Baptisms For The Dead: Ancestors Only?

[Rob Bowman]

I am confused by the following statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"In the early years of the Church, proxy baptisms were performed only for direct blood ancestors, usually no more than four generations back. Today, Latter-day Saints are baptized not only for their own forebears but also for other persons, unrelated to them, identified through the name extraction program" (emphasis added).

Everything else I have ever read seems to state clearly that a Mormon may be baptized only for his or her own forebears. For example, the LDS Church, in response to a recent controversy involving a Mormon being baptized on behalf of President Obama's mother, issued the following statement:

"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related."

Can someone clear this up, please? I would like to have the facts straight regarding the LDS doctrine and practice concerning baptisms for the dead.

[Kenngo1969]

I am confused by the following statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"In the early years of the Church, proxy baptisms were performed only for direct blood ancestors, usually no more than four generations back. Today, Latter-day Saints are baptized not only for their own forebears but also for other persons, unrelated to them, identified through the name extraction program" (emphasis added).

Everything else I have ever read seems to state clearly that a Mormon may be baptized only for his or her own forebears. For example, the LDS Church, in response to a recent controversy involving a Mormon being baptized on behalf of President Obama's mother, issued the following statement:

"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related."

Can someone clear this up, please? I would like to have the facts straight regarding the LDS doctrine and practice concerning baptisms for the dead.

What're you arguing this time, Rob, that church policy should never change?

P.S.: OK, I'm a glutton for punishment and I'll take the dangling, tempting, baited hook ... once ... but I'm not going to babysit the thread constantly to be on the lookout so I can go "tat" for every "***" ...

Joseph Smith's understanding of sealings was broader than we generally think of it today. (No, I don't have a reference; sue me.) Today, we generally think of sealings as a means of binding us to our families, whereas the broader understanding of sealings, which involved sealing nonfamily members to each other, encompassed sealing the entire human family together as children of God.

Partly in response to concerns expressed by descendants of Holocaust survivors (but partly to prevent duplication of effort and for other reasons, as well ... and no, I don't wish to discuss them at length), the church instituted a policy that temple work should only be done for one's relatives. I vaguely understand, three-hundred-and-forty-second-hand, that there are some technological advancements in the works (currently being Beta-tested, from my three-hundred-and-forty-second-hand understanding, that will facilitate this policy rather nicely) Personally, I think the broader understanding of sealings/temple work will be reinstituted at some point, probably during the Milennium, when few, if any, people will think it wise to argue with God.

And since I know you to be such an open, honest, sincere, guileless seeker after truth, Rob, I'm sure this explanation is more than sufficient, so it will be my first, last, and only post on the subject. Goodbye.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[Rob Bowman]

Kenngo,

You wrote:

What're you arguing this time, Rob, that church policy should never change?

I'm not "arguing" anything. I'm asking a question to which I honestly don't know the answer. Are you saying that what the EM said in 1992 was church policy then but is not now? That is, are you saying that in 1992 it was church policy for members to get baptized on behalf of dead people not related to them, but since then the LDS Church has altered its policy and no longer allows that?

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo,

You wrote:

I'm not "arguing" anything. I'm asking a question to which I honestly don't know the answer. Are you saying that what the EM said in 1992 was church policy then but is not now? That is, are you saying that in 1992 it was church policy for members to get baptized on behalf of dead people not related to them, but since then the LDS Church has altered its policy and no longer allows that?

I'm not going down the Rabbit Hole, Rob. Your favorite pastime might be arguing with Mormons about the equivalent of How Many Pins Can Dance on the Head of An Angel (yes, that juxtaposition is deliberate; I'm funny; I just like playing with words that way ) but arguing about such things isn't my favorite pastime.

Goodbye.

P.S.: And yes, policies change. That's not as troubling to us in our Open-Canon, Continuing-Revelation World as it apparently is to you in your Closed-Canon, If-It-Ain't-In-The-Bible-It-Ain't-Nothin' World, but, well, we all have our bears to cross!

P.P.S: Goodbye!

Edited August 3, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Y'know, I can't even remember the last time I agreed with Rob's conclusions about various aspects of the Restored Gospel, but I gotta say, the hostile suspicion he tends to receive on this board is often pretty unjustified. He merely asked a question. I don't know the answer to it, myself, or I'd answer it. But just because he disagrees with us so deeply is no reason to be as preemptively defensive as we often are. Let's keep this one civil, peeps.

[Rob Bowman]

Jeremy,

Thanks very much.

[volgadon]

I am confused by the following statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"In the early years of the Church, proxy baptisms were performed only for direct blood ancestors, usually no more than four generations back. Today, Latter-day Saints are baptized not only for their own forebears but also for other persons, unrelated to them, identified through the name extraction program" (emphasis added).

Everything else I have ever read seems to state clearly that a Mormon may be baptized only for his or her own forebears. For example, the LDS Church, in response to a recent controversy involving a Mormon being baptized on behalf of President Obama's mother, issued the following statement:

"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related."

Can someone clear this up, please? I would like to have the facts straight regarding the LDS doctrine and practice concerning baptisms for the dead.

People can submit only the names of their forebearers. You can be baptised on behalf of any name that is given to you, be it directly from the person submiting, as I and friends have done for names submitted by my future mother-in-law, or you can get a name that the temple has received.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I am confused by the following statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"In the early years of the Church, proxy baptisms were performed only for direct blood ancestors, usually no more than four generations back. Today, Latter-day Saints are baptized not only for their own forebears but also for other persons, unrelated to them, identified through the name extraction program" (emphasis added).

Everything else I have ever read seems to state clearly that a Mormon may be baptized only for his or her own forebears. For example, the LDS Church, in response to a recent controversy involving a Mormon being baptized on behalf of President Obama's mother, issued the following statement:

"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related."

Can someone clear this up, please? I would like to have the facts straight regarding the LDS doctrine and practice concerning baptisms for the dead.

The teaching comes from Paul. 1 Cor 29; the entire chapter explains the teaching in context. A person can only submit family. those called on missions to extract can submit anyone dead (I do believe there is a time limit on how long dead) if not a family member.

[Rob Bowman]

I see that Wikipedia seems to support the idea that there was a policy change:

"To be sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-Mormons that are not related to Church members, the Church in recent years has published a general policy of performing temple ordinances only for direct ancestors of Church members."

Unfortunately, it gives no reference to support the implication that the LDS Church policy actually changed.

I have checked three editions of Gospel Principles (1978, 1997, 2009), and all three explain the process of proxy baptism in the same way: a Mormon identifies his or her ancestors by name, determines which ancestors require proxy baptism, and makes sure the ordinances are performed for them (Gospel Principles, 2009 ed., 236). If the LDS descendant is not himself able to go to a temple to perform the ordinances for his ancestor, "the temple will arrange to have the ordinances performed by other Church members" (238). This seems to have been the only loophole with regard to Mormons getting baptized for ancestors: one Mormon can act as proxy for another Mormon in getting baptized (by proxy!) for that second Mormon's ancestor. Still, the point seems to be that the beneficiaries must be identified as blood ancestors of a specific Mormon, whereas the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in 1992 appears to indicate otherwise.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Duncan]

I think we should trace out our ancestors and as someone else has pointed out we can be baptized or endowed or sealed for whoever. I know that some members do the work for whoever and some won't or get permission from living relatives

[bluebell]

Volgadon is correct. You can only submit names that you are related to.

[Lachoneus]

The deceased persons for whom temple ordinances are performed are identified by two processes. One, individual members identify their own ancestors, submit that information for approval and then perform the necessary ordinances in the temple for those persons after approval. Two, members can also perform temple ordinances for persons not their direct ancestors when those persons are identified through the Church's name extraction program. Notice that the EM makes specific reference to the name extraction program.

[LeSellers]

I'm not going down the Rabbit Hole, Rob. Your favorite pastime might be arguing with Mormons about the equivalent of How Many Pins Can Dance on the Head of An Angel ... .

I think you got it wrong, ol' buddy, ol' pal.

It should be "How Many Pinheads Can Dance on an Angel", isn't it?

Lehi

[subgenius]

I am confused by the following statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"In the early years of the Church, proxy baptisms were performed only for direct blood ancestors, usually no more than four generations back. Today, Latter-day Saints are baptized not only for their own forebears but also for other persons, unrelated to them, identified through the name extraction program" (emphasis added).

Everything else I have ever read seems to state clearly that a Mormon may be baptized only for his or her own forebears. For example, the LDS Church, in response to a recent controversy involving a Mormon being baptized on behalf of President Obama's mother, issued the following statement:

"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related."

Can someone clear this up, please? I would like to have the facts straight regarding the LDS doctrine and practice concerning baptisms for the dead.

Obviously President Obama is not her only relative?

The policy is about "submission" of names, not who actual proxies for the ordinance. A non-relative may serve as proxy, but i understand that the name(s) is brought is by relative(s) only.

[LeSellers]

I see that Wikipedia seems to support the idea that there was a policy change:

"To be sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-Mormons that are not related to Church members, the Church in recent years has published a general policy of performing temple ordinances only for direct ancestors of Church members."

Wow!!! Wikipedia! Well, obviously, the question's settled!

I believe this is in reference to specific groups of people;, e.g., Jewish victims of the holocaust. Otherwise, as long as the person was born, aIr, more than 110 years ago, the his name can be submitted through proper channels for Temple work.

Unfortunately, it gives no reference to support the implication that the LDS Church policy actually changed.

Since you have a host of personal witnesses here testifying to the fact, why should that bother you?

There are thousands of peole who, like me, participate in the "Name Extraction" program. Why do you think that is the "Vault Complex" up Little Cottonwood Canyon. We have millions of rolls of microfilmed records from hundreds of thousands of sources (including bank records, wills and probate records, census data, and Catholic Parish and other churches' records) from around the world.

We are encouraged to take the names of people from among our own ancestors to the Temples for work, but, if, as in my case, the data is not available or the work has been accomplished (I have ancestors whose proxy work was done in the late XIX), there are billions of others who need this work done, and it is not their fault that they do not yet have Saints as descendants. They, too, are God's children and deserve the same chance as any of the rest of us to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lehi

[David T]

People can submit only the names of their forebearers. You can be baptised on behalf of any name that is given to you, be it directly from the person submiting, as I and friends have done for names submitted by my future mother-in-law, or you can get a name that the temple has received.

Volgadon is correct. You can only submit names that you are related to.

This is the answer, Rob. Church members are only authorized to submit family names, but once those names have been submitted, you are free to either perform them yourself, or release them to the Temple Department to be performed by any patron.

Baptisms are only performed for those whose names have been officially submitted. When you go through a proxy ordinance, a barcoded card is generated for the individual from the submitted records. If the person was not properly submitted into the system, a card cannot be generated.

Edited August 3, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

The policy is about "submission" of names, not who actual proxies for the ordinance. A non-relative may serve as proxy, but i understand that the name(s) is brought is by relative(s) only.

Except for the Name Extraction Program. (I really do not like that title, it seems to mean we are only interested in the name, when it is, in fact, the person who is baptized, etc.)

Individual Church members can submit the names of their ancestors, and others, as well, but only those people who are descendants can "control" (for want of a better word) the timing of the ordinances and who performs them (unless, clearly, the researcher simply passes the information along directly to the "Temple File").

We seem to be talking about two different things here: personal family history, and the Church's other processes, including Name Extraction.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[David T]

Except for the Name Extraction Program. (I really do not like that title, it seems to mean we are only interested in the name, when it is, in fact, the person who is baptized, etc.)

Individual Church members can submit the names of their ancestors, and others, as well, but only those people who are descendants can "control" (for want of a better word) the timing of the ordinances and who performs them (unless, clearly, the researcher simply passes the information along directly to the "Temple File").

We seem to be talking about two different things here: personal family history, and the Church's other processes, including Name Extraction.

Lehi

Current forms of Name Extraction, as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) , does not submit the names to the temple. It only presents them into a genealogical database. It is up to individuals to find the namesof their ancestors in the database, and specifically submit them to the Temple system, either through personal "Family File" cards (kept in the possession of the family members) , or to the "Temple File", which are distributed throughout all the temples, and can be picked up by anyone wishing to perform an ordinance that day, being previously submitted by an authorized person.

Edited August 3, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Scott Lloyd]

I am confused by the following statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"In the early years of the Church, proxy baptisms were performed only for direct blood ancestors, usually no more than four generations back. Today, Latter-day Saints are baptized not only for their own forebears but also for other persons, unrelated to them, identified through the name extraction program" (emphasis added).

Everything else I have ever read seems to state clearly that a Mormon may be baptized only for his or her own forebears. For example, the LDS Church, in response to a recent controversy involving a Mormon being baptized on behalf of President Obama's mother, issued the following statement:

"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related."

Can someone clear this up, please? I would like to have the facts straight regarding the LDS doctrine and practice concerning baptisms for the dead.

Your quotation is rather badly out of date. The name extraction program, as such, does not exist anymore. It has been replaced by on-line tools such as familysearch.org, which make it far easier than in the past for Church members to identify their deceased relatives who have not had ordinance work performed for them. There was a time when tools such as the name extraction program were needed to supply enough names to keep the temples functioning, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. In any event, it has long been the policy that Church members are only to submit names from their own ancestry for temple work, though after a name has been thus submitted, the work can be performed by a worthy temple-goer who is not necessarily related to the deceased person.

Whereas in times past, volunteers were recruited to extract names for temple ordinance work, these days volunteers participate in on-line indexing of microfilmed records, which is aimed at making it easier for everyone to research his or her own ancestry.

For authoritative information on the policies for submitting names for temple work, go here.

To volunteer to do on-line indexing, go here. (You don't have to be a member of the Church to participate.)

Here, from the Church's magazine, is an article about on-line indexing.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Y'know, I can't even remember the last time I agreed with Rob's conclusions about various aspects of the Restored Gospel, but I gotta say, the hostile suspicion he tends to receive on this board is often pretty unjustified. He merely asked a question. I don't know the answer to it, myself, or I'd answer it. But just because he disagrees with us so deeply is no reason to be as preemptively defensive as we often are. Let's keep this one civil, peeps.

Rob is what might be considered a career anti-Mormon and, as such, might expect to be disagreed with vigorously when coming to a board such as this. That said, it is my observation, for the most part, that Rob is treated civilly here.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Volgadon is correct. You can only submit names that you are related to.

If you believe the Genesis story we all are.

[subgenius]

If you believe the Genesis story we all are.

[kolipoki09]

People can submit only the names of their forebearers. You can be baptised on behalf of any name that is given to you, be it directly from the person submiting, as I and friends have done for names submitted by my future mother-in-law, or you can get a name that the temple has received.

I have it on high authority (whatever that's supposed to mean) that this is precisely what happened when Stanley Ann Dunham was baptized posthumously. Incidentally, her family didn't appear the least bit alarmed by it, and hasn't addressed the issue since it happened.

[Pixelmonster]

Quit attending the Temple after the last session turned out to be the 9th time the person I went through for had their work done. This well after assurances this was not happening, not with the computerized programs. Finding this AGAIN, after being assured it was fixed, (6th time I found it after starting to check on who I was going through for) has me convinced most Temple ork is 'busy work' and is nothing more than keeping people doing something - anything, to keep them involved. So, I spend the time I would otherwise go to the Temple volunteering at a local senior center and soup kitchen.

Have lurked here for some time but just recently signed on. Some interesting topics and some very different views at times. Overall, not too bad.

[CV75]

I am confused by the following statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"In the early years of the Church, proxy baptisms were performed only for direct blood ancestors, usually no more than four generations back. Today, Latter-day Saints are baptized not only for their own forebears but also for other persons, unrelated to them, identified through the name extraction program" (emphasis added).

Everything else I have ever read seems to state clearly that a Mormon may be baptized only for his or her own forebears. For example, the LDS Church, in response to a recent controversy involving a Mormon being baptized on behalf of President Obama's mother, issued the following statement:

"The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related."

Can someone clear this up, please? I would like to have the facts straight regarding the LDS doctrine and practice concerning baptisms for the dead.

The name extraction program creates an index of genealogical information available for anyone to use for research purposes.

LDS members can do family history research from this database and submit the names of deceased family members and ancestors for proxy temple ordinance work.

Once submitted to the temple, anyone with a temple recommend can perform the proxy work for these names/individuals.

This is consistent with the quote you provided in that proxy baptisms are currently performed for any person whose name has been submitted to the temple, and not necessarily (in fact, I would say rarely) by a direct descendant, even though only direct descendants can provide the names to the temple.

The temple name submission process is very different and separate from the extraction program, which simply builds the research database for anyone to use for many purposes in addition to the preparation of ancestors’ names by LDS members for submission to the temple for proxy ordinance work.

These are policies, not doctrines or practices, and compliance with and enforcement of policy is not 100%, though I know the Church has made improvements in its controls and instructions over time. I would be interested in knowing how often a case like Mrs. Obama arises, whether the frequency has dropped since controls have improved, and what happens to the record when a non-compliant submission resulted in proxy temple ordinances and someone complains about it. I remember a thread on this site not too long ago that discussed these issues.

Edited August 3, 2011 by CV75