Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[ERayR]

You know Handy, she does know all of this. Her grandfather came to Utah with Brigham Young, and left the church as soon as he could because of polygamy. He joined the Catholic faith. She raised her son Catholic and has since left organized religion of any kind, has a beautiful relationship with God, and is very satisfied. She is no one to be trifle with, and knows the history of the church as well as anyone here. I have great respect for her. She has been deeply wounded by the Church, as were her parents and grandparents. She is adamant that they would not want the work done, and considers it to be highly insulting.

Regardless of who owns them and who doesn't, church policy was not followed in her case. The policy is in place for a reason. And, as the oldest living relative, it is her right. It doesn't matter what I believe about the afterlife. It's simply not my business at this point.

The oldest living relative or not it is not her right. She does not own the grandmother. As my grondmothers sister I would have a right to submit her name as part of my ancestors.

[Kristine]

But she is not the only relative. Other relatives have a right to submit a relatives name. She does not own her grandmother. The relative has other relatives.

Ok. Whatever. Look, she is the only child of her mother, and all of her aunts and uncles are dead. She's not young. Her son is next, also opposed, and an only child. I don't know if he has kids or not. I've never met him. She's not the only relative I'm sure, but she's closest living.

And I never said she owned her grandmother. I've only talked church policy. Please stop making this about me.

[jwhitlock]

He said some of us. Normally in any large group there will be a small amount who will get upset. Just like most Catholics, Jews, Rastas, etc... Most don't care or feel threatened. However there are the exceptions.

Heck, I have sets of Jehovah's Witnesses, EVs, fundamentalists, and various others praying about me from time to time. Mostly it's about the Lord making me aware of the error of my ways, but I can't really argue with that. God will pretty much ignore the invalid parts of their prayers, and as He pays attention to the valid parts, I can only benefit.

[handys003]

Heck, I have sets of Jehovah's Witnesses, EVs, fundamentalists, and various others praying about me from time to time. Mostly it's about the Lord making me aware of the error of my ways, but I can't really argue with that. God will pretty much ignore the invalid parts of their prayers, and as He pays attention to the valid parts, I can only benefit.

Exactly. Like when I was in a Catholic Hospital one time for some surgery for my heart. Even though LDS a little nun wanted to say a prayer with me. How can I go wrong with such love?

[selek]

Here is a references for the offended.

http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html.

Wow. An activist/agitator website with obvious (glaring, actually) factual errors in their homepage and scattered throughout their commentary.

Wow. You sure showed me.

Bravo.

From the website in question:

Why We Are Unique

JewishGen, a non-profit organization affiliated with the Museum of Jewish Heritage

[selek]

Ok. Whatever. Look, she is the only child of her mother, and all of her aunts and uncles are dead.

How- precisely- is that relevant?

She's not young.

So?

Her son is next, also opposed, and an only child.

Again, so?

I don't know if he has kids or not. I've never met him. She's not the only relative I'm sure, but she's closest living.

Again, so?

The policy of consulting the nearest living relative is a courtesy- not a binding law.

We don't NEED her permission.

And I never said she owned her grandmother.

No- you simply echoed her attempt to deny the choise to her grandma.

I've only talked church policy.

No- you've argued your (and your apostate friend's) interpretation of Church policy.

Please stop making this about me.

Nothing in Lehi's post made it "about you".

Everyone of his comments was about your friend's position and argument.

[Senator]

This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm all for baptisms for the dead. Mormon arrogance bothers me, but since I have no way to "prove" that it actually bothers me, then I guess I have no right to say so. Lol.

Kristine,

Let me chime in to let you know I agree with your position, lest you think your alone. I think you've articulated it well.

[Paloma]

If some EV church began to baptize our dead,I am sure that some of us would be indignant if not outraged and insist that the practice cease.

That said,how much of that concern might come from the feeling that maybe the EVs have the power to have an effect on the eternities and we don't want to take that chance.

I've read statements from LDS folk before, suggesting that probably few LDS believers would care whether other church groups 'baptized' their ancestors. And I think that may well be so, especially since 'baptism for the dead' is a familiar part of LDS belief and culture.

I sometimes wonder if LDS folk know how this practice comes across to others who are not LDS. In nonLDS churches, baptism is a very 'definite' sort of thing. Those churches that practice infant baptism see baptism as a means of grace, or a way of definitively incorporating the baptized one into a faith community. Baptistic churches that practice voluntary baptism or 'baptism as a personal expression of faith and conversion" obviously see baptism as a sign of something definite and concrete that has occurred within the heart of the newly baptized believer.

Therefore, I think it would take a lot of education for a non-LDS person to understand that LDS baptism for the dead is basically a practice that operates 'on spec'. Those of us who are more familiar with this LDS practice, realize that it's not a matter of the LDS church 'claiming' our deceased ancestors, but 'offering' them eternal blessings should the LDS Church be true, and should the deceased choose to accept these blessings.

I understand that when my LDS friends express the intention of baptizing me posthumously, they speak out of love and concern.

But without having been educated, and perhaps without close friendships, it certainly does look as if LDS 'baptism for the dead' is highjacking dead ancestors. (It's evident here that Kristine's friend has the benefit of a good understanding of the LDS position, and has a good friend in Kristine. But she also has the express wishes of her parents whom she is wanting to honour, and her own negative feelings about the LDS church. These things are real. I expect any one of us could be affected by very real feelings that we have about a given institution.)

I sometimes feel as if I'm bending over backwards trying to understand and be gracious about this practice that really is offensive to non-LDS folk.

I've spoken with enough real-life LDS friends, and read enough on bulletin boards to sense that LDS believers really can't fathom why the practice is offensive.

It is especially offensive to think of 'baptism of the dead' for Jewish people who died in or survived the Holocaust because of their Jewish faith or identity . The perception is that they are being changed from being Jewish to becoming Mormon, and that's an appalling thought.

I expect that LDS folk find it hard to set aside their own personal faith in their practice and their reasons for finding it non-offensive. I understand that LDS folk see it as a wonderful blessing offered out of love and hope for the potential recipient.

But the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. And I'm not sure you can expect others to see what you do unless you're willing and able to see it the way the rest of us do.

Edited to add that for non-LDS, it doesn't help that this practice is conducted in what to LDS is "the sanctity of the temple" but what to non-LDS is the secrecy of a place that's forbidden to others and to conversation regarding what transpires therein.

[Kristine]

Since you decided to go nuke-yuh-lar on this one Kristine, I'll reply in kind.

CFR.

Please demonstrate where we're adding the recipients to our rosters.

We record that the offer was made and upon what date- nothing more.

Oh my goodness selek. I've missed so much. You are so prolific. "Rosters" was a joke. Inferring that numbers are all that matter to us. (Not my personal belief). My friend lovingly (ok, not so much) refers to us as LDS Inc.

[Kristine]

Okay then if she is adamant about it being the Catholic style of heaven. Btw I've been offered an invite by some Irish buddies for beer. Then it shouldn't really matter to her. By Catholic standards it should be a silly practice by Mormons to her deceased. After all her deceased relatives must be thinking that those Mormons must be not getting it. Her relatives are probably thinking how cute it all must be of the salvation of souls by proxy. By Catholic version the deceased are probably not threatened by one bit. It would still be the point her relatives are alive and with God(provided they were saved). She still does not own them as they still belong to God. Since I accepted JC, and repented no doubt I would get to Catholic heaven as I was deceived by false prophets. Therefore I would be up there with my Irish drinking buds having a few good brewskies, probably several shots of whiskey and some saki and laughing over the past and my doing ordinances. Now then tell my why she should be still upset? She should be laughing at our foolish ways then, yes?

Second- in the old days as in my relatives there were many duplicates. this means there were many contributers. The system was old an archaic, but now has been modernized. Todays site requires more info on contribution and can be challenged. Much better than the old days. However I have submitted distant cousins. I had distant Hawaiian cousins submitting names on my behalf also that I did not know existed. Done by distant relatives. Am I upset about it? No. Even though they are my relatives they were done somewhere by another. How do I assert that my maternal grandmother was done by a Pratt member, who is a sibling descendant as not having the same right as myself. This was done years before knew anything and converted to this church. The underlying principle is no one owns anyone except their personal selves. Any assumption that they are that persons own relative to do with what they want is contradictory to Gods right of ownership. No matter any Christian sect. God owns the body and the soul. Not the child, not the spouse, not the aunties or uncles etc...

I don't know what to say, Handy. This is really important to her. It's really not for me to say that it shouldn't be.

[Stargazer]

You know Handy, she does know all of this. Her grandfather came to Utah with Brigham Young, and left the church as soon as he could because of polygamy.

OK, now things begin to become clearer. If her grandfather used to be a member, how did he leave the church anyway? Just moved somewhere else? Demanded excommunication?

I may be incorrect, but I believe that policy in the church has been for deceased members who did not receive temple ordinances in life to eventually receive them by proxy, without any intervention, by relatives or anyone else, required. If her grandfather just moved away, his membership would not have been terminated, regardless of how much he thought he was no longer a Mormon. And in the process of clearing up "loose ends" he would have eventually received proxy ordinances many years after his death (calculated according to his expected death date correlated with his birth date). Even if he had been excommunicated the same may have occurred. I say this with somewhat more confidence, because my wife's first husband was ex'ed, never came back to the church (although he was planning to), and when his children spoke to the Membership department after his death about a temple ordinance clearing so they could get his membership restored by proxy, they were told that this would happen more-or-less automatically, in course of time.

He joined the Catholic faith. She raised her son Catholic and has since left organized religion of any kind, has a beautiful relationship with God, and is very satisfied. She is no one to be trifle with, and knows the history of the church as well as anyone here. I have great respect for her. She has been deeply wounded by the Church, as were her parents and grandparents. She is adamant that they would not want the work done, and considers it to be highly insulting.

Regardless of who owns them and who doesn't, church policy was not followed in her case. The policy is in place for a reason. And, as the oldest living relative, it is her right. It doesn't matter what I believe about the afterlife. It's simply not my business at this point.

As I suggested, church policy may very well have been followed to the letter. You can probably use new.familysearch.org yourself to look up her grandfather and see what the dates were and get an idea of what the story is on his ordinances. If the grandfather's children had membership records, then all this applies to them as well.

[Kristine]

Exactly. Like when I was in a Catholic Hospital one time for some surgery for my heart. Even though LDS a little nun wanted to say a prayer with me. How can I go wrong with such love?

One time I was crying on a park bench and this sweet woman came up to me and asked me if she could pray for me. She said, "are you Christian?" I told her, "well, I don't think you think I am, but I am. And I would love it if you would pray for me." So she did. Right there in the park. Loudly. Bless her.

[selek]

I sometimes wonder if LDS folk know how this practice comes across to others who are not LDS.

I was raised Southern Baptist, and attended quite a few other Churches....so I think I have a pretty good idea.

It does not help, of course, that most of the information that these outsiders receive is sensationalist nonsense intended to incite outrage and enflame ignorance, rather than a learned and logical exploration of the topic.

In nonLDS churches, baptism is a very 'definite' sort of thing. Those churches that practice infant baptism see baptism as a means of grace, or a way of definitively incorporating the baptized one into a faith community.

Ironically, that's almost precisely how most Mormons of my acquaintance view the ordinance as well.

Baptistic churches that practice voluntary baptism or 'baptism as a personal expression of faith and conversion" obviously see baptism as a sign of something definite and concrete that has occurred within the heart of the newly baptized believer.

Agreed. But the question remains: Does their belief- predicated on ill-informed ignorance and sectarian boundary maintenance trump our right to worship as we please?

Therefore, I think it would take a lot of education for a non-LDS person to understand that LDS baptism for the dead is basically a practice that operates 'on spec'.

Perhaps- but I think it would take a bit less than that. After all, we're not discussing politics, rocket science, or tax codes.

Those of us who are more familiar with this LDS practice, realize that it's not a matter of the LDS church 'claiming' our deceased ancestors, but 'offering' them eternal blessings should the LDS Church be true, and should the deceased choose to accept these blessings.

True- but Paloma....how many times has that precise explanation been offered up in this thread alone? How many times has it been summarily rejected by those with axes to grind?

We can lead the horse to water, but....

I understand that when my LDS friends express the intention of baptizing me posthumously, they speak out of love and concern.

But without having been educated, and perhaps without close friendships, it certainly does look as if LDS 'baptism for the dead' is highjacking dead ancestors.

I still contend that the use of the word "hijacking" is unnecessarily inflammatory, misleading, and predicated on an ill-informed hostility rather than a reasoned understanding of either the baptismal ordinance or even of the definition of the word itself.

(It's evident here that Kristine's friend has the benefit of a good understanding of the LDS position, and has a good friend in Kristine. But she also has the express wishes of her parents whom she is wanting to honour, and her own negative feelings about the LDS church. These things are real. I expect any one of us could be affected by very real feelings that we have about a given institution.)

Agreed- but do her wishes and antipathy trump teh wishes of the decedants themselves, or those of the other members of the family?

I sometimes feel as if I'm bending over backwards trying to understand and be gracious about this practice that really is offensive to non-LDS folk.

Most often because they neither understand what is involved nor do they care to.

I've spoken with enough real-life LDS friends, and read enough on bulletin boards to sense that LDS believers really can't fathom why the practice is offensive.

On the contrary- everyone on this thread (and everyone of my immediate acquaintance) understand WHY someone might choose to be offended. We simply cannot fathom why their emotional state trumps a commission from Christ.

It is especially offensive to think of 'baptism of the dead' for Jewish people who died in or survived the Holocaust because of their Jewish faith or identity .

Agreed. Why is why the Church extended that particular courtesy. Contary to popular belief and an inculcated misunderstanding, teh Church DID NOT promise not to baptize on behalf Holocaust victims. It promised to limit such ordnances to those requested by the family of the decedents.

The perception is that they are being changed from being Jewish to becoming Mormon, and that's an appalling thought.

And with most other appalling thoughts- it's based on a little knowledge and a lot of arrogant assumption.

That notwithstanding, no one has yet demonstrated that OUR actions are in anyway bound by other people's assumption, igorance, or rabid emoting.

To go back to the earlier analogy I used- the fact that you are appalled by the taste of chocolate does not preclude my enjoyment of a French silk pie.

Sorry.

I expect that LDS folk find it hard to set aside their own personal faith in their practice and their reasons for finding it non-offensive. I understand that LDS folk see it as a wonderful blessing offered out of love and hope for the potential recipient.

But the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. And I'm not sure you can expect others to see what you do unless you're willing and able to see it the way the rest of us do.

We do understand why they might...but their perception that the world is flat in no way binds us to fall off the edge.

Edited to add that for non-LDS, it doesn't help that this practice is conducted in what to LDS is "the sanctity of the temple" but what to non-LDS is the secrecy of a place that's forbidden to others and to conversation regarding what transpires therein.

Again- their ignorance and suspicion doesn't trump our rights. Never has.

[Kristine]

OK, now things begin to become clearer. If her grandfather used to be a member, how did he leave the church anyway? Just moved somewhere else? Demanded excommunication?

I may be incorrect, but I believe that policy in the church has been for deceased members who did not receive temple ordinances in life to eventually receive them by proxy, without any intervention, by relatives or anyone else, required. If her grandfather just moved away, his membership would not have been terminated, regardless of how much he thought he was no longer a Mormon. And in the process of clearing up "loose ends" he would have eventually received proxy ordinances many years after his death (calculated according to his expected death date correlated with his birth date). Even if he had been excommunicated the same may have occurred. I say this with somewhat more confidence, because my wife's first husband was ex'ed, never came back to the church (although he was planning to), and when his children spoke to the Membership department after his death about a temple ordinance clearing so they could get his membership restored by proxy, they were told that this would happen more-or-less automatically, in course of time.

As I suggested, church policy may very well have been followed to the letter. You can probably use new.familysearch.org yourself to look up her grandfather and see what the dates were and get an idea of what the story is on his ordinances. If the grandfather's children had membership records, then all this applies to them as well.

Hmm. That is a great question. I don't know if he had been through the temple or not, ask to have his name removed, etc. just that he and his first wife left as soon as they could after they got to Utah.

But what about her parents? Does this rule apply to them too?

[Paloma]

Heck, I have sets of Jehovah's Witnesses, EVs, fundamentalists, and various others praying about me from time to time. Mostly it's about the Lord making me aware of the error of my ways, but I can't really argue with that. God will pretty much ignore the invalid parts of their prayers, and as He pays attention to the valid parts, I can only benefit.

Praying... ahh, that's an even playing field. That we all understand. You pray for us, and we pray for you. Prayer is generally understood to be an expression of love and a hope for well-being.

Prayer is a language that LDS and non-LDS believers alike understand. And, for the most part, it seems to be something that non-believers appreciate as well. At least they see our good intentions in it.

But as I wrote in a post above, 'baptism for the dead' is not an area where we're speaking the same language, and it's not something that is generally understood as coming from love and good intentions. I'm not saying it's not out of love and good intentions, but there needs to be a lot of intentional education (and, I think, compassion re where the other person is coming from) before others will understand and appreciate this LDS practice.

[Kristine]

But as I wrote in a post above, 'baptism for the dead' is not an area where we're speaking the same language, and it's not something that is generally understood as coming from love and good intentions. I'm not saying it's not out of love and good intentions, but there needs to be a lot of intentional education (and, I think, compassion re where the other person is coming from) before others will understand and appreciate this LDS practice.

I like the way you said this Paloma.

[selek]

Oh my goodness selek. I've missed so much. You are so prolific.

You caught me on a slow night.

I usually don't post this often.

"Rosters" was a joke. Inferring that numbers are all that matter to us. (Not my personal belief).

Fair enough. My apologies for missing the joke.

My friend lovingly (ok, not so much) refers to us as LDS Inc.

Yeah- I've heard that one, too.

In my opinion, that's a joke in the same vein as lampooning all Jews as money-changers and loan-sharks.

Hysterical .

Let me say, though, that I apologize if I came down on you in an unduly harsh fashion.

I understand why your friend might be offended (and that she's one of the crowd who refers to Mormons in such a fashion says an awful lot)- but her angst and outrage do not trump our rights, nor our calling and commission, nor the choice of her ancestors.

She doesn't KNOW that her parents don't regret their decision.

She doesn't KNOW that her parents don't want to reconcile to the Church and to the Gospel.

And its not her place to stop us from worshipping according to the dictates of our consciences, nor to deny her ancestors the CHOICE to be reconciled or not.

I hope you have a good evening. (No- I mean that, smiley not withstanding).

[Paloma]

I was raised Southern Baptist, and attended quite a few other Churches....so I think I have a pretty good idea.

It does not help, of course, that most of the information that these outsiders receive is sensationalist nonsense intended to incite outrage and enflame ignorance, rather than a learned and logical exploration of the topic.

...

Again- their ignorance and suspicion doesn't trump our rights. Never has.

Selek, thanks for your point-by-point comments in reply to my post.

You say you were raised Southern Baptist ... that explains a lot! j/k , but I have family in the American South and sometimes I think we speak a different language 'tho we're both Protestant Evangelical believers.

I agree with you that there's a lot of sensationalist and prejudicial info and attitude 'out there' re LDS practices including 'baptism for the dead'. That's partly why I think a lot of education is needed, even as I agree that it's not exactly rocket science. Another reason for needing education IMO is that baptism for the dead is so foreign in non-LDS experience. And can be misunderstood because of the way that baptism is seen as a 'done deed' in a non-LDS view, rather than an 'offer' of blessings.

I understand your standing on your convictions, and believing that your rights need not be trumped.

But I think that listening to others and having compassion for their POV (which doesn't necessitate agreement or capitulation) can only be helpful.

[Kristine]

I've read back through the thread; I do not necessarily see how the Church's own policy was ignored by the Church (people often claim that, though they take liberties in interpreting policy for their own ends) in this case. The Church is also under no particular obligation to grant every request that comes based on a person's narrow interpretations of "violations" of the policy; it still needs to be demonstrated that there is any real fault of the Church in this case.

Selek is absolutely correct in his observations concerning the rather small group of vocal Jewish activists who continually hound the Church. There are other Jews who have taken a far more balanced approach, and have publicly written concerning their puzzlement at why some of their fellow Jews are so offended by the Church's practice. Their writings contain a far more balanced approach in recognizing what the Church actually does, what the impact on Jews actually is, and also recognizes the logistic difficulties that the Church wrestles with in having an open database, and that the Church actually does a fairly good job in trying to keep up with valid concerns.

Still, this doesn't stop those who choose (there's that word again!) to take offense, from getting worked up. Given the lack of direct or even significant indirect personal effect on her, and given the other side of the story which she seems more than willing to ignore, I suspect that it is very much a choice, driven by her bias, on her part concerning how she reacts.

If the Church's actions were responsible for wounding people, then that wounding would occur in all cases where that Church action occurred. A bullet will wound anyone shot by it without exception; I am unaware of any Church policy, doctrine, principle, or action that has or does universally wound when applied. As such, the perception of wounding is often a choice made in the mind of the person claiming to be offended.

Of course, any clarification or additional factual evidence in this particular situation is welcome.

I don't agree with that at all.

Well, we can't have offended her so badly if she'll still take me as a friend, I suppose. For me this is an ethical issue, not a legal one, and I'm sorry if I miscommunicated that. What Stargazer said is making sense. I never asked her who did the work or submitted the names. It was a very emotional for her, so I just let her tell it. I figure things will be taken care of in their own time. I don't see why I can't honor my friend's request, as has been "encouraged" by church policy. I love her as much as I love the dead.

To me it doesn't matter why she is offended. Only that she is. I would never invalidate that for her. Feelings are feelings.

She's not unrealistic, either. Lol. She knows that she'll have to send more than one request. Everytime it happens.

[Paloma]

I like the way you said this Paloma.

Thanks, Kristine.

I appreciate the way you're bridging your friend's desire and your Church's position. Sounds like you're a faithful friend and a faithful believer.

[selek]

You say you were raised Southern Baptist ... that explains a lot! j/k ,

Doesn't it though?

but I have family in the American South and sometimes I think we speak a different language 'tho we're both Protestant Evangelical believers.

I quite agree. And to think most people consider the Lord confusing the language at the Tower of Babel to have been a one-time thing!

But I think that listening to others and having compassion for their POV (which doesn't necessitate agreement or capitulation) can only be helpful.

I quite agree. We should be willing to listen and to explain- I have no quarrel with that proposition at all.

Ironically enough, I'd consider the Church's accomodation over the Holocaust victims to be precisely that sort of arrangement- an act of courtesy and compassion without being either a concession or an admission of wrong-doing.

[Kristine]

Kristine,

Let me chime in to let you know I agree with your position, lest you think your alone. I think you've articulated it well.

Oh my gosh I just fell out of my chair. Thank you Senator.

[Stargazer]

Hmm. That is a great question. I don't know if he had been through the temple or not, just that he and his first wife left as soon as they could after they got to Utah.

But what about her parents? Does this rule apply to them too?

The church has been very diligent about recordkeeping from the beginning. If the grandfather and his first wife went to Utah with the Saints, then it is pretty certain that their names were on the records of the church, and stayed there, even if they left Utah. If their children were old enough for baptism, and especially if they were baptized, then it would apply to them as well.

As I say, if you have access to new.familysearch.org, you can check on the ordinance dates for them and get an idea if they might have been done as a matter of tying up loose ends or not.

One thing concerns me. If by some chance the Church is true, and the baptismal and endowment ordinances highly desirable after all, then it is completely possible that her grandfather and mother might well have changed their minds in the hereafter -- there's no way for her to know this either way of course -- and might be highly annoyed at her if she manages to get their membership and ordinances vacated somehow. If however the Church is not true, then the ordinances having been performed will form no part of them at all anyway. Since doesn't know the true state of affairs, it might be most economical for her to leave things as they are.

Have you or she heard of "Pascal's Wager"? Check it out ---> HERE.

In short, MAYBE her ancestors having had ordinances performed on their behalf will benefit them, and MAYBE NOT, but taking the wager that they will costs nothing, especially if there is no God, or if God doesn't recognize those ordinances, whereas wagering that they won't has a defninte cost if it turns out that God does exist and He does recognize or require those ordinances after all.

By the way, based on this logic, I went through the temple and did my father's work for him, even though he had explicitly asked me not to do so while in life.

[Kristine]

Let me say, though, that I apologize if I came down on you in an unduly harsh fashion.

I understand why your friend might be offended (and that she's one of the crowd who refers to Mormons in such a fashion says an awful lot)- but her angst and outrage do not trump our rights, nor our calling and commission, nor the choice of her ancestors.

She doesn't KNOW that her parents don't regret their decision.

She doesn't KNOW that her parents don't want to reconcile to the Church and to the Gospel.

And its not her place to stop us from worshipping according to the dictates of our consciences, nor to deny her ancestors the CHOICE to be reconciled or not.

I hope you have a good evening. (No- I mean that, smiley not withstanding).

Oh my gosh. I just fell out of my chair again. What a night!

No. She doesn't know about her parents. (Look. Quick. We agree. This is fun.)

And it's not her place... Ah shoot. So close.

I'm having a great evening. Thanks, in part, to you.

[Kristine]

In short, MAYBE her ancestors having had ordinances performed on their behalf will benefit them, and MAYBE NOT, but taking the wager that they will costs nothing, especially if there is no God, or if God doesn't recognize those ordinances, whereas wagering that they won't has a defninte cost if it turns out that God does exist and He does recognize or require those ordinances after all.

By the way, based on this logic, I went through the temple and did my father's work for him, even though he had explicitly asked me not to do so while in life.

Hmm. Maybe I'll try that argument with her sometime... timing is everything. You know, if she knew that I said that, she may de-friend me. Hmm. I need to call her.