ask why but he looked at the latest register and commented "I must remember to put those baptisms in the book." Haven't seen the records since but often wonder how many errors or omissions there are for that period :-\
-
A lot no doubt!What comes of being answerable only to a higher authority.
-
There you have it. Back in the days of the BTs, there were probably incumbents just like him, but someone had to get something off to the Bishop. So no doubt the church warden or parish clerk kept a separate record, and that would explain why the BTs are better in some cases.
-
Some vicars/curates had a bad habit of filling in the parish registers at the end of the year and went on memory and a few notes scribbled down!
I have always been very dubious of the IGI since I found my great gran on there with her parents, but no other family member what so ever! There were details of their address in 1881, and at that time there would have been several other people living in the house. And then when I acquired the correct data, they had entered my great grand mother's date of birth wrong. However, it is a good site to use as a guide and to give some clues when you get stuck.
-
All of these opinions could explain away a mystery on my tree.
I have an ancestor who married and christened her 5 children in Durham.
Via durhamrecordsonline I acquired the 5 respective baptism records and on the first the mother was entered as coming from Chatham. On the other 4 the entry says Chatton.
Chatham is in Kent and Chatton in Durham. I have never really known whether to accept the first entry as correct or the other 4! Am starting to think maybe the first one may be the correct record and I can in fact find a likely baptism for my ancestor in Chatham, but as I said have never really known whether to accept it or not.
-
Remember there was significant economic migration in the UK during the 19th century. This may well be the reason your Chatham born ancestor finished in Durham, if indeed this is the right one.
-
Yes, and both Chatham and the area in Durham and Northumberland she lived in were Maririner/Shipwright areas, so it is possible.
I cannot find a christening in Chatton but I can in Chatham.
However I wonder why the parish priest would say she came from Chatton for the christenings of her last 4 children.
-
However I wonder why the parish priest would say she came from Chatton for the christenings of her last 4 children.
Perhaps she said 'Chatham' (i.e. in Kent) and he thought she said 'Chatton' (in Northumberland). The names do sound very similar.
-
Yes, that's just what I've always thought and so haven't put her parents on my tree. But if it was Chatham I can find parents. I'm too sceptical to claim that birth record though and there is no record of her in Chatton, having brought the CD from NDFHS.
-
Is there any mention of her place of origin on her marriage certificate?
Are there any clues in the names of the parents in the Chatham Kent birth/baptism?
Does she have any siblings you can trace - either in Kent or Durham? Did she move to Durham with her family - perhaps father got a mining job/seafaring job? Sometimes siblings followed each other to different areas of the country for work etc.
Have you looked for all records on the Familysearch Pilot site where you may be able see images of the original BT's (depending on coverage/dates etc)?
-
An example of human error in LDS data is in their records at their branch in Shincliffe, near Durham City. According to their records John Routledge and Elizabeth Birchley were married 11 February 1843, Gilesgate, Durham City. A check on Free BMD proved negative. Knowing the possible year and quarter and the Durham Registration District I did a John and Elizabeth only search in that year/quarter - Durham. The Registrar had entered them as John Rutledge and Elizabeth Birtley. Bearing in mind that the person entering the information into the LDS record book was probably an American Missionary struggling with the language and the Registrar (or Vicar) did not help. The final outcome was that John Routledge married Elizabeth Birtley.
-
Hi all
I might be stating the obvious here, but I have previously (for a very small fee) ordered via the IGI their microfilm copies of parish registers in order to check the original entries - you need to find a LDS Family History Centre near wherre you live or which you can get to, then you order the films to come from Utah to be posted to that Centre. They usually phone you when the films arrive and you get about 8 weeks to go and look at them. They seem to post to anywhere in the world. I think they have recently moved to an online booking/order system.
-
The LDS has also extracted a large group of records for Ballymoney, County Antrim, Ireland listed as County Cork (think there's a Ballymoney there also and looks like they ticked the wrong choice from a drop-down menu when inputting the data). So, mistakes do happen.
Years ago I rang a priest about details from baptismal register. The records had been indexed and he kindly gave me the details on the family over the phone but the eldest child wasn't listed. Since I had his name and knew the approximate birthdate he rechecked the information. Mother's maiden name was Hunter but the eldest child's record gave her name as Hawk. Obviously the person filling in the register got a bit confused!
-
Is there any mention of her place of origin on her marriage certificate?
Are there any clues in the names of the parents in the Chatham Kent birth/baptism?
Does she have any siblings you can trace - either in Kent or Durham? Did she move to Durham with her family - perhaps father got a mining job/seafaring job? Sometimes siblings followed each other to different areas of the country for work etc.
Have you looked for all records on the Familysearch Pilot site where you may be able see images of the original BT's (depending on coverage/dates etc)?
Thanks Ruskie, there is food for thought there. I had put her "on the back burner" because of the dilemma. She was born about 1786 and died in 1814 so certificates are not available. However, I will check LDS BT's and also find and follow up any siblings.
aghadowey - love the tale of Hawk and Hunter - a classic example of the sort of mistake which can be made :)
-
I'm regretting not being meticulous in documenting where I got certain pieces of info from in the earlier days of my research. At the time I thought "I'll remember" or "it's obvious" and now months/years later I'm left wondering "how do I know that?" and having to repeat my research to re-confirm things.
I'm hearing you! I have notebooks and bits of paper from my early days; all I was worried about back then was the data, not the source. A lesson learned.....
Darren
-
The object of the LDS church is to baptise every person who has died into their own church. Which they do in batches. Eventually we will all be baptised into this church so as to enter the kingdom of heaven!!!!
I think you have been a little misinformed as to the object of the LDS church
Suz
-
The object of the LDS church is to baptise every person who has died into their own church. Which they do in batches. Eventually we will all be baptised into this church so as to enter the kingdom of heaven!!!!
I think you have been a little misinformed as to the object of the LDS church
Suz
Please enlighten us further, I too thought that was at least part of the objective.
-
:) It is part of the objective,
Basically baptism is seen as the "gate" to Heaven, therefore everyone is baptised so they have this opportunity to get to "Heaven"
Each person is baptised individually, by proxy.
Hope this helps :)
Gail.
-
I am just grateful that we as genealogists have access to their records!
-
I am just grateful that we as genealogists have access to their records!
Me too! :)
But, from my experience we obviously have to be very, very careful not to just accept without question their information but to approach with caution.
-
Me too! :)
But, from my experience we obviously have to be very, very careful not to just accept without question their information but to approach with caution.
But, we should be like that about every guide and index. Until we see the original (scan, photo, fiche, etc) then it should be a provisional entry that needs following up.
-
I agree with you both, but I was referring to the microfilms that can be obtained through their family history centres. These are filmed from original records, whether PR's, BT's, or census records. Without these, I would be lost here in Australia.
-
I can still remember clearly the moment I read the record of my 2x-great grandparents' marriage; it was a "halleleujah" moment. I had been trying to prove a link to certain surname handed down as a middle name, and there it was this day, many years ago now. I must have made a funny noise, because everyone in the room gathered around to see.
Who said genealogy is a lonely hobby? :)
-
I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter, but then I suppose these feelings are left overs from my family's baptist background of adult baptism.
-
Me too! :)
But, from my experience we obviously have to be very, very careful not to just accept without question their information but to approach with caution.
But, we should be like that about every guide and index. Until we see the original (scan, photo, fiche, etc) then it should be a provisional entry that needs following up.
I agree with that sentiment as well JustKia, but feel that people accept LDS info too readily and they should be more aware of the submitted pedigree records which can be so very incorrect. We all have stories of looking at online trees and seeing the most appalling errors though and they could have been avoided if people had double checked and just generally been more careful. ie person dies in 1831 and gets married in 1840!!!! ???
-
Correct, I try to adopt this practise. 1) Censuses include everyone in the house including lodgers and servants, surprising how often a lodger in one census is a son or daughter in law in the next, and servants have children with the surname of their employer as a second name! 2) If you think someone fits, but you don't know where, or have contradictory information, include them, but don't connect them to your tree, and make plenty of notes and references to what you have done. Makes it easier to include or delete them later on.
-
I once found names of my parents and two further generations back on an online public tree. These entries were absolutely incorrect and this family had no connection whatsover with my family.
Reading further into the tree, it was one of those with zillions of names on it. There was also a facility to leave a "post-em" note, and email for the submitter.
I subsesquently emailed her, and requested that she remove my family's details from her tree, as I had proven data that they were not connected to her family. I was surprised to get a reply from her, which said something like "I finished doing my research years ago, and I am not doing it anymore. No alterations will be made to my tree". No apology - nothing!
I was pretty angry about it, so I left a post-em asking anyone viewing the tree to ignore the entries for (named the people), and that they did not belong to that tree at all. Also left my email address on it in case of bona fide researcher was looking for info about my family.
I've found another one online as well, with my brother (and the children he had with his first wife), linked in as children of he and his second wife. He and his second wife didn't even have any children together!!
Grrr! ::)
-
In good faith as a basis for further research I sent information to a researcher in Australia, telling her it was a work in progress. She has incorporated it into her published tree, with no acknowledgement to either me or more importantly the fact the work is not proved. However, I make use of it thus, if I find a tree or information on line which includes this information I know it is spurious and treat it accordingly.
-
I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter.
Yes they do :)
By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.
http://mormon.org/faq/#Baptism
-
I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter.
Yes they do :)
By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.
http://mormon.org/faq/#Baptism
Question of faith v logic |I suppose?
-
I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter.
Yes they do :)
By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.
http://mormon.org/faq/#Baptism
Question of faith v logic |I suppose?
Um, a bit like the small print when the box is already ticked for you, and you are automatically 'in' and signed up for something. Irritatingly you then have to make the effort to tick the 'opt out' box.
I wonder if they keep records of those departed souls who refuse their baptism?
-
I have seen people born in UK, marry in UK, then go to the US, but come back to the UK to give birth to every child (as many as 10 times!) and then their body is brought back for them to be buried in their local parish church.
I've seen similar trees on the LDS site and also one on Ancestry. I contacted the lady who had the Ancestry tree to let her know she was 'mistaken', but received a really curt reply ??? I got the impression that she didn't care if she had compiled a bogus tree because she was more interested in appearing to have 'found' many thousands of ancestors - few of whom were probably hers in reality. Sort of a genealogical version of never mind the quality feel the width.
-
Ruskie, I doubt it very much! Kate, I wonder if they get a sort of bonus based on the number of ancestors they find?
-
Ruskie, I doubt it very much! Kate, I wonder if they get a sort of bonus based on the number of ancestors they find?
Maybe they do - a bit like divine Green Shield stamps ;D
-
I just wish that some of them would be more honest about why they do it. I sat next to a few people at WDYTYA live a couple of years ago, the lady from the LDS was coming up with all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons and trying to get away from the subject of retrospective baptism. I would have a bit more respect for them if they just came out with the real reason.
-
I just wish that some of them would be more honest about why they do it. I sat next to a few people at WDYTYA live a couple of years ago, the lady from the LDS was coming up with all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons and trying to get away from the subject of retrospective baptism. I would have a bit more respect for them if they just came out with the real reason.
Probably because when the reasons behind their wish to transcribe various records surfaced a while ago it saw several where they had been welcomed before suddenly closed to them.
-
I would still like to know how the deceased baptismal candidates communicate their agreement or otherwise to the living LDS members?
-
Probably because when the reasons behind their wish to transcribe various records surfaced a while ago it saw several where they had been welcomed before suddenly closed to them.
Silly really, because if the Anglican Church/other Christian denominations are right, the people they are arguing about are already in Heaven (or t'other place), so what difference does it make? ;D
I would still like to know how the deceased baptismal candidates communicate their agreement or otherwise to the living LDS members?
Why would they need to?
-
My question is in response to YOUR OWN reply No.42 above.
-
Do you mean this post ???
I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter.
Yes they do :)
By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.
http://mormon.org/faq/#Baptism
I have always assumed that they make their wishes known to a Higher Authority in the next world - not to the earthbound living. ;)
-
Thanks for the enlightenment, it is now very clear to me. :)
-
Most of us Mormons do it for the pleasure of finding our roots not to submit into the archives. My own sister's dates in the IGI are wrong as are my father's (both deceased). As for Proxy baptisms I myself have never done any though I know many who have and they all say they have "felt" the people they are doing it for around them and are very happy.
Most of the records submitted are from personal family histories and data sent by members of the church who have collected it whether it is correct or not depends on the collector (or submitting person as stated before). Alot of times even families get it wrong as I found out. With my father and sister but hey we can moan as much as we like at least someone is trying to find their family for what ever reason if it helps someone else who is searching its a small price to pay.
At least that is my opinion not that its worth anything to anyone else
-
I think some of my relatives and ancestors will be turning in their graves at the thought of being baptised into the LDS church or for that matter any church. My objection is that the person being baptised has no say in the matter, but then I suppose these feelings are left overs from my family's baptist background of adult baptism.
You seem to totally misunderstand the proxy baptisms carried out by the LDS.
Part of the beliefs of the LDS is "life" continues after death of the physical body.
They believe that the dead are capable of making the rational decision of accepting or rejecting the proxy baptism offered on their behalf.
If the LDS are correct in their beliefs then your ancestors are in the best place to make an informed decision on the subject.
If the LDS (and other faiths) are wrong and there is no "life" after death then it makes no difference.
Cheers
Guy
-
No Guy, the purpose of the LDS proxy baptisms was very clear to me. I am firmly of the persuasion that all faiths believing in life after death are wrong and therefore it makes no difference.
-
They believe that the dead are capable of making the rational decision of accepting or rejecting the proxy baptism offered on their behalf.
Do they believe that the dead ever reject their proxy baptisms?
If the LDS are correct in their beliefs then your ancestors are in the best place to make an informed decision on the subject.
But how can dead babies and children, for example, make an informed descision?
-
Most of us Mormons do it for the pleasure of finding our roots not to submit into the archives. wrong as I found out. With my father and sister but hey we can moan as much as we like at least someone is trying to find their family for what ever reason if it helps someone else who is searching its a small price to pay.
At least that is my opinion not that its worth anything to anyone else
If it helps others then it is certainly valuable, regardless of whether or not you are a believer; thanks lexxbabe
-
LOL I know my granny would fight them tooth and nail in any possible after life! :o
A confirmed atheist with communist tendencies married to a "blacked" Red Clydesider; both of whom were cremated, my grandfather long before cremation was accepted way of processing dead bodies! :P Both would be horrified at the thought of even "going to heaven". ;D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgee3IGYZsU&feature=related
;D
-
LOL I know my granny would fight them tooth and nail in any possible after life! :o
A confirmed atheist with communist tendencies married to a "blacked" Red Clydesider; both of whom were cremated, my grandfather long before cremation was accepted way of processing dead bodies! :P Both would be horrified at the thought of even "going to heaven". ;D
I recently attended a funeral where the two anthems sung were "The Red Flag" and "The Internationale", no minister just addresses and in Bournemouth too! Must have horrified some of the local right wingers.
-
Yes, well said Lexxbabe. In the course of this discussion, let's not make the all-too-familiar mistake of tarring all Mormons with the same brush. To allow family historians access to their archives is fantastic, as the level of service you get, even at the local FH centre level. When I go there, I always welcomed and receive assistance when needed. My son used to come with me when he was small, and the volunteers there used to make him welcome as well. And all this without one mention of religion. Fantastic!
I for one would not have got as far as I have without their microfilms.
Darren
-
Do they believe that the dead ever reject their proxy baptisms?
I have never asked, but I have asked a LDS Bishop if he believed the dead could reject a proxy baptism. He was of the opinion they could.
But how can dead babies and children, for example, make an informed descision?
I don't know, not being dead yet, but if you hang around long enough I will attempt to let you know when I am. ;)
Cheers
Guy
-
Babies are not baptised in the LDS Church, children over the age of 8 and onwards.
Gail.
-
Babies are not baptised in the LDS Church, children over the age of 8 and onwards.
Gail.
Infants often have a naming ceremony and then can be baptised age 8 onwards
Suz
-
So presumably dead babies can make an informed decision once they have attained the age of 8?
-
I imagine that dead people are spirit or soul, and are ageless. Their mortal age would not have any significance.
Me, I'm agnostic and am keeping my options open completely open-minded. I have no intention to be disrespectful of anyone's religious beliefs.
-
So presumably dead babies can make an informed decision once they have attained the age of 8?
Sorry - should have made it clear - I was talking about the living
Suz
-
I have no strong religious views, but to me a cyclical sequence of events makes more sence than resurrection etc. Afterall, our identity suddenly appeared as if from nowhere.