Removing ancestors' names from Church's database

[Kristine]

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.

Around here they call that an ark-steadier. I'm thinking of having a pin made.

[handys003]

Around here they call that an ark-steadier. I'm thinking of having a pin made.

So did your Catholic friend invite you to their heaven? There are no WoW in their universe. I was tempted one time, but my wife gave me that look.

[Thorkyll]

They are not just your ancestors. With the passage of time, descendancy increases geometrically. Thus, within not very many generations, one is likely to have thousands, even millions, of descendants. It's therefore quite likely that you and I are distantly related. If so, at some point in our respective genealogy, our ancestry would merge. You would have no greater right to demand that those ancestors' names be removed from the Church's database than my right to see that they remain there and that proxy ordinances are performed in their behalf.

The proxy ordinances we perform in the temple are conditional upon the deceased accepting them. To put it another way, those who are dead have the option of accepting or rejecting the ordinances performed for them. We don't get to choose; they do. So we do it for everyone we can.

Likewise, you don't get to choose; they do.

I could use the same logic to say that you (Mormons) don't get to choose to baptize my ancestors. Leave them alone!

[oats]

I could use the same logic to say that you (Mormons) don't get to choose to baptize my ancestors. Leave them alone!

I don't think LDS people baptize your ancestors in the way you think of it. You would be well served to reread the thread and learn what is meant by the LDS term baptizing for the dead.

Let's say I plan a feast, invite hundreds of guests, and then make food for each who I have invited. Many of the invitees do not show up. Am I still 'feeding' those who decline the invitation and are absent? Would somebody be justified in their indignation that I invited, and prepared a plate for, one of their relatives who decided not to show? Would it be reasonable for somebody to be offended that somebody else was merely invited?

If you invite my cousin to a birthday party and prepare for him a treat bag, then wouldn't it seem silly if I were to be offended, whether or not the cousin decides to take up the invitation?

[Eric Blob]

I could use the same logic to say that you (Mormons) don't get to choose to baptize my ancestors. Leave them alone!

I don't understand what you're saying (or you don't understand what we're saying). That's not the same logic, because then (we believe) your ancestors don't get a choice at all.

[bluebell]

I don't think LDS people baptize your ancestors in the way you think of it. You would be well served to reread the thread and learn what is meant by the LDS term baptizing for the dead.

Let's say I plan a feast, invite hundreds of guests, and then make food for each who I have invited. Many of the invitees do not show up. Am I still 'feeding' those who decline the invitation and are absent? Would somebody be justified in their indignation that I invited, and prepared a plate for, one of their relatives who decided not to show? Would it be reasonable for somebody to be offended that somebody else was merely invited?

If you invite my cousin to a birthday party and prepare for him a treat bag, then wouldn't it seem silly if I were to be offended, whether or not the cousin decides to take up the invitation?

This is actually a really good analogy.

I look forward to hearing Thorkyll's thoughts on it.

[bizabra]

Jesus died for the remission of EVERYONE'S sins. How come THE CHURCH doesn't simply baptize ONE person as proxy for EVERYONE who ever lived before? That would cover everyone and then there would be no need for the busy-work of geneology and proxy baptisms.

[bluebell]

Jesus died for the remission of EVERYONE'S sins. How come THE CHURCH doesn't simply baptize ONE person as proxy for EVERYONE who ever lived before? That would cover everyone and then there would be no need for the busy-work of geneology and proxy baptisms.

Because the Atonement of Christ only remits sins as people personally come to Him and covenant with Him.

[thesometimesaint]

bizabra:

Everyone has to be baptized, or accept that baptism as performed by others.

[volgadon]

I could use the same logic to say that you (Mormons) don't get to choose to baptize my ancestors. Leave them alone!

But what happens if your ancestors are also my ancestors?

BTW what community are yours from, mine are Bukovinian with roots in Galicia, as well as Pomeranian and Bessarabian.

[Scott Lloyd]

You should have sent it to me. I can be sensitive. :<)

Undoubtedly.

There was another reason I forwarded the e-mail, though. I felt the reply should come from someone who has more official standing than I.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your welcome Eric. However IIRC didn't we remove the Holocaust victims names if I'm not mistaken via Helen Radkey tantrum? Anybody else recall?

That was a very unique circumstance. And even in that instance, it's my understanding we did not sign away the future right of some direct-line ancestor of any of the individuals named in the agreement to submit the person's name for temple ordinance proxy work.

[Scott Lloyd]

How far down the line do you have to go to be unreasonable.

Let's say, for example, that all siblings (none married -- no grandchildren) of deceased parents (each spouse was a single child whose parents are dead) signed a notarized document requesting that their parent's names be removed from Church records. Would this request be reasonable?

Even in such an instance, the second part of my hypothetical response would apply: The proxy ordinance does nothing more than provide the deceased individual with the option to accept the work performed. Thus, the person gets to choose for himself, some relative doesn't get to make the choice for him.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I certainly wouldn't and, in fact, I've never encountered any faithful Latter-day Saint who would.

If you have not yet done so I invite you to take a moment now and read my sig line, which I have included with my posts for many months now.

[sethpayne]

Even in such an instance, the second part of my hypothetical response would apply: The proxy ordinance does nothing more than provide the deceased individual with the option to accept the work performed. Thus, the person gets to choose for himself, some relative doesn't get to make the choice for him.

Ok.... what if I, while still alive, requested that the Church not perform proxy ordinances on my behalf or I had some such verbiage in my will. Would this then be a reasonable request, to prevent the entry of my name into the database in the first place?

[Scott Lloyd]

Take it to the top. Policy is policy. If there are two relatives with the same status as closest living, the Mormon one wins. That should make you happy.

My understanding is that the policy does not preclude a grandchild or some future direct-line descendant from submitting the name for temple work.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Good thing she didn't encounter someone who would have taken the offer to pray for her as an "arrogant" affront.

[Scott Lloyd]

I could use the same logic to say that you (Mormons) don't get to choose to baptize my ancestors. Leave them alone!

In which case the logic wouldn't work at all, as the proxy ordinances do nothing more than allow the deceased the option to choose. By making the demand "Leave them alone!" you are in effect trying to make the choice for them; we are not.

And I call on you not to continue this misleading and inflammatory phrasing. We don't "baptize [someone's] ancestors." We perform baptisms for them. There is a crucial difference in connotation, namely the matter of whether the person has the option to accept or reject the baptism preformed for him/her.

[Bsix]

I personally have no issue with anyone performing a rite that postumously excommunicates one of my ancestors from the LDS Church. It is not binding on them, the Church or me.

Any such proxy excommunication would presumably give my ancestor the option of accepting or rejecting this excommunication I also imagine that God will decide if he recognizes such a rite as authoratitve.

Six

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think LDS people baptize your ancestors in the way you think of it. You would be well served to reread the thread and learn what is meant by the LDS term baptizing for the dead.

Let's say I plan a feast, invite hundreds of guests, and then make food for each who I have invited. Many of the invitees do not show up. Am I still 'feeding' those who decline the invitation and are absent? Would somebody be justified in their indignation that I invited, and prepared a plate for, one of their relatives who decided not to show? Would it be reasonable for somebody to be offended that somebody else was merely invited?

If you invite my cousin to a birthday party and prepare for him a treat bag, then wouldn't it seem silly if I were to be offended, whether or not the cousin decides to take up the invitation?

This is a very apt and clear analogy, one of the best I've seen.

[Scott Lloyd]

Jesus died for the remission of EVERYONE'S sins. How come THE CHURCH doesn't simply baptize ONE person as proxy for EVERYONE who ever lived before? That would cover everyone and then there would be no need for the busy-work of geneology and proxy baptisms.

This question strikes me as being outside the scope of this thread, which is a discussion of the right of the Church and its members to practice its doctrine of proxy temple ordinance work for the deceased as opposed to the assumed right of outsiders to prevent or hinder that practice.

You can challenge the logic of the doctrine itself, but if you do, please take it to another thread.

Cool avatar, by the way. It really does look three-dimensional.

[Scott Lloyd]

I personally have no issue with anyone performing a rite that postumously excommunicates one of my ancestors from the LDS Church. It is not binding on them, the Church or me.

Any such proxy excommunication would presumably give my ancestor the option of accepting or rejecting this excommunication I also imagine that God will decide if he recognizes such a rite as authoratitve.

Six

Very well reasoned.

If I were to decide tomorrow that Mormonism is false, I would still find untenable the arguments of those who object to Mormons' performance of proxy temple ordinances. The objectors simply have no reasonable basis for argument.

[Senator]

I personally have no issue with anyone performing a rite that postumously excommunicates one of my ancestors from the LDS Church. It is not binding on them, the Church or me.

Any such proxy excommunication would presumably give my ancestor the option of accepting or rejecting this excommunication I also imagine that God will decide if he recognizes such a rite as authoratitve.

Six

Good point Bsix. That is why I think we should be amenable to all passionate requests for name removal. After all, I do not believe that the ordinances become null and void just because we have edited a record.

We just need to add a little "winking eye" symbol next to the records of names in which the ordinance dates have been removed. or this little emoticon would do.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok.... what if I, while still alive, requested that the Church not perform proxy ordinances on my behalf or I had some such verbiage in my will. Would this then be a reasonable request, to prevent the entry of my name into the database in the first place?

With questions about what is or is not reasonable, I sometimes find it helpful to draw hypothetical comparisons.

If I had relatives who were Catholic, would it be reasonable for me to require them (or any Catholic, for that matter) to agree in writing not to pray for my soul after I'm dead?

Here's another:

During his administration, Salt Lake City's ex-mayor, Rocky Andersen, detested the Deseret News (I presume he still does) to the point of refusing to grant interviews to the newspaper or even to respond to requests for statements. Would it be reasonable for Andersen to leave a provision in his will forbidding the Deseret News after he dies from reporting the death?

[Scott Lloyd]

Good point Bsix. That is why I think we should be amenable to all passionate requests for name removal. After all, I do not believe that the ordinances become null and void just because we have edited a record.

So you advocate misleading people just to placate them?