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

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

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. 

First, does it matter to you one way or the other?  Given your past discussions on the subject, my guess is it does matter as it might feel too much like you aren’t trusting God’s acceptance of your son if you accept the offer as if doing so implies a doubt which you do not have.  Or perhaps it’s something else that makes it just not feel right for your son or your family.  If there is any discomfort or even just a lack of willingness, you should not feel the least troubled to simply tell them no, thank you and if they persist and you feel the need to say something, perhaps just tell them you think it better to wait until it feels like something that should be done.

My view is if you are thinking “maybe”, than it should be a “no, thank you”.  You should not be making a decision when your feelings are likely quite unsettled, maybe even making it difficult for you to know exactly what you and your wife want with this.  There is no need to be rushed, that feeling is another stromg sign you should say “no”, imo.  This could be something you could be thinking about a long time if you end up unhappy or even just uncomfortable if you say yes out of a desire to help someone else.

If the person knows your family well, it may be their way of dealing with grief, their own and yours, focusing on what gives them hope.  But that’s not your responsibility to fill for them in matters relating to your family, especially not now.  They should be there to mourn with you, not for you.

Saints seem to often need to be about doing things, we have a strong streak of Martha in us, I suspect, including wanting to solve others’ problems for them (even if it’s not actually a problem), help make their lives smoother, better, happier.  We are taught to care and many do deeply, but we are not always trained how to care well.  We are taught to go about doing good, but some are so anxious to get to doing it, they don’t stop and think about the why and how, but just the what.  Many of us need to learn that part of serving others includes sitting and listening or even just being there, simply another presence so the other feels less alone or at other times giving space without disappearing.  

Perhaps there is something else you would appreciate, such as suggesting while you don’t believe the proxy ordinances are appropriate right now, you would appreciate your family’s names being placed on the temple roll to be prayed over.  Or something that reflects memories of your son.  Just if it would actually help, don’t create more work for yourself by attempting to come up with a ‘need’.

There are other members who enjoy the opportunity to do proxy work, it’s very meaningful for them and so they may offer for your family even if they don’t know you well.  There is other work for them to do.  There is something special about doing the work for someone you have personally known, but it’s very important it gets done with respect for those it would impact and sometimes that means not getting it done at all, but stepping back.

Summing up, I think Tacenda said it well.  Go with your heart and soul.

Edited December 15, 2025 by Calm

[Navidad]

To all: I made a mistake last night.  I replied to Stargazer from a position of hurt, confusion, and yes - pain. I should not have done that. A doctrinal back-and-forth on the validity of the exclusive authority of the LDS church is for another day, or perhaps better yet, not to have at all except as an exercise in apologetics, a field I don't particularly enjoy.

I was wrong in my reply because it might discourage others from replying as well. I don't want that. So, I publicly apologize to my friend from England. Sometimes we don't agree because we don't understand. Sometimes we don't understand because we don't understand, while other times we don't understand because we don't want to understand because understanding may bring the risk of change. Wow, what a sentence that was! Ha!

Perhaps I should have started a thread that requests your prayers for peace for me in the absence of my son and in the presence of my still very ill wife. It is not a spiritual peace I need, but an emotional one. I hope that makes sense to my LDS friends.

There are many conservative non-LDS Christians, especially from the Reformed tradition, who do not believe in the emotional as a valid font of need. To them, everything that isn't physical in a human is spiritual. They have a term, "nouthetic" to refer to that belief. I don't know what you all believe on that issue, or maybe there is a great diversity in your beliefs about that, as there is in the non-LDS Christian community. I believe in a tripartite view of humanity: body, soul (mind, will, and emotions), and spirit (the spiritual). I think the LDS doctrine teaches body and spirit, so maybe you are aligned with a nouthetic approach? Not something to debate now. I just think what I need right now is emotional peace. BUT, I don't want to debate that either. Best wishes to all.  I value all your replies, and again I apologize to Stargazer. 

Edited December 15, 2025 by Navidad

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

First, does it matter to you one way or the other?  Given your past discussions on the subject, my guess is it does matter as it might feel too much like you aren’t trusting God’s acceptance of your son if you accept the offer as if doing so implies a doubt which you do not have.  Or perhaps it’s something else that makes it just not feel right for your son or your family.  If there is any discomfort or even just a lack of willingness, you should not feel the least troubled to simply tell them no, thank you and if they persist and you feel the need to say something, perhaps just tell them you think it better to wait until it feels like something that should be done.

My view is if you are thinking “maybe”, than it should be a “no, thank you”.  You should not be making a decision when your feelings are likely quite unsettled, maybe even making it difficult for you to know exactly what you and your wife want with this.  There is no need to be rushed, that feeling is another stromg sign you should say “no”, imo.  This could be something you could be thinking about a long time if you end up unhappy or even just uncomfortable if you say yes out of a desire to help someone else.

If the person knows your family well, it may be their way of dealing with grief, their own and yours, focusing on what gives them hope.  But that’s not your responsibility to fill for them in matters relating to your family, especially not now.  They should be there to mourn with you, not for you.

Saints seem to often need to be about doing things, we have a strong streak of Martha in us, I suspect, including wanting to solve others’ problems for them (even if it’s not actually a problem), help make their lives smoother, better, happier.  We are taught to care and many do deeply, but we are not always trained how to care well.  We are taught to go about doing good, but some are so anxious to get to doing it, they don’t stop and think about the why and how, but just the what.  Many of us need to learn that part of serving others includes sitting and listening or even just being there, simply another presence so the other feels less alone or at other times giving space without disappearing.  

Perhaps there is something else you would appreciate, such as suggesting while you don’t believe the proxy ordinances are appropriate right now, you would appreciate your family’s names being placed on the temple roll to be prayed over.  Or something that reflects memories of your son.  Just if it would actually help, don’t create more work for yourself by attempting to come up with a ‘need’.

There are other members who enjoy the opportunity to do proxy work, it’s very meaningful for them and so they may offer for your family even if they don’t know you well.  There is other work for them to do.  There is something special about doing the work for someone you have personally known, but it’s very important it gets done with respect for those it would impact and sometimes that means not getting it done at all, but stepping back.

Summing up, I think Tacenda said it well.  Go with your heart and soul.

Thanks. I also appreciate the Martha illustration. That sounds a lot like something a Mennonite would say. Best wishes. 

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

To all: I made a mistake last night.  I replied to Stargazer from a position of hurt, confusion, and yes - pain. I should not have done that. A doctrinal back-and-forth on the validity of the exclusive authority of the LDS church is for another day, or perhaps better yet, not to have at all except as an exercise in apologetics, a field I don't particularly enjoy.

I was wrong in my reply because it might discourage others from replying as well. I don't want that. So, I publicly apologize to my friend from England. Sometimes we don't agree because we don't understand. Sometimes we don't understand because we don't understand, while other times we don't understand because we don't want to understand because understanding may bring the risk of change. Wow, what a sentence that was! Ha!

Perhaps I should have started a thread that requests your prayers for peace for me in the absence of my son and in the presence of my still very ill wife. It is not a spiritual peace I need, but an emotional one. I hope that makes sense to my LDS friends.

There are many conservative non-LDS Christians, especially from the Reformed tradition, who do not believe in the emotional as a valid font of need. To them, everything that isn't physical in a human is spiritual. They have a term, "nouthetic" to refer to that belief. I don't know what you all believe on that issue, or maybe there is a great diversity in your beliefs about that, as there is in the non-LDS Christian community. I believe in a tripartite view of humanity: body, soul (mind, will, and emotions), and spirit (the spiritual). I think the LDS doctrine teaches body and spirit, so maybe you are aligned with a nouthetic approach? Not something to debate now. I just think what I need right now is emotional peace. BUT, I don't want to debate that either. Best wishes to all.  I value all your replies, and again I apologize to Stargazer. 

We also believe that there is nothing solely temporal in this world.  Everything is spiritual as well.

Praying for your peace and emotional comfort and rest during this really hard time.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps I should have started a thread that requests your prayers for peace for me in the absence of my son and in the presence of my still very ill wife. It is not a spiritual peace I need, but an emotional one. I hope that makes sense to my LDS friends.

This is very understandable.  Strong, solid faith in God and his Grace and Love does not suppress our emotions, though it may help us stabilize them.  I will most certainly add you and your wife to my prayers.

[JVW]

On 12/14/2025 at 11:03 AM, 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. 

I wanted to give my condolences. I can't imagine what it would feel like to lose a child. I wish I could give you a hug.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that the LDS believe that those with extreme special needs (generally, if they are unable to live on their own) are not accountable before God and are unable to commit sin. My neighbors have a mid-twenties autistic son who is definitely in that category. Down Syndrome is widely regarded as being in that category. There were people I remember teaching on my mission where my companion and I would discuss whether or not the one we were teaching fell in that category, because if they did we would have been wrong to baptize them.

The other thing I wanted to say is that nobody is going to ask you about baptizing your child, and nobody is going to sneak behind your back and baptize your child. I think you're just going to a weird place due to all of the crazy emotions going on right now.

I have a question for you because it's one I struggled with when my mom died last year... How do you feel about God right now and how is He present in your current grief? I believe that He is close to those who have lost and are mourning and I pray that He'll be close to you. And I know it doesn't mean much, but I know there is an afterlife and your son is being spoiled rotten in God's arms right now.

Edited December 15, 2025 by JVW

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

generally, if they are unable to live on their own

Depends on the reason, needs to be because of mental limitations, ability to understand being accountable, right and wrong, etc.

My 35ish daughter has always lived with us, I do her insurance, make her appointments, have my phone number on all her documents, etc, but because she suffers from severe anxiety, especially of the social type.  She has been baptized. 

Edited December 15, 2025 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 12/14/2025 at 9:03 AM, 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. 

 

On 12/14/2025 at 9:03 AM, 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. 

Hi Navidad. My compassion is towards you and your wife as you navigate the journey of grief you both are currently on. It is a strange and transformative experience to lose someone so close. I wish you peace and wellness in it. 

I haven't had enough time to read this whole thread. So what I say is likely to be redundant. If it is, feel free to ignore it. 

First, it's very very likely your son's work has NOT been done at all. Most people have to wait a year to be able to do work for the dead in the temple in any way, shape, or form. If they did, I would personally consider it void since it falls well out of the parameters and policies set in place by church leadership in charge of said work. It also does not live up to how the powers of heaven are to be used in dc 121. 

After the year mark, anyone doing your son's work would need to be a direct relative or have direct permission from you. Again without that, I would personally consider the work null and void for the reasons mentioned above. I saw that someone mentioned sooner or later the work will likely be done for him too. I get where they're going. On that...but later could be a ton later. Like after you and your wife are passed as well sort of later. With feasibly it happening way way way down the line past that too. Cuz again, you'd need a close living relative to sign off on that work if the person is recently deceased. I can't remember how recent off hand, but I know that it's recent enough that I can't do my great-grandmoth's work because there's living directly descendents that are closer to her in lineage than me who I don't have easy access to to ask (they live in Nigeria). I can't just do a hypothetical friend's work without some version of permission from their living family or theirs directly, before they passed. So again, a long wait at best. 

Also, if someone asks, you are not obliged in any way to say yes. "No thank you" is a perfectly reasonable response. 

Kay, that's mostly policy related stuff...this is just a couple doctrinal related stuff that's sprinkled with more personal opinion than anything. 

I personally don't think your son is being taught by "LDS missionaries." I think that's a common oversimplified vision of heaven that doesn't fit the revelations we have of heaven in D&C. For one, I don't think there's the delineation between say Adam, eve, or Moses, Paul, Phoebe, and Timothy, and Joseph Smith and President Nelson. They would all be part of the body of Christ. Or as d&c calls it the church of the lamb of God. Or similar to how there became no more -ites in the book of Mormon after Christ came. Baptism and other ordinances given in the temple  does not make someone a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. 

What does it do? Based on what I experienced with my grandmother I think moreso, if it's wanted and accepted by the deceased, it just seals who they are and what they received in this life to Christ and to each other. As in I'm tied to my ancestors and they are tied to me in the same ordinances that tie us to Christ. I'm writing really fast between what my baby and meetings will allow, so if you want that explained a little more I hopefully can a little later. 

 

Again I wish you both peace and love in a difficult time. 

With luv, 

BD

 

[Chum]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

To all: I made a mistake last night.  I replied to Stargazer from a position of hurt, confusion, and yes - pain. I should not have done that. A doctrinal back-and-forth on the validity of the exclusive authority of the LDS church is for another day, or perhaps better yet, not to have at all except as an exercise in apologetics, a field I don't particularly enjoy.

It's all good. Well, okay. Very little is good today. But as far as doctrine goes, nearly every faith believes they're right-est and most claim some degree of exclusivity.
When we step back and understand that, we are better people. And you do this better than most. 

But I think there is a legit reason to take issue with our ordinances for the dead. It's that we reach into families (often families for which we are the least related) and co-opt them into our faith.
We do display some minimal respect via some minimal boundaries, namely the 110y-dead requirement. And there's some non-policed guidance that we don't cherry-pick souls outside our lines (following some past egregious behavior on our part). 
I think those boundaries worked when this work was invisible. But FamilySeach pulls all of it into the light.

If closer family members are outraged or insulted or just skeeved-out that we baptized their evangelical grandparents, I believe those feelings are reasonable and deserve our respect.
Where I think we fall down is we pretend these reactions never happen. Or we quickly dismiss those feelings w/ some trite justifications. We do this and I think it smacks of unkindness on our part. We ought to be better here. 

I am uncertain if any of this reflects your feelings. But I think it is how I would feel. 

[Kenngo1969]

The relationship of this post to the thread may be tangential, at best, and certainly, I don't wish to minimize anyone's grief, heartache, and so on, at losing a child, things that, as a non-parent, I have confessed already are well outside my, errrr, ken (please pardon the pun).  The next time you meet your son, @Navidad, he will be well unencumbered by the many of what Paul called "the thorns in the flesh" that so vexed him (and that, by extension, so vexed you and the rest of your family) in mortality.

I believe that will be quite a reunion, indeed.  While "work in the garden" you all must until it occurs, and while, again, I am aware, acutely that this prospect doesn't salve current pain, it is a prospect to which I hope you cling, and which you anticipate eagerly.  While this is a time of year in which we celebrate the most important birth in all of history, the import and the impact of that birth is that it was of the only Person in history who was born to die so that each of us, too, might, as He was, be resurrected, in grand glory and perfection, and might live eternally.

God be thanked for the marvellous gift of His Divine Son.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Navidad]

46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The relationship of this post to the thread may be tangential, at best, and certainly, I don't wish to minimize anyone's grief, heartache, and so on, at losing a child, things that, as a non-parent, I have confessed already are well outside my, errrr, ken (please pardon the pun).  The next time you meet your son, @Navidad, he will be well unencumbered by the many of what Paul called "the thorns in the flesh" that so vexed him (and that, by extension, so vexed you and the rest of your family) in mortality.

I believe that will be quite a reunion, indeed.  While "work in the garden" you all must until it occurs, and while, again, I am aware, acutely that this prospect doesn't salve current pain, it is a prospect to which I hope you cling, and which you anticipate eagerly.  While this is a time of year in which we celebrate the most important birth in all of history, the import and the impact of that birth is that it was of the only Person in history who was born to die so that each of us, too, might, as He was, be resurrected, in grand glory and perfection, and might live eternally.

God be thanked for the marvellous gift of His Divine Son.

Hey @Kenngo1969 you might make a really great Baptist preacher someday! Ha! As the Baptists are so fond of saying, "That'll preach!" Thanks, my friend. 

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Chum said:

It's all good. Well, okay. Very little is good today. But as far as doctrine goes, nearly every faith believes they're right-est and most claim some degree of exclusivity.
When we step back and understand that, we are better people. And you do this better than most. 

But I think there is a legit reason to take issue with our ordinances for the dead. It's that we reach into families (often families for which we are the least related) and co-opt them into our faith.
We do display some minimal respect via some minimal boundaries, namely the 110y-dead requirement. And there's some non-policed guidance that we don't cherry-pick souls outside our lines (following some past egregious behavior on our part). 
I think those boundaries worked when this work was invisible. But FamilySeach pulls all of it into the light.

If closer family members are outraged or insulted or just skeeved-out that we baptized their evangelical grandparents, I believe those feelings are reasonable and deserve our respect.
Where I think we fall down is we pretend these reactions never happen. Or we quickly dismiss those feelings w/ some trite justifications. We do this and I think it smacks of unkindness on our part. We ought to be better here. 

I am uncertain if any of this reflects your feelings. But I think it is how I would feel. 

It certainly gives me pause for reflection, as I often encourage folks (non-LDS) to be active on FamilySearch, as I am myself. My parents were born in 1910. That is 115 years ago. I wonder if they have been proxy baptized. I have been provided great access into FamilySearch, but as a non-member, I can't see the ordinance records. Maybe allowing that (at least for baptismal records of non-members) would open the transparency of what happens behind the scenes in FamilySearch. Is it possible for a church non-member to put in a request that their ancestors never ever be proxy baptized into the LDS church? Or, could I put in a request that I never be proxy baptized? Hasn't the broad Jewish community been effective in negotiating that with the Church? It seems I remember that from somewhere.  Does the Church have a form for that? If so, would they still be allowed to use FamilySearch?

I do think there might be some significant backlash if this use of FamilySearch were widely known. I have known it to be a fact for many years, but I guess I never really thought about the "offense factor" until this week with my son's death. Now I am thinking about my Plymouth Brethren parents and my wife's Mennonite bishop great grandfather, and so on. I suppose the fact of this usage must be included in some terms of service, those long statements that I never read. I'll have to check that out sometime when the urge strikes. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It certainly gives me pause for reflection, as I often encourage folks (non-LDS) to be active on FamilySearch, as I am myself. My parents were born in 1910. That is 115 years ago. I wonder if they have been proxy baptized. I have been provided great access into FamilySearch, but as a non-member, I can't see the ordinance records. Maybe allowing that (at least for baptismal records of non-members) would open the transparency of what happens behind the scenes in FamilySearch. Is it possible for a church non-member to put in a request that their ancestors never ever be proxy baptized into the LDS church? Or, could I put in a request that I never be proxy baptized? Hasn't the broad Jewish community been effective in negotiating that with the Church?

The agreement is just for Holocaust victims, not all Jews and those with relatives who are members of the church can still have work done by them.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It seems I remember that from somewhere.  Does the Church have a form for that? If so, would they still be allowed to use FamilySearch?

I do think there might be some significant backlash if this use of FamilySearch were widely known. I have known it to be a fact for many years, but I guess I never really thought about the "offense factor" until this week with my son's death. Now I am thinking about my Plymouth Brethren parents and my wife's Mennonite bishop great grandfather, and so on. I suppose the fact of this usage must be included in some terms of service, those long statements that I never read. I'll have to check that out sometime when the urge strikes. 

 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

It certainly gives me pause for reflection, as I often encourage folks (non-LDS) to be active on FamilySearch, as I am myself. My parents were born in 1910. That is 115 years ago. I wonder if they have been proxy baptized. I have been provided great access into FamilySearch, but as a non-member, I can't see the ordinance records. Maybe allowing that (at least for baptismal records of non-members) would open the transparency of what happens behind the scenes in FamilySearch. Is it possible for a church non-member to put in a request that their ancestors never ever be proxy baptized into the LDS church? Or, could I put in a request that I never be proxy baptized? Hasn't the broad Jewish community been effective in negotiating that with the Church? It seems I remember that from somewhere.  Does the Church have a form for that? If so, would they still be allowed to use FamilySearch?

I do think there might be some significant backlash if this use of FamilySearch were widely known. I have known it to be a fact for many years, but I guess I never really thought about the "offense factor" until this week with my son's death. Now I am thinking about my Plymouth Brethren parents and my wife's Mennonite bishop great grandfather, and so on. I suppose the fact of this usage must be included in some terms of service, those long statements that I never read. I'll have to check that out sometime when the urge strikes. 

Realistically, that would be extremely hard to enforce and likely a little theologically circumspect. 

On the pragmatic: which decendant gets final say on an ancestor they likely have never met and what they want on the other side now? My great-grandmother likely has 1-200 direct descendents running around. Getting permission from all of those is untenable and if just one of those said no that would curtail everyone else who would have happily said yes. And the further out you go the more descendants you have to figure out with less real investment in the actual person and more investment about the presumed idea. I don't know my great great grandparents. I don't know most of my great-granparents. I would not feel comfortable saying I know what they wanted in their life...let alone what they want now in their afterlife.

Theologically it feels really wrong. Remember that a baptism/endowment/sealing for the dead is at best a glorified invitation. It's not really a baptism like a person receives in any faith community here. No one is forcing the ordinance to be accepted on the other side at all. Some people may receive impressions that the work was accepted, but those aren't then put in a record book or something. Because we can't truly know here and now. This is likely tied to our beliefs in personal agency (everyone chooses their own fates basically). No one can or should be forced to accept an invitation. So we don't presume we can. For a simplified analogy, this is similar to someone knocking at someone's door as a missionary and inviting them to be baptized. It doesn't make the invited person a member all the sudden. We also believe that people can and do continue to grow and change on the other side. That includes ourselves. We do not believe we have a monopoly of eternal knowledge and becoming here on earth. That anyone really does. Even if at times we've acted like we do. 

Effectively what's being asked is that a family member ignore someone on the other side forever because a living descendant's discomfort with the invitation. And that we lock people into what they were and believed here forever or be locked into what their decendants believed they should be forever. Personally that makes me extremely squirmy. I presume I'll grow and change and expand in the next life. I have no clue what that means or looks like. I don't want someone else here to dictate what it should look like. 

Lastly we all know that the work we do here is imperfect. There's a common idiom that we have the millennium to fix up the mistakes and errors and misses. Because in the end we believe everyone should have full access to choose and become as they want and desire. Here or there. Whenever or never. 

So again, exceptions are rare for a reason. 

That said I do have my annoyances with how it's done. I had someone reach into one of my lines via some distant relative and start doing work for them. It wasn't even an actual relative, so when I corrected the tree the ordinances reset and were effectively voided. It's sloppy inviting, even though it's also pretty astounding how much of a data base they maintain.

 

 

I should note, I hesitate to send this. I know right now especially, emotions are raw and untamed. Grief is a long long journey and experience that doesn't fully leave us. I'm certain it's there with you today. So If any of this offends you or hurts too much please just ignore it. It's not that important.

 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Realistically, that would be extremely hard to enforce and likely a little theologically circumspect. 

On the pragmatic: which decendant gets final say on an ancestor they likely have never met and what they want on the other side now? My great-grandmother likely has 1-200 direct descendents running around. Getting permission from all of those is untenable and if just one of those said no that would curtail everyone else who would have happily said yes. And the further out you go the more descendants you have to figure out with less real investment in the actual person and more investment about the presumed idea. I don't know my great great grandparents. I don't know most of my great-granparents. I would not feel comfortable saying I know what they wanted in their life...let alone what they want now in their afterlife.

Theologically it feels really wrong. Remember that a baptism/endowment/sealing for the dead is at best a glorified invitation. It's not really a baptism like a person receives in any faith community here. No one is forcing the ordinance to be accepted on the other side at all. Some people may receive impressions that the work was accepted, but those aren't then put in a record book or something. Because we can't truly know here and now. This is likely tied to our beliefs in personal agency (everyone chooses their own fates basically). No one can or should be forced to accept an invitation. So we don't presume we can. For a simplified analogy, this is similar to someone knocking at someone's door as a missionary and inviting them to be baptized. It doesn't make the invited person a member all the sudden. We also believe that people can and do continue to grow and change on the other side. That includes ourselves. We do not believe we have a monopoly of eternal knowledge and becoming here on earth. That anyone really does. Even if at times we've acted like we do. 

Effectively what's being asked is that a family member ignore someone on the other side forever because a living descendant's discomfort with the invitation. And that we lock people into what they were and believed here forever or be locked into what their decendants believed they should be forever. Personally that makes me extremely squirmy. I presume I'll grow and change and expand in the next life. I have no clue what that means or looks like. I don't want someone else here to dictate what it should look like. 

Lastly we all know that the work we do here is imperfect. There's a common idiom that we have the millennium to fix up the mistakes and errors and misses. Because in the end we believe everyone should have full access to choose and become as they want and desire. Here or there. Whenever or never. 

So again, exceptions are rare for a reason. 

That said I do have my annoyances with how it's done. I had someone reach into one of my lines via some distant relative and start doing work for them. It wasn't even an actual relative, so when I corrected the tree the ordinances reset and were effectively voided. It's sloppy inviting, even though it's also pretty astounding how much of a data base they maintain.

 

 

I should note, I hesitate to send this. I know right now especially, emotions are raw and untamed. Grief is a long long journey and experience that doesn't fully leave us. I'm certain it's there with you today. So If any of this offends you or hurts too much please just ignore it. It's not that important.

 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for them. In my OP, I asked for advice, counsel, and information. You all are providing that for me. Some of it opens up many more questions for me, and like you, I hesitate to ask them, especially after asking for your thoughts. When I asked, I imagined there would be things said with which I would not agree. That is ok. What I am still lacking is a clear concept of LDS beliefs about the afterlife. I have a large library on LDS doctrine, but virtually nothing that touches on the immediate afterlife of a deceased LDS Christian, or a deceased non-LDS Christian (from an LDS perspective). Joyous reunion or spirit prison for my son? Both my son and his aunt (my sister) died outside the LDS church. Are they having a joyous reunion or languishing in some place called spirit prison? If his proxy work has not been done, then what is his relationship to the LDS folks who are there to minister to him? Will there be more proxy work done in the spirit world, specifically in spirit prison? And on and on. I think all churches tend toward murkiness and inconsistency regarding the afterlife. "Absent from the body and present with the Lord" is used for comfort in some churches. 

As for me, I believe God is no respecter of persons, either in this life or the next. I can't see any place for denominations and any other concept of church in heaven other than the true church—the gathering of all those who claim Christ as their Savior. Maybe that is what the neglected part of D&C 1:30 means - "the collective church"as opposed to the "church individually." I have only ever heard one LDS speaker opine on that. Ok, I don't want to get into a debate after I promised I would not. I would simply go online today and buy any book (that I don't already own) that any of you can recommend on the LDS perspective of the hereafter that gives specific examples and situations. Right now I am fascinated with the ethical (at least) and moral/spiritual (at most) significance of using data gathered  through FamilySearch from people who think they are simply going on a great family heritage genealogy site. My son is not on FamilySearch, and right now I am not inclined to put him there until I resolve this dilemma in my own mind. Someone else might. Who knows? Thanks and very best wishes.    

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Joyous reunion or spirit prison for my son? 

My impression is the typical view if there are issues that prevent full accountability, it’s probably joyous reunion.  Anyone under the mental or emotional age of accountability (usually 8 chronologically doctrinally speaking, but it’s recognized some kids may reach it earlier, some later, some never and it’s not always able to be known in mortality what makes someone accountable and what doesn’t) is seen as admitted to the Celestial Kingdom when the time comes, so would be Paradise bound.  So it’s more of a question of who is there to greet him.  And I don’t know if other members think those who are t yet in Paradise couldn’t join the welcoming party, but I certainly expect any loved ones and probably others who were just interested in watching your son’s life from afar and total strangers just wanting to welcome everyone out of love would be there.

Learning doesn’t stop in Paradise according to Joseph Smith, so I don’t see a need to stay in Spirit Prison if it’s essentially the same level of acceptance of the Gospel as here.  

There is generally in my experience (though I haven’t talked to many about it, so if there are those who disagree, I am interested) the assumption that if anyone has been in heaven for very long and they were sincere seekers of God, they have likely accepted the fullness of the Gospel and accepted the gift of Christ’s atonement. It’s pretty much if they wake up in the next life  and see it for themselves, why wouldn’t they accept the truth? And then it’s however long it takes to absorb the necessities, which isn’t long in this life (never been a missionary, but have heard of relatively quick baptisms even done the right way) and seems would be even shorter in the next.  For those who were not interested in faith, I don’t know if members typically think it will take longer.  I think only those who chose wickedness, the truly unrepentant or those with addictions (for some reason I haven’t figured out the logic on) are ever seen as being stuck on the hellish side of spirit prison.

Oops…left out that probably a majority of Saints (may be wrong here) believe one can’t be in Paradise unless one died in a state of unaccountability or they have received a proxy baptism.  Which implies to me if true either God does not hold those who didn’t have a chance to hear the gospel in mortality accountable (those without the law are not accountable to the law) or the vast majority of humanity are still in Spirit Prison.  Since I am one of those who believe paradise, prison/school, hell, and the kingdoms post resurrection are states of ‘mind’ and not locations (though maybe those are the same thing in the next life), even if someone is still waiting for a baptism to be performed on their behalf, they can still be in the greater community in my belief—so welcoming your son no matter where they are in terms of progression—just as those taking Continuing Ed or trade classes or college or post grade courses or on the job training can all end up on the same pews on Sunday.

Quote

what is his relationship to the LDS folks who are there to minister to him?

I don’t see any reason why there would be more boundaries for community there than here.  Seems like there would be less because the ability to play mind games, discriminate, and all those other tragic walls we build would not be available.

Edited December 17, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for them. In my OP, I asked for advice, counsel, and information. You all are providing that for me. Some of it opens up many more questions for me, and like you, I hesitate to ask them, especially after asking for your thoughts. When I asked, I imagined there would be things said with which I would not agree. That is ok. What I am still lacking is a clear concept of LDS beliefs about the afterlife. I have a large library on LDS doctrine, but virtually nothing that touches on the immediate afterlife of a deceased LDS Christian, or a deceased non-LDS Christian (from an LDS perspective). Joyous reunion or spirit prison for my son? Both my son and his aunt (my sister) died outside the LDS church. Are they having a joyous reunion or languishing in some place called spirit prison? If his proxy work has not been done, then what is his relationship to the LDS folks who are there to minister to him? Will there be more proxy work done in the spirit world, specifically in spirit prison? And on and on. I think all churches tend toward murkiness and inconsistency regarding the afterlife. "Absent from the body and present with the Lord" is used for comfort in some churches. 

As for me, I believe God is no respecter of persons, either in this life or the next. I can't see any place for denominations and any other concept of church in heaven other than the true church—the gathering of all those who claim Christ as their Savior. Maybe that is what the neglected part of D&C 1:30 means - "the collective church"as opposed to the "church individually." I have only ever heard one LDS speaker opine on that. Ok, I don't want to get into a debate after I promised I would not. I would simply go online today and buy any book (that I don't already own) that any of you can recommend on the LDS perspective of the hereafter that gives specific examples and situations. Right now I am fascinated with the ethical (at least) and moral/spiritual (at most) significance of using data gathered  through FamilySearch from people who think they are simply going on a great family heritage genealogy site. My son is not on FamilySearch, and right now I am not inclined to put him there until I resolve this dilemma in my own mind. Someone else might. Who knows? Thanks and very best wishes.    

You are not going to find a book with the definitive teaching on exactly what happens post-death/pre-resurrection, as there are many unanswered question- so you would be getting one's personal, though well-considered, opinion.

But the basic outline:

1) You return to the God who gave you life and receive a preliminary judgement.

2) You are assigned to Paradise, Prison**, or Hell (for those saying "Whaaat?!"- read your Gospel Principles manual.)

3) Those assigned to Spirit Prison have the Gospel preached to them and upon acceptance of ordinances performed on their behalf, are reassigned to Paradise.

4) Those assigned to Hell wait in that condition until the final resurrection.

**Sprit Prison isn't nearly as bad as it sounds. **

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

would simply go online today and buy any book (that I don't already own) that any of you can recommend on the LDS perspective of the hereafter that gives specific examples and situations

Any that did that would likely be mostly speculative and I wouldn’t recommend for your purpose.

[Calm]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

Sprit Prison isn't nearly as bad as it sounds.

We use the word primarily because of Peter (1 Peter 3:19)

“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison”

There is also the sense of restriction because of inability of being able to do things (righteous desires) because of needing ordinance work, but I have my doubts even if that is current doctrine (which Imam not sure as the scripture isn’t jumping to mind and I have to go decorate a Christmas tree)

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

We use the word primarily because of Peter (1 Peter 3:19)

“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison”

There is also the sense of restriction because of inability of being able to do things (righteous desires) because of needing ordinance work, but I have my doubts even if that is current doctrine (which Imam not sure as the scripture isn’t jumping to mind and I have to go decorate a Christmas tree)

  To me it's kinda akin to being a non-member- there is just stuff you can't do.   

  Maybe there are members only neighborhoods in the Spirit World that you can't move into until you accept  your baptism?

Edited December 17, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Chum]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if they have been proxy baptized. I have been provided great access into FamilySearch, but as a non-member, I can't see the ordinance records.

Any member with an account on FS could look it up. You likely know someone who would. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Chum said:

Any member with an account on FS could look it up. You likely know someone who would. 

If someone has they broke the rules to do it.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If someone has they broke the rules to do it.

Iirc, you aren’t supposed to look up names out of curiosity, only your own lines and possibles, but that maybe just from my professor’s POV in my genealogy class (yes, I am old enough it was called genealogy, I still sing in odd moments “genealogy, I am doing it, my genealogy, and the reasons I am doing it are very clear to me….”, but that is as far as I get).  I am not even sure that was official policy back then.

Also exceptions for if you are a paid genealogist or helping someone else do their work….though do they allow professionals to track temple work if a member is asking them to do it for them or just volunteers?

I ask because my grandmother paid for someone to do her husband’s line…probably now I think about it because she didn’t like his parents much (the dad for good reason as he was very cold to Grandpa who was a decent guy, very loving and overly indulgent to his brother) and my mother’s family had a professional take over when the line took off for Scandinavia, so I grew up thinking lots of people did that.

Edited December 17, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Iirc, you aren’t supposed to look up names out of curiosity, only your own lines and possibles,

I have never heard this before.  I definitely have heard you are not supposed to be putting in non family names to be done, but never heard you are not supposed to look them up.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

but that maybe just from my professor’s POV in my genealogy class (yes, I am old enough it was called genealogy, I still sing in odd moments “genealogy, I am doing it, my genealogy, and the reasons I am doing it are very clear to me….”, but that is as far as I get).  I am not even sure that was official policy back then.

Also exceptions for if you are a paid genealogist or helping someone else do their work….though do they allow professionals to track temple work if a member is asking them to do it for them or just volunteers?

I ask because my grandmother paid for someone to do her husband’s line…probably now I think about it because she didn’t like his parents much (the dad for good reason as he was very cold to Grandpa who was a decent guy, very loving and overly indulgent to his brother) and my mother’s family had a professional take over when the line took off for Scandinavia, so I grew up thinking lots of people did that.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Iirc, you aren’t supposed to look up names out of curiosity, only your own lines and possibles, but that maybe just from my professor’s POV in my genealogy class (yes, I am old enough it was called genealogy, I still sing in odd moments “genealogy, I am doing it, my genealogy, and the reasons I am doing it are very clear to me….”, but that is as far as I get).  I am not even sure that was official policy back then.

Also exceptions for if you are a paid genealogist or helping someone else do their work….though do they allow professionals to track temple work if a member is asking them to do it for them or just volunteers?

I ask because my grandmother paid for someone to do her husband’s line…probably now I think about it because she didn’t like his parents much (the dad for good reason as he was very cold to Grandpa who was a decent guy, very loving and overly indulgent to his brother) and my mother’s family had a professional take over when the line took off for Scandinavia, so I grew up thinking lots of people did that.

This is what it says on Family Search:

Quote

 

"When submitting names for proxy temple ordinances, members should generally submit only the names of persons to whom they are related" (General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 28.1.1.1).

To request ordinances for an unrelated friend, obtain signed permission from a close living relative of your friend.

The Church’s General Handbook, 28.1.1.1, indicates a close living relative as one of the following:

• Undivorced spouse (the spouse to whom the individual was married at the time of death)
• Adult child
• Parent
• Sibling 

Before you start

Obtain signed, written permission from a close living relative of your friend. Keep in mind the following:

• We cannot accept permission given by yourself or even permission granted by your friend before his or her death. Permission must be from a close living relative.
• If your deceased friend has no close living relatives or if you cannot contact them, we cannot grant permission to do the work.
• You must have an email address that you can access and that you can use to respond to emails. The 110 permission form in Family Tree cannot be used for this process.
• You can receive the written permission through email, but it must contain a handwritten signature from the close living relative who is giving permission. You can scan or take a picture of the written permission, and attach and send the image as part of the mail exchange with FamilySearch Support.

Word the written permission this way: "I [name of person giving permission], give [your name] permission to do temple work in a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple, for [name of deceased], who is my [relationship]. Signature."

If your deceased friend has no close living relatives, we cannot grant permission to do the work. 

 

I'm not sure if a professional genealogist would be able to do the temple work for the people who are paying them but they could certainly to the genealogy part and then leave the ordinances up to the family.