My Son Died Last Week. It raised a Question I had not Previously Contemplated or Pondered

[Navidad]

The last three months have really been a challenge. My wife almost died in September and probably would have if it weren't for a powerful and loyal LDS friend, two insistent cardiologists (one a Sunni Muslim), and a wonderfully sure-of-himself Jewish thoracic surgeon. I mention their faiths just for fun. During November and early December my son was terribly sick. He did die last Saturday morning in a hospital, with me insisting that the doctors and staff let me hold his hand while he died. For those of you who don't know, he was disabled and lived with us (my wife and me) for his entire 47 years. He was unconscious, connected to a respiratory device, and most likely had no idea I was there. The grace of holding his hand was more for me than for him. My wife couldn't travel to the hospitals with me, so she remained behind, here near the colonies, with our dear neighbors, workers, and LDS friends to support her. Needless to say, it has been a struggle.

I say all of that for background. We have had tremendous support in a traditional LDS-kind-of-a-way all the way from September to yesterday. I say that positively. They may have done so with or without the support of their bishop, who we have not seen or heard from at any point of this journey. When I pastored, I was not very good at home visits. Perhaps he isn't either. His wife has been here, though, with terrific support for my wife. 

Now to the point (you all know how long it takes me to get to the point!). What am I going to do if someone from the ward indicates they want to do a proxy baptism for my son? I am not sure how that works, so I am asking here. How does that work? My son was baptized by a Mennonite bishop who I have often mentioned on this forum in my seven years here. He was a wonderfully godly man. You all also know I do not appreciate certainty in faith. Having said that, I am "fairly" certain that my son's baptism was pleasing to the Lord, as was the godly man who ministered it. I am also fairly certain Christ has no preference for mode, amount of water, etc. Nor do I think one of his questions of me at the judgment seat will be by what earthly church and minister was I baptized, or even if I was baptized in my previous life. 

Now what do I say or do if I am asked permission by one or more of my friends to proxy baptize my son in the temple fifteen minutes from my house? My son was baptized by pouring water from a pitcher. Our church usually baptizes by immersion, but the bishop agreed to baptize my son by pouring at 14 years of age because of his autism and concomitant fear of water. I don't believe I need an LDS baptism for my son as an "insurance" policy. I don't believe he "needs" to be LDS baptized because his baptism was either blasphemy (Spencer Kimball) or displeasing to Christ (any number of LDS sacrament sermons and teachings). So, do I simply smile and say, "No, thank you." Will that last through several years from now when someone else gets his name from a list? Should I simply let someone do it so as not to offend them or their faith? I think that is reasonable.

You see, for those of you who may not know . . . I am not a member of the LDS church because I could not affirm that my previous baptism performed by my father was of no validity in God's eyes or ears because the one who did it had no authority. One thing my dad had was plenty of authority! He had so much authority, he pitched men's softball with a tie on!

So what is your advice and/or counsel? Is my son already being preached to by LDS missionaries in the spirit world, especially our friends from here who have passed on, including at least one general authority emeritus? Has someone probably already (in the past week) performed a proxy baptism on his behalf without my knowledge? As I said, I realize that as much as I know about LDS stuff, I don't know the answer to questions I am asking here. Thanks so much. Best wishes to all, especially to those of you who supported me and my wife through her crisis in Chandler. 

Edited December 14, 2025 by Navidad

[MustardSeed]

First, my deep condolences.  That’s a pain unmatched, as I am to understand.  I wish for you peace, if needed. 
 

Second, simply say “no thank you.”  “If” it’s asked, it surely comes from positive intent (though timing is critical)  but you can say no.  

[bluebell]

I am so sorry for your loss Navidad.  That is heartbreaking news.  And I'm so sorry for the struggle the last few months have been on top of it all.

To speak to your questions, the rule is that no one's proxy work can be done without getting permission from the closest family member.  So for example, even I, a granddaughter, would not be allowed to do my own grandmother's temple work if grandfather was still alive and didn't give permission.  Same if he had already died but my mother was alive or any other siblings and they didn't give it.  When you go to do someone's temple work who could have living relatives, the temple requires that you get permission from the closest living relative, or declare that you are the closest, before you can proceed.

Also, temple work can't be done for anyone for a year after they have died.  So you have time to contemplate how you want to handle everything if someone comes to you with that question.  

And if they eventually do, I think you should answer honestly.  I don't think you should worry about offending anyone by saying no.  Anyone who would be offended by that needs to reassess their perspective.  You can accept that someone might offer out of love for your family and your son but you are not obligated to allow them to express their love in that way to keep the peace between you.  

And again, I am so sorry you had to say goodbye to your son.  I can't imagine how difficult it all has been.

[webbles]

I would hope no one is offended if you say "no thank you".  And honestly, unless they are good friends with you, I would hope they don't ask.  And if they are good friends with you, I would hope they understand your position and wouldn't ask.

[webbles]

Here is where the rule is written down - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/28?lang=eng&id=title2#title2

Quote

Deceased persons who were age 8 or older at the time of their death may have proxy ordinances performed on their behalf. Except as noted in 28.3, proxy ordinances may be performed for all deceased persons as soon as 30 days have passed from their date of death if either of the following applies:

    A close relative of the deceased (undivorced spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling) submits the name for temple ordinances.

    Permission to perform the ordinances is received from a close relative of the deceased (undivorced spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling).

If neither of the above conditions applies, proxy temple ordinances may be performed 110 years after the deceased person was born.

 

[rpn]

At some point in the earthly journey through life someone will perform his ordinances (and yours) so that you can choose to accept it.   That is true for him and for you.   We do that for everyone, without knowing whether or not those for whom the work is done will or will not have the chance to accept it for themselves THEN.   If what we teach is truth, it will matter.     

So while my own faith position would be yes, please do agree and provide the approval in writing, if you decide you don't want that for him, you will not be dooming him.   Eventually someone will do it for him with or without your knowledge/consent.   

 

When I'm  hurting lots, I find comfort in the last four verses of "How Firm a Foundation"  which we don't sing often, and D&c 122:7-8.   I'll prayer for you and your son's mother and siblings and other family.

 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The last three months have really been a challenge. My wife almost died in September and probably would have if it weren't for a powerful and loyal LDS friend, two insistent cardiologists (one a Sunni Muslim), and a wonderfully sure-of-himself Jewish thoracic surgeon. I mention their faiths just for fun. During November and early December my son was terribly sick. He did die last Saturday morning in a hospital, with me insisting that the doctors and staff let me hold his hand while he died. For those of you who don't know, he was disabled and lived with us (my wife and me) for his entire 47 years. He was unconscious, connected to a respiratory device, and most likely had no idea I was there. The grace of holding his hand was more for me than for him. My wife couldn't travel to the hospitals with me, so she remained behind, here near the colonies, with our dear neighbors, workers, and LDS friends to support her. Needless to say, it has been a struggle.

I say all of that for background. We have had tremendous support in a traditional LDS-kind-of-a-way all the way from September to yesterday. I say that positively. They may have done so with or without the support of their bishop, who we have not seen or heard from at any point of this journey. When I pastored, I was not very good at home visits. Perhaps he isn't either. His wife has been here, though, with terrific support for my wife. 

Now to the point (you all know how long it takes me to get to the point!). What am I going to do if someone from the ward indicates they want to do a proxy baptism for my son? I am not sure how that works, so I am asking here. How does that work? My son was baptized by a Mennonite bishop who I have often mentioned on this forum in my seven years here. He was a wonderfully godly man. You all also know I do not appreciate certainty in faith. Having said that, I am "fairly" certain that my son's baptism was pleasing to the Lord, as was the godly man who ministered it. I am also fairly certain Christ has no preference for mode, amount of water, etc. Nor do I think one of his questions of me at the judgment seat will be by what earthly church and minister was I baptized, or even if I was baptized in my previous life. 

Now what do I say or do if I am asked permission by one or more of my friends to proxy baptize my son in the temple fifteen minutes from my house? My son was baptized by pouring water from a pitcher. Our church usually baptizes by immersion, but the bishop agreed to baptize my son by pouring at 14 years of age because of his autism and concomitant fear of water. I don't believe I need an LDS baptism for my son as an "insurance" policy. I don't believe he "needs" to be LDS baptized because his baptism was either blasphemy (Spencer Kimball) or displeasing to Christ (any number of LDS sacrament sermons and teachings). So, do I simply smile and say, "No, thank you." Will that last through several years from now when someone else gets his name from a list? Should I simply let someone do it so as not to offend them or their faith? I think that is reasonable.

You see, for those of you who may not know . . . I am not a member of the LDS church because I could not affirm that my previous baptism performed by my father was of no validity in God's eyes or ears because the one who did it had no authority. One thing my dad had was plenty of authority! He had so much authority, he pitched men's softball with a tie on!

So what is your advice and/or counsel? Is my son already being preached to by LDS missionaries in the spirit world, especially our friends from here who have passed on, including at least one general authority emeritus? Has someone probably already (in the past week) performed a proxy baptism on his behalf without my knowledge? As I said, I realize that as much as I know about LDS stuff, I don't know the answer to questions I am asking here. Thanks so much. Best wishes to all, especially to those of you who supported me and my wife through her crisis in Chandler. 

Condolences, Navidad and family. Per the Handbook, no one should do anything without your knowledge and consent. You can withhold permission. You can proactively let your wishes be known. If someone proceeds anyway and you find out, forgive them, which still leaves open the option to report it so his name can be removed from the online FamilySearch general index and the responsible member can be appropriately counseled and corrected. I wish you well and an added measure of faith and grace through this painful time.

[Navidad]

52 minutes ago, rpn said:

Eventually someone will do it for him with or without your knowledge/consent.   

Very interesting way to put it. I am going to have to ponder on that for a while. It is hard for me to give that comment a "like," but I will because I believe 1. you are genuine in your comment and 2. I find it helpful, if somewhat disturbing on some level. Just to clarify, do you think that Christ, as part of my judgment, will check to see if my name is on some list of those who have undergone the LDS baptism, whether by proxy or in person? Or???? Thanks. 

Edited December 14, 2025 by Navidad
seeking further clarification

[Kenngo1969]

Sincerest condolences on your loss.  Even after all of these years, still, I am my only child, so I cannot possibly fathom what is like for a parent to lose a child.  While we're not Calvinists [thank the Good Lord, Above, for that!], whatever ordinances are performed [or not] on anyone's behalf, ultimately, it is Christ who determines who is saved and who is exalted, and who is not.  It is He who is mighty to save, and it is He who is mighty to exalt.  You're free to decline any offer you receive for ordinances to be performed on his behalf.  Recognizing what I just said at the close of the preceding sentence, no one should be offended at your declining such an offer. 

Also, depending on the nature and extent of your son's disability, he may not, under the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, be accountable (capable of sinning) in the same way that you or I would be.  Under the doctrine of the Church, such people are "alive in Christ."  See Moroni 8:11-16.

Edited December 14, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

The last three months have really been a challenge. My wife almost died in September and probably would have if it weren't for a powerful and loyal LDS friend, two insistent cardiologists (one a Sunni Muslim), and a wonderfully sure-of-himself Jewish thoracic surgeon. I mention their faiths just for fun. During November and early December my son was terribly sick. He did die last Saturday morning in a hospital, with me insisting that the doctors and staff let me hold his hand while he died. For those of you who don't know, he was disabled and lived with us (my wife and me) for his entire 47 years. He was unconscious, connected to a respiratory device, and most likely had no idea I was there. The grace of holding his hand was more for me than for him. My wife couldn't travel to the hospitals with me, so she remained behind, here near the colonies, with our dear neighbors, workers, and LDS friends to support her. Needless to say, it has been a struggle.

I say all of that for background. We have had tremendous support in a traditional LDS-kind-of-a-way all the way from September to yesterday. I say that positively. They may have done so with or without the support of their bishop, who we have not seen or heard from at any point of this journey. When I pastored, I was not very good at home visits. Perhaps he isn't either. His wife has been here, though, with terrific support for my wife. 

Now to the point (you all know how long it takes me to get to the point!). What am I going to do if someone from the ward indicates they want to do a proxy baptism for my son? I am not sure how that works, so I am asking here. How does that work? My son was baptized by a Mennonite bishop who I have often mentioned on this forum in my seven years here. He was a wonderfully godly man. You all also know I do not appreciate certainty in faith. Having said that, I am "fairly" certain that my son's baptism was pleasing to the Lord, as was the godly man who ministered it. I am also fairly certain Christ has no preference for mode, amount of water, etc. Nor do I think one of his questions of me at the judgment seat will be by what earthly church and minister was I baptized, or even if I was baptized in my previous life. 

Now what do I say or do if I am asked permission by one or more of my friends to proxy baptize my son in the temple fifteen minutes from my house? My son was baptized by pouring water from a pitcher. Our church usually baptizes by immersion, but the bishop agreed to baptize my son by pouring at 14 years of age because of his autism and concomitant fear of water. I don't believe I need an LDS baptism for my son as an "insurance" policy. I don't believe he "needs" to be LDS baptized because his baptism was either blasphemy (Spencer Kimball) or displeasing to Christ (any number of LDS sacrament sermons and teachings). So, do I simply smile and say, "No, thank you." Will that last through several years from now when someone else gets his name from a list? Should I simply let someone do it so as not to offend them or their faith? I think that is reasonable.

You see, for those of you who may not know . . . I am not a member of the LDS church because I could not affirm that my previous baptism performed by my father was of no validity in God's eyes or ears because the one who did it had no authority. One thing my dad had was plenty of authority! He had so much authority, he pitched men's softball with a tie on!

So what is your advice and/or counsel? Is my son already being preached to by LDS missionaries in the spirit world, especially our friends from here who have passed on, including at least one general authority emeritus? Has someone probably already (in the past week) performed a proxy baptism on his behalf without my knowledge? As I said, I realize that as much as I know about LDS stuff, I don't know the answer to questions I am asking here. Thanks so much. Best wishes to all, especially to those of you who supported me and my wife through her crisis in Chandler. 

Go with your heart and soul, say exactly what you'd be happy with. I hope they don't ask, therefore you won't be in the position. 

I'm sorry for your loss it's not easy and so painful, I'm sure. 

So happy your wife is going to be okay! ❤️

[ZealouslyStriving]

If I remember correctly, it is 110 years from the date of birth before a non-family member can perform the Temple ordinances without family permission.

[let’s roll]

Condolences to you and your family Navidad.  Having an adult son who is profoundly autistic (non-verbal), I feel a kinship with you and an acute sense of your loss.  Because our son’s cognitive disability is such that he is unable to make informed decisions and is thus not accountable for his actions, he has not been baptized.  I know you have close ties to the LDS community in your area so you may already be familiar with that tenet of the LDS faith, and not being aware of the severity of your son’s autism, don’t know whether it would apply in his case.

My heart mourns with you.

[Rain]

I hope the best for you as you think these things through and that those around you will respect you and your dear wife.

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

do you think that Christ, as part of my judgment, will check to see if my name is on some list of those who have undergone the LDS baptism, whether by proxy or in person?

No I think He loves you and He knows what you believe now and what you wanted for your child.   I don't think there is anything in our doctrine and belief that suggest mortals who are not members of His church are punished for not making sure they do or make sure someone does do the required ordinances available only within the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   [As I write this I do find myself thinking a believing parent who failed to see too it  could under conditions that were more than didn't get around to it would at least make Them very sad.]

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

2 hours ago, rpn said:

Eventually someone will do it for him with or without your knowledge/consent.   

Very interesting way to put it. I am going to have to ponder on that for a while.

rpn makes a salient point. FamilySearch has an unclaimed 2-fold mission. To create the world's authoritative (defacto) family tree and perform temple work on every person in it.

To give you an idea of the impact of an army of mostly LDS volunteers, my FS account says:

Quote

People I Have Created: 19,777

Noting here that I found every one of these names thru my lines. Each one has a line to me that I can see.

Some large percent of that number will be duplicates.  But I've increased my abilities and conscientiousness over the years. My unique adds are somewhere between half and 90% of that number.

My point being, I'm just one rando volunteer.  Every American line has been touched for years now. 
10y ago: When I got to a new family, I rarely ran into anyone already in FS. 
1y ago, I have to dig hard to find missed names for the current family (and I do find them).

I'm pretty sure we Church members have a reckoning coming over this. It's because we operate without consent. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Other Church members can't envision why it would. 

I am the only Church member among my siblings (inc half sisters from earlier/later marriages of my dad). I purposefully omitted my half-sisters' families from my lines, partially to better allow them to heal from our father. 
I also omitted my siblings' spouse's families because I don't think they'd approve.  

The other 10k or whatever it is, I never asked for their consent.  I just did it.

[Chum]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

During November and early December my son was terribly sick. He did die last Saturday morning in a hospital,

Frak. I will never have words for this.  I am grateful every day I don't know this pain. 

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

he was disabled and lived with us (my wife and me) for his entire 47 years.

What was life like with him? I've been a caregiver, long and short term but every experience is different.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just to clarify, do you think that Christ, as part of my judgment, will check to see if my name is on some list of those who have undergone the LDS baptism, whether by proxy or in person? Or???? Thanks. 

If your theology doctrine is correct and ours is wrong, Jesus won't care a hootin' holler whether your name is on our list or not. It won't matter, one way or another. And your salvation will proceed as you believe it will.

However, if our theology doctrine is correct and yours is wrong, and you were not baptized by authority while living into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then after you die you will have a second opportunity to hear the gospel according to this Church, and a second opportunity to accept it or not. If you do accept it, then your proxy baptism, which will surely have already been performed by proxy in a temple, will stand as acceptable to the Lord. And this is because that proxy baptism will have been recorded in heaven as well as on earth.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

The last three months have really been a challenge. My wife almost died in September and probably would have if it weren't for a powerful and loyal LDS friend, two insistent cardiologists (one a Sunni Muslim), and a wonderfully sure-of-himself Jewish thoracic surgeon. I mention their faiths just for fun. During November and early December my son was terribly sick. He did die last Saturday morning in a hospital, with me insisting that the doctors and staff let me hold his hand while he died. For those of you who don't know, he was disabled and lived with us (my wife and me) for his entire 47 years. He was unconscious, connected to a respiratory device, and most likely had no idea I was there. The grace of holding his hand was more for me than for him. My wife couldn't travel to the hospitals with me, so she remained behind, here near the colonies, with our dear neighbors, workers, and LDS friends to support her. Needless to say, it has been a struggle.

I say all of that for background. We have had tremendous support in a traditional LDS-kind-of-a-way all the way from September to yesterday. I say that positively. They may have done so with or without the support of their bishop, who we have not seen or heard from at any point of this journey. When I pastored, I was not very good at home visits. Perhaps he isn't either. His wife has been here, though, with terrific support for my wife. 

Now to the point (you all know how long it takes me to get to the point!). What am I going to do if someone from the ward indicates they want to do a proxy baptism for my son? I am not sure how that works, so I am asking here. How does that work? My son was baptized by a Mennonite bishop who I have often mentioned on this forum in my seven years here. He was a wonderfully godly man. You all also know I do not appreciate certainty in faith. Having said that, I am "fairly" certain that my son's baptism was pleasing to the Lord, as was the godly man who ministered it. I am also fairly certain Christ has no preference for mode, amount of water, etc. Nor do I think one of his questions of me at the judgment seat will be by what earthly church and minister was I baptized, or even if I was baptized in my previous life. 

Now what do I say or do if I am asked permission by one or more of my friends to proxy baptize my son in the temple fifteen minutes from my house? My son was baptized by pouring water from a pitcher. Our church usually baptizes by immersion, but the bishop agreed to baptize my son by pouring at 14 years of age because of his autism and concomitant fear of water. I don't believe I need an LDS baptism for my son as an "insurance" policy. I don't believe he "needs" to be LDS baptized because his baptism was either blasphemy (Spencer Kimball) or displeasing to Christ (any number of LDS sacrament sermons and teachings). So, do I simply smile and say, "No, thank you." Will that last through several years from now when someone else gets his name from a list? Should I simply let someone do it so as not to offend them or their faith? I think that is reasonable.

You see, for those of you who may not know . . . I am not a member of the LDS church because I could not affirm that my previous baptism performed by my father was of no validity in God's eyes or ears because the one who did it had no authority. One thing my dad had was plenty of authority! He had so much authority, he pitched men's softball with a tie on!

So what is your advice and/or counsel? Is my son already being preached to by LDS missionaries in the spirit world, especially our friends from here who have passed on, including at least one general authority emeritus? Has someone probably already (in the past week) performed a proxy baptism on his behalf without my knowledge? As I said, I realize that as much as I know about LDS stuff, I don't know the answer to questions I am asking here. Thanks so much. Best wishes to all, especially to those of you who supported me and my wife through her crisis in Chandler. 

Please accept my heartfelt condolences for the loss of your son! 

Some of the following has been said already, but I would like to dive a bit deeper. Policy on proxy temple work for people born within the last 110 years requires a familial relationship to the person, or permission by a close family member. Based on your son's probable birth year of 1978, it will not be until 2088 that a relative of his could request proxy ordinances to be performed on his behalf, with a certain proviso I will mention below. You will be long past caring at that point.

For example, I signed on to FamilySearch.org and did a search on the random name William Jones. I picked the first one that came up. I am not related to this person in any way. When I viewed the "Ordinances" tab I saw this (the red annotation was added by me):

I cannot have this person's temple work submitted to be done. Nobody in your LDS ward can do so for your son, either, even with your permission! So far as I know. Only if they're related, but it would still require your permission.

Note that when your son's data eventually ends up in Family Search (and it will, perhaps in 50 years, who knows), an unrelated person still cannot go against your wishes to have his temple ordinances done. Unless the Millennium has arrived by then, when all bets will be off.

Here is one of my 1st cousins once removed. I've obscured identity info. We are actually related, but I cannot "just do it." The site says: "This person was born within the last 110 years. Permission from a close relative is required to perform these ordinances." But in 2027 I could request the ordinances to be done without such permission. It happens that her parents' temple ordinances have all been performed. I can see who may have submitted the name of her father for his work to be done, and the person who did it is a relative of hers - and a 9th cousin of mine, too, by the way. 

BE AT PEACE (for now): You son is safe from his name being put through the temple at this time, unless you have another child who joins the Church. That sibling would be able to submit his name, or if not a member give permission to another relative to have the temple work done. More distantly related persons could, starting in 2088, submit your son's name for the work to be done, and if male, may even stand as proxy for him. When this happens you will be long gone on to your reward. It could happen sooner than 2088 if your son has no parent or sibling still living who would refuse to give permission. But would still need a relative to initiate it.

And as I said in my previous answer to you, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is NOT the true church of Jesus Christ as it claims, then whatever happens in one of our temples will matter not one whit.

But if it is the true church of Jesus Christ, during the Millennium the names of all persons who have ever lived upon the face of the earth will have their ordinances performed in a temple, with the condition that the ordinances will only be effective for those persons who accepted the ordinances after having been properly instructed in the Spirit World.

I hope this helps!

 

Edited December 15, 2025 by Stargazer

[Navidad]

34 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If your theology doctrine is correct and ours is wrong, Jesus won't care a hootin' holler whether your name is on our list or not. It won't matter, one way or another. And your salvation will proceed as you believe it will.

However, if our theology doctrine is correct and yours is wrong, and you were not baptized by authority while living into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then after you die you will have a second opportunity to hear the gospel according to this Church, and a second opportunity to accept it or not. If you do accept it, then your proxy baptism, which will surely have already been performed by proxy in a temple, will stand as acceptable to the Lord. And this is because that proxy baptism will have been recorded in heaven as well as on earth.

So if I understand you correctly, in your beliefs, my ultimate destiny does not depend on my faith, belief, faithfulness, or acceptance of the grace, life, redemption, or salvation of Christ. My ultimate destiny depends on the unique authority of one who performed a proxy baptism for me—someone I probably never met, one whose worthiness is less important than their authority. That person will know nothing about my own potential worthiness or not, of eternal life with Christ. So my salvation, including what you deem exaltation, is dependent on that stranger's authority, not mine. It isn't even based on their worthiness either. All they need is a temple recommend, do the ritual forty times a night, and the salvation is granted once I say OK in the spirit world. 

In a sense there is no faith at all involved on my part. When I die and see that the LDS faith is true with certainty because it is the only one existing in heaven, I will logically conclude that you were right and I was wrong. Then, based on that logical certitude, I accept what is an obvious reality and am rewarded for the same with salvation and some degree of heavenly exaltation. My own personal faith, worthiness, sanctification, belief, trust, etc. etc. have nothing to do with my salvation. Christ accepts me because of the faithfulness of some unknown member of the LDS church who did an act of proxy baptism for me as one of a thousand they did in their lifetime. Perhaps Christ only considers my own faithfulness in deciding in which kingdom to place me. Then, since I have rejected the LDS exclusivity in my life, I have no opportunity for exaltation on the other side beyond my initial placement because of an anonymous proxy baptism, by someone whose own personal worthiness is unknown. Do I have that correct? Sorry, that is in no way a faith for me. Christ isn't interested then in my faithfulness, nor in my personal belief in Him, but in a ritual performed by someone else on my behalf. My son just died. So now, his eternal hope is in some completely unknown stranger's ritual more than a hundred years from now. What is his status for the next hundred years? He died last Saturday. Has he already found out whether you were right and he and I were wrong? If so, why does he have to wait one hundred years to be baptized by a proxy person based on their authority and not on his worthiness? I must be missing something. 

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Please accept my heartfelt condolences for the loss of your son! 

Some of the following has been said already, but I would like to dive a bit deeper. Policy on proxy temple work for people born within the last 110 years requires a familial relationship to the person, or permission by a close family member. Based on your son's probable birth year of 1978, it will not be until 2088 that a relative of his could request proxy ordinances to be performed on his behalf, with a certain proviso I will mention below. You will be long past caring at that point.

For example, I signed on to FamilySearch.org and did a search on the random name William Jones. I picked the first one that came up. I am not related to this person in any way. When I viewed the "Ordinances" tab I saw this (the red annotation was added by me):

I cannot have this person's temple work submitted to be done. Nobody in your LDS ward can do so for your son, either, even with your permission! So far as I know. Only if they're related, but it would still require your permission.

Note that when your son's data eventually ends up in Family Search (and it will, perhaps in 50 years, who knows), an unrelated person still cannot go against your wishes to have his temple ordinances done. Unless the Millennium has arrived by then, when all bets will be off.

Here is one of my 1st cousins once removed. I've obscured identity info. We are actually related, but I cannot "just do it." The site says: "This person was born within the last 110 years. Permission from a close relative is required to perform these ordinances." But in 2027 I could request the ordinances to be done without such permission. It happens that her parents' temple ordinances have all been performed. I can see who may have submitted the name of her father for his work to be done, and the person who did it is a relative of hers - and a 9th cousin of mine, too, by the way. 

BE AT PEACE (for now): You son is safe from his name being put through the temple at this time, unless you have another child who joins the Church. That sibling would be able to submit his name, or if not a member give permission to another relative to have the temple work done. More distantly related persons could, starting in 2088, submit your son's name for the work to be done, and if male, may even stand as proxy for him. When this happens you will be long gone on to your reward. It could happen sooner than 2088 if your son has no parent or sibling still living who would refuse to give permission. But would still need a relative to initiate it.

And as I said in my previous answer to you, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is NOT the true church of Jesus Christ as it claims, then whatever happens in one of our temples will matter not one whit.

But if it is the true church of Jesus Christ, during the Millennium the names of all persons who have ever lived upon the face of the earth will have their ordinances performed in a temple, with the condition that the ordinances will only be effective for those persons who accepted the ordinances after having been properly instructed in the Spirit World.

I hope this helps!

 

Thanks for your time and effort. However, my previous reply still stands. You see, I know my son's worthiness. I have no trust or confidence in the worthiness of some stranger for no other reason than that he possesses a temple recommend while potentially being much less spiritually minded and faithful than my son. If you are betting on authority being the key; I'll take godliness and spirituality any day of the week. 

Having said all of that, I didn't start this thread to debate. I apologize for doing so. I want to understand and my heart is very sensitive right now. This is no hypothetical doctrinal debate. Thanks for your time and effort in your replies to me. Best wishes.  

[Stargazer]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your time and effort. However, my previous reply still stands. You see, I know my son's worthiness. I have no trust or confidence in the worthiness of some stranger for no other reason than that he possesses a temple recommend while potentially being much less spiritually minded and faithful than my son. If you are betting on authority being the key; I'll take godliness and spirituality any day of the week. 

Having said all of that, I didn't start this thread to debate. I apologize for doing so. I want to understand and my heart is very sensitive right now. This is no hypothetical doctrinal debate. Thanks for your time and effort in your replies to me. Best wishes.  

I wasn't trying to debate. Just presented the matter as I understand it.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

What was life like with him? I've been a caregiver, long and short term but every experience is different.

Thanks for asking. Life with him was often a challenge, but it was also a commitment born out of love. Therefore, our commitment (covenant) to love him always won out, regardless of the circumstances of any given day. I think from his perspective our relationship with him was a bit "go away closer." He wanted his independence while craving our love and approval. Perhaps that is no different from the desires of any child. He is the only child we ever had. We adopted him at six months of age. Therefore, he was our child of choice. He struggled with loving back; no manner of role modeling could change that. He had a rare syndrome that dominated his life.

I said to my wife tonight that I am surprised at how much I miss him. Perhaps that sounds terrible, but it is what I am feeling this evening. I like the music of the Eagles. I have thought a lot tonight about their song, "A Hole in the World." Well, there's a hole in the world tonight in our home. There will probably be a hole in the world tomorrow as well. Right now I am really struggling to get my head around this LDS concept of proxy baptism. I most likely have too much going on right now to be able to be objective about it. I want to rant a bit about many of the temple recommendation holders I have known. But that would be contrary to the spirit of this thread. I asked a question, and now I am getting the answers. I must honor those who do me the kindness of answering my question, regardless of whether I like the answer or not.

My wife is still weak. I am scared of still losing her. Things are a bit topsy turvy and no amount of doctrinal back-and-forth will help me tonight. Thanks, Chum, for asking me the question that you did. That helps me reflect on the moment, not on 110 years from now! Take care and best wishes. 

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I wasn't trying to debate. Just presented the matter as I understand it.

I understand that. You did nothing wrong. You simply answered the question I asked. It is I who wanted to debate, because I don't like your answer, I am very stressed, and am afraid I am not done with loss. I appreciate your time and effort. Thanks and very best wishes. 

[Stargazer]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

So if I understand you correctly, in your beliefs, my ultimate destiny does not depend on my faith, belief, faithfulness, or acceptance of the grace, life, redemption, or salvation of Christ.

No, you understand incorrectly. My primary intent was to assure you that the likelihood of your son being proxy baptized, etc. within your lifetime without your consent is nil. The rest of it was to explain why.

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My ultimate destiny depends on the unique authority of one who performed a proxy baptism for me—someone I probably never met, one whose worthiness is less important than their authority. That person will know nothing about my own potential worthiness or not, of eternal life with Christ. So my salvation, including what you deem exaltation, is dependent on that stranger's authority, not mine. It isn't even based on their worthiness either. All they need is a temple recommend, do the ritual forty times a night, and the salvation is granted once I say OK in the spirit world. 

In a sense there is no faith at all involved on my part. When I die and see that the LDS faith is true with certainty because it is the only one existing in heaven, I will logically conclude that you were right and I was wrong. Then, based on that logical certitude, I accept what is an obvious reality and am rewarded for the same with salvation and some degree of heavenly exaltation. My own personal faith, worthiness, sanctification, belief, trust, etc. etc. have nothing to do with my salvation. Christ accepts me because of the faithfulness of some unknown member of the LDS church who did an act of proxy baptism for me as one of a thousand they did in their lifetime. Perhaps Christ only considers my own faithfulness in deciding in which kingdom to place me. Then, since I have rejected the LDS exclusivity in my life, I have no opportunity for exaltation on the other side beyond my initial placement because of an anonymous proxy baptism, by someone whose own personal worthiness is unknown. Do I have that correct? Sorry, that is in no way a faith for me. Christ isn't interested then in my faithfulness, nor in my personal belief in Him, but in a ritual performed by someone else on my behalf.

You have said you prefer not to debate this, but you seem to be asking for it here. Sigh.

You misunderstand. Christ is interested in your faithfulness and your personal belief in him. The baptismal ritual is meaningless without that. The ritual does not save; only Christ saves. But He requires it as a condition of His grace nevertheless. You remember His conversation with Nicodemus, I know you do. The fact that you have been baptized is witness of your conviction about that. This is wonderful; the only question might be whether the person performing it had actual authority to do so efficaciously. Ask yourself this: if authority does not matter in the matter of baptism, then in Acts 19 why did Paul re-baptize the disciples at Ephesus who said they had been baptized of John's baptism, but had never heard of the Holy Ghost, despite John having always made it clear that those to be baptized would have to await Jesus to baptize them with the Holy Ghost when He came? To me it sounds like Paul felt they had been baptized by someone claiming falsely to have John's authority, and the ordinance had to be repeated. If authority did not matter, Paul should have just taught them properly, conferred the Holy Ghost, and let the original baptism stand. But he didn't. 

It is not the ordinance that saves. It is the obedience and the faithfulness exhibited by that obedience. When Naaman came to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy, he was offended that there was anything special about the River Jordan in terms of healing. So he initially refused to obey, until convinced to give it a try. He obeyed and was healed. Did the Jordan heal him? No, the Jordan is just running water, and without faith all he would get is wet. He showed his faith by his obedience to the authority of God's prophet. Perhaps Naaman thought that since the rivers in his country were just as good, if not better than the Jordan, if he bathed in one of them seven times that would work fine. He would have been wrong. This story stands as a parable of obedience to the principles of the Gospel, and the authority of God's chosen servants. By the way, there was exclusivity in the Jordan River, just as there is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you choose to reject that exclusivity, think of Naaman.

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My son just died. So now, his eternal hope is in some completely unknown stranger's ritual more than a hundred years from now. What is his status for the next hundred years? He died last Saturday. Has he already found out whether you were right and he and I were wrong? If so, why does he have to wait one hundred years to be baptized by a proxy person based on their authority and not on his worthiness? I must be missing something. 

The thing about waiting one hundred years is merely a sincere effort by the Church to not step on the feelings of living people who do not desire their dead to be involved in rituals they don't believe in. After a hundred years they wouldn't be available to be offended by this, so their feelings on the matter could not be stepped on. And what is a hundred years in the Spirit World? We don't even know if time flows in the same way it does here. 

Has he already found out whether we are right and he and you are wrong? It is our understanding that one goes from here to there with exactly the same mind and spirit we have here. He may not even have been contacted by anyone on "our side." Aside from broad outlines, we don't know diddly about the details over there. 

To put this in your own words, you son's eternal hope is not in some completely unknown stranger's ritual a hundred or a thousand years from now. Your son's eternal hope is in another stranger, even Jesus Christ whom he has never met, and in his acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Savior and Redeemer, and in the acceptance of that stranger Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. As for the stranger standing as proxy for him in the temple ensuring that the baptism Jesus taught Nicodemus about was available to him with the proper authority, what's wrong with that? Did Paul the Apostle make a mistake when he wrote of baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:49? Was Peter telling tall tales when he told of Jesus Christ's preaching to the dead in 1 Peter 4:6? Was Jesus misquoted when he is said to have spoken in John 5 that the time had come that the dead would hear the voice of the Son of God (v. 25) and in v. 28 "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice..." Who among all the denominations take Peter, Paul, and Jesus seriously on that matter? Only us. There is a message in that. For the salvation of all mankind is at stake. What about the billions who never even heard of Christ? Are they all going to hell from no fault of their own? If true, that's some unmerciful God, to create people who have no chance of salvation because of when and where God put them. 

I apologize, for I wanted to conform to your desire not to debate. But you seemed to want to, regardless. So I obliged, and answered you. I don't know what else I can say. So I shan't say anything further.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

No, you understand incorrectly. My primary intent was to assure you that the likelihood of your son being proxy baptized, etc. within your lifetime without your consent is nil. The rest of it was to explain why.

You have said you prefer not to debate this, but you seem to be asking for it here. Sigh.

You misunderstand. Christ is interested in your faithfulness and your personal belief in him. The baptismal ritual is meaningless without that. The ritual does not save; only Christ saves. But He requires it as a condition of His grace nevertheless. You remember His conversation with Nicodemus, I know you do. The fact that you have been baptized is witness of your conviction about that. This is wonderful; the only question might be whether the person performing it had actual authority to do so efficaciously. Ask yourself this: if authority does not matter in the matter of baptism, then in Acts 19 why did Paul re-baptize the disciples at Ephesus who said they had been baptized of John's baptism, but had never heard of the Holy Ghost, despite John having always made it clear that those to be baptized would have to await Jesus to baptize them with the Holy Ghost when He came? To me it sounds like Paul felt they had been baptized by someone claiming falsely to have John's authority, and the ordinance had to be repeated. If authority did not matter, Paul should have just taught them properly, conferred the Holy Ghost, and let the original baptism stand. But he didn't. 

It is not the ordinance that saves. It is the obedience and the faithfulness exhibited by that obedience. When Naaman came to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy, he was offended that there was anything special about the River Jordan in terms of healing. So he initially refused to obey, until convinced to give it a try. He obeyed and was healed. Did the Jordan heal him? No, the Jordan is just running water, and without faith all he would get is wet. He showed his faith by his obedience to the authority of God's prophet. Perhaps Naaman thought that since the rivers in his country were just as good, if not better than the Jordan, if he bathed in one of them seven times that would work fine. He would have been wrong. This story stands as a parable of obedience to the principles of the Gospel, and the authority of God's chosen servants. By the way, there was exclusivity in the Jordan River, just as there is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you choose to reject that exclusivity, think of Naaman.

The thing about waiting one hundred years is merely a sincere effort by the Church to not step on the feelings of living people who do not desire their dead to be involved in rituals they don't believe in. After a hundred years they wouldn't be available to be offended by this, so their feelings on the matter could not be stepped on. And what is a hundred years in the Spirit World? We don't even know if time flows in the same way it does here. 

Has he already found out whether we are right and he and you are wrong? It is our understanding that one goes from here to there with exactly the same mind and spirit we have here. He may not even have been contacted by anyone on "our side." Aside from broad outlines, we don't know diddly about the details over there. 

To put this in your own words, you son's eternal hope is not in some completely unknown stranger's ritual a hundred or a thousand years from now. Your son's eternal hope is in another stranger, even Jesus Christ whom he has never met, and in his acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Savior and Redeemer, and in the acceptance of that stranger Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. As for the stranger standing as proxy for him in the temple ensuring that the baptism Jesus taught Nicodemus about was available to him with the proper authority, what's wrong with that? Did Paul the Apostle make a mistake when he wrote of baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:49? Was Peter telling tall tales when he told of Jesus Christ's preaching to the dead in 1 Peter 4:6? Was Jesus misquoted when he is said to have spoken in John 5 that the time had come that the dead would hear the voice of the Son of God (v. 25) and in v. 28 "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice..." Who among all the denominations take Peter, Paul, and Jesus seriously on that matter? Only us. There is a message in that. For the salvation of all mankind is at stake. What about the billions who never even heard of Christ? Are they all going to hell from no fault of their own? If true, that's some unmerciful God, to create people who have no chance of salvation because of when and where God put them. 

I apologize, for I wanted to conform to your desire not to debate. But you seemed to want to, regardless. So I obliged, and answered you. I don't know what else I can say. So I shan't say anything further.

I believe he is not wanting to debate, but is speaking from a place of pain now.