Specifically what do you say when asking people if you can do proxy Temple work for thier relative?

[nuclearfuels]

I really have no idea what to say other than: May I present your loved one's name in the Temple?

This seems like I'm asking if I can pray for their loved one but Temple work is more than praying.

Also - most of the time when people have told me yes, they do it via text or email or social media, not via signed document I can upload to familysearch; you?

[pogi]

I’d go Bill and Ted on them.

Your dead dudes and historical babes need some work done to help them out of a bogus journey.  I’m totally willing to help them along on a most excellent adventure if you’ll let me.  It will be most triumphant!

Edited August 3, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

The church has a video on baptism for the dead you could include with requests.  Probably other temple work as well.  The video explains proxy well and having a choice according to a nonLDS Christian pastor who is exploring church materials and talking to members as well to learn more.

The pastor’s video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8dG8lXmps0&list=UUp7-cFBse_-lN03U0QvMZyw&index=2

If not a signed document, copies of emails or printed off screenshots in case your phone dies to show a paper trail seems appropriate.  You may not be able to prove they were not forgeries, does the Church require signed for that reason?  If not, then go with the above.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I’d go Bill and Ted on them.

Your dead dudes and historical babes need some work done to help them out of a bogus journey.  I’m totally willing to help them along on a most excellent adventure if you’ll let me.  It will be most triumphant!

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I really have no idea what to say other than: May I present your loved one's name in the Temple?

This seems like I'm asking if I can pray for their loved one but Temple work is more than praying.

Also - most of the time when people have told me yes, they do it via text or email or social media, not via signed document I can upload to familysearch; you?

Many people think that allowing temple work is like some voodoo attempt to steal the spirits of their ancestors to enroll them in some satanic cult.  No kidding.

They could end up seeing the church and YOU personally in a very negative way.  There are denominations that won't even use our family history libraries because they don't want us to "steal" their dead.

[Pyreaux]

Wasn't it policy to only do your own ancestors? Too prevent overzealous (or subversive) members from submitting Jewish holocaust victims and such. Or is it merely the caveat for Jewish holocaust victims specifically that you'd need to be a descendant?

[The Nehor]

This is a situation that requires tact and sensitivity:

“Your ancestors are burning in hell right now. I would like to help them get out. You okay with that?”

”Why are they burning in hell?”

”Look how you turned out. They must have done something wrong.”

[Bernard Gui]

In my mission, there was a rumor among non-members that if the missionaries took your picture they would baptize it and make you a Mormon. 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In my mission, there was a rumor among non-members that if the missionaries took your picture they would baptize it and make you a Mormon. 

Well, don't keep us in suspense, Hermano!  Tell us how many converts were brought into the fold via that innovative method!  

[Orthodox Christian]

May I ask, what if a deceased persons relatives who are not LDS object to their relatives being put forth for this rite? Say, the candidate was a staunch Catholic, or Jew, or any other religion or creed. Or atheist for that matter. Could their living relatives who object have any influence over whether the Rite for the dead goes ahead, or could they stop it? Could they take the church to court?

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Could their living relatives who object have any influence over whether the Rite for the dead goes ahead, or could they stop it?

Quote

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-the-110-year-policy-and-why-was-it-initiated

What is the 110-year policy, and why was it initiated?

Article Id: 117

April 26, 2022

You must obtain permission from a close living relative before performing temple ordinances for someone who was born within the last 110 years.

This First Presidency temple policy has existed for many years. The policy has two purposes: first, to avoid offending living relatives who do not want temple ordinances performed. Second, to encourage temple work to be performed by Church members who knew and associated with the deceased individual.

Who is a close living relative?

A close living relative is an undivorced spouse (the spouse to whom the individual was married when he or she died), an adult child, a parent, or a sibling.

Why is this policy important?

Members who start working on their family history are often upset when they discover that a parent, a child, or a close relative has had temple work done by a stranger. The 110-year policy encourages members to perform temple work for their own close relatives.

Ignoring the wishes of the closest living relative can result in bad feelings toward you and the Church. It is important to be considerate of others' feelings and to give family members the opportunity to perform temple service for their close relatives. Please abide by this policy.

 

There are service missionaries whose assignment/role is to go through and verify that these approvals have been sought. See https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/428951/#Comment_428951 for an expanded explanation of the process.

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Could they take the church to court?

They could go to the local news, but I doubt any court in countries with any kind of government-staying-out-of-religion laws would touch it.

Edited August 7, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Orthodox Christian]

48 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

There are service missionaries whose assignment/role is to go through and verify that these approvals have been sought. See https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/428951/#Comment_428951 for an expanded explanation of the process.

They could go to the local news, but I doubt any court in countries with any kind of government-staying-out-of-religion laws would touch it.

Thank you. It seems to me that confining it to such close family is a little restrictive. For example I have a great aunt who was a Roman Catholic Nun. I would be concerned if I found that she had had this rite performed for her on the grounds that she was obviously a staunch and devoted Catholic. Can you see my point. I am obviously not a close relative as described, but would still be concerned.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

May I ask, what if a deceased persons relatives who are not LDS object to their relatives being put forth for this rite? Say, the candidate was a staunch Catholic, or Jew, or any other religion or creed. Or atheist for that matter. Could their living relatives who object have any influence over whether the Rite for the dead goes ahead, or could they stop it? Could they take the church to court?

They can just deny a request to do the work unless the individual has been dead more than 110 years.  After that, we would be free to do the work

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Thank you. It seems to me that confining it to such close family is a little restrictive. For example I have a great aunt who was a Roman Catholic Nun. I would be concerned if I found that she had had this rite performed for her on the grounds that she was obviously a staunch and devoted Catholic. Can you see my point. I am obviously not a close relative as described, but would still be concerned.

Do you think God would allow someone dead to be "forced to be Mormon" or any other religion--against their will? 

I am not worried that some voodoo priest will be able to do that, and you should not be worried about it either.

Think about it.  That would mean that our rituals are more powerful than the rituals which made her Catholic!!   If you believe that, you should be LDS yourself since we then must be the True Church, if we can overcome Catholic rituals.

IF that is the case, there is not much you can do about it, if God allows it!!

[JAHS]

On 8/3/2022 at 3:38 PM, nuclearfuels said:

I really have no idea what to say other than: May I present your loved one's name in the Temple?

This seems like I'm asking if I can pray for their loved one but Temple work is more than praying.

Also - most of the time when people have told me yes, they do it via text or email or social media, not via signed document I can upload to familysearch; you?

I wouldn't ask them in the first place. I stick to my own ancestors. There are some that I have reserved to do temple work but haven't done it yet and I get a message from someone else in Family Search, who is also related, asking if they could take the name instead. I usually release it and tell them to go for it.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

. I would be concerned if I found that she had had this rite performed for her on the grounds that she was obviously a staunch and devoted Catholic.

While it is no doubt distasteful to those who see it as a betrayal of who the person is, I am curious if you perceive much difference in baptizing an infant without knowing what type of person or preferences that child will have as an adult.  Is there not a risk that later in life they will hate the fact they were baptized as an infant and therefore are always viewed as Catholic by the Church in some fundamental way? (Am I misunderstanding what infant baptism is here, please correct me if I have?)  What is your view on that? And how does the Church (RCC) respond to that when challenged?

And of course, with temple proxy baptism there is no automatic or mandatory baptism of the actual person as the rite is void in our view if rejected.  They do not become a member of the Church of the Firstborn if they do not desire it.  It is as if the baptism never took place (save the people doing it are blessed for their faith).  We think of it as simply a gift that can be rejected if not acceptable.  There is no irresistible change that occurs with a rejected proxy baptism.

From my point of view of respecting the individual’s choices in their life….

As a staunch Roman Catholic nun, I assume she desired to seek and serve God in the most devout way available to her and she saw that as the life of a nun.  Was her life choice more about being a nun than about seeking and serving God?  I assume it was her devotion to God that motivated her deepest, even if highly committed to the life of service of a nun.  If she was given a gift by God in love, I assume she would in love and devotion accept it.  I understand others see in our desire to give an opportunity for baptism to all who want one an arrogance that we are right, but isn’t it at its core the same faith in God’s love that leads parents and others to baptize infants?  We have faith baptism is a commandment and seek to give all an opportunity to accept and reject it.  Is the Catholic view of baptism different?  Would Catholics not desire that all who want it to have the ability to receive it?  Is this not what the belief in a Baptism of Desire is?  Serious question…it seems to me Catholics believe close to the same thing, they just see an individual who would have accepted a baptism if given a chance and God accepting the individual after death as if the rite was performed while we see the person being given the chance to have the rite performed for them even after death by God through his commandment to baptize the dead.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

While it is no doubt distasteful to those who see it as a betrayal of who the person is, I am curious if you perceive much difference in baptizing an infant without knowing what type of person or preferences that child will have as an adult.  Is there not a risk that later in life they will hate the fact they were baptized as an infant and therefore are always viewed as Catholic by the Church in some fundamental way? (Am I misunderstanding what infant baptism is here, please correct me if I have?)  What is your view on that? And how does the Church (RCC) respond to that when challenged?

And of course, with temple proxy baptism there is no automatic or mandatory baptism of the actual person as the rite is void in our view if rejected.  They do not become a member of the Church of the Firstborn if they do not desire it.  It is as if the baptism never took place (save the people doing it are blessed for their faith).  We think of it as simply a gift that can be rejected if not acceptable.  There is no irresistible change that occurs with a rejected proxy baptism.

From my point of view of respecting the individual’s choices in their life….

As a staunch Roman Catholic nun, I assume she desired to seek and serve God in the most devout way available to her and she saw that as the life of a nun.  Was her life choice more about being a nun than about seeking and serving God?  I assume it was her devotion to God that motivated her deepest, even if highly committed to the life of service of a nun.  If she was given a gift by God in love, I assume she would in love and devotion accept it.  I understand others see in our desire to give an opportunity for baptism to all who want one an arrogance that we are right, but isn’t it at its core the same faith in God’s love that leads parents and others to baptize infants?  We have faith baptism is a commandment and seek to give all an opportunity to accept and reject it.  Is the Catholic view of baptism different?  Would Catholics not desire that all who want it to have the ability to receive it?  Is this not what the belief in a Baptism of Desire is?  Serious question…it seems to me Catholics believe close to the same thing, they just see an individual who would have accepted a baptism if given a chance and God accepting the individual after death as if the rite was performed while we see the person being given the chance to have the rite performed for them even after death by God through his commandment to baptize the dead.

One must also realize that the Catholic position has softened considerably over even the last hundred years; in Augustine's day, if a child was unbaptized she/he went straight to hell upon death. Later the idea was that they went to Purgatory, a state kind of like our spirit prison, but with no possibility to get into heaven. I personally was taught that in the 1950's in Catholic school.

Baptism of desire was not taught then, iirc.  Even as it is, that position never made sense.

Who would knowingly pick PURGATORY over heaven, by refusing baptism by desire???

Essentially then universal salvation would have become the pragmatic reality.

Except for me of course.

I have been told by Catholics that I will go straight to hell by rejecting Catholicism.

But I still know the Act of Contrition which will make me Catholic again if I say it at death's door. 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who would knowingly pick PURGATORY over heaven, by refusing baptism by desire

I don’t think it is a case of it being offered to anyone who died or simply a case of pure desire, what they want like wanting chocolate cake instead of carrot (using simple things not to trivialize, but simplify hopefully).  From what I am reading one needs to be in a state of Grace when one has died, iow they would have accepted baptism is they had been presented with the opportunity to be baptized before death (the typical example appears to be those who die as catechumens who were in the process of preparing to be baptized).  This is quite different than simply looking at heaven and purgatory and deciding one prefers heaven as a nicer place to exist for the rest of eternity.

This appears to be a pretty clear explanation and seems reasonable to me. I believe he is pretty mainstream Catholic, though obviously not the Vatican.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/baptism-of-desire

what the Vatican does say:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM
 

“1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Someone who is eligible for the Baptism of Desire must have had a life (for how much of their life it doesn’t say, but my guess is it is the intent that matters; if deeply sincere and not just parroting high sounding words, etc, perhaps even less than an hour counts, it is likely the conversion of the heart and mind being thought of here) of seeking truth and doing their best to do the will of God before their death it seems from the above.

As always Catholics should correct any misstatements I make, I am not presuming to talk for them here, just sharing how I understand their doctrine. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Calm

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/3/2022 at 9:51 PM, mfbukowski said:

allowing temple work is like some voodoo attempt to steal the spirits of their ancestors to enroll them in some satanic cult.

If you're saying this isn't the case, I'll need to speak w/ my bishop

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

If you're saying this isn't the case, I'll need to speak w/ my bishop

Yes, I think you should.

You owe him a letter anyway.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/8/2022 at 1:09 PM, Calm said:

I don’t think it is a case of it being offered to anyone who died or simply a case of pure desire, what they want like wanting chocolate cake instead of carrot (using simple things not to trivialize, but simplify hopefully).  From what I am reading one needs to be in a state of Grace when one has died, iow they would have accepted baptism is they had been presented with the opportunity to be baptized before death (the typical example appears to be those who die as catechumens who were in the process of preparing to be baptized).  This is quite different than simply looking at heaven and purgatory and deciding one prefers heaven as a nicer place to exist for the rest of eternity.

This appears to be a pretty clear explanation and seems reasonable to me. I believe he is pretty mainstream Catholic, though obviously not the Vatican.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/baptism-of-desire

what the Vatican does say:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM
 

“1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Someone who is eligible for the Baptism of Desire must have had a life (for how much of their life it doesn’t say, but my guess is it is the intent that matters; if deeply sincere and not just parroting high sounding words, etc, perhaps even less than an hour counts, it is likely the conversion of the heart and mind being thought of here) of seeking truth and doing their best to do the will of God before their death it seems from the above.

As always Catholics should correct any misstatements I make, I am not presuming to talk for them here, just sharing how I understand their doctrine. 

Pragmatically that is the same as our belief, and not what I was taught in the 1950's. Your version essentially is "every knee shall bow," etc.

And without confession and absolution, virtually no adults would be in a "state of grace". Calling @MiserereNobis!

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/grace-state#:~:text=The phrase "state of grace,destroyed by willful mortal sin.

Edited August 10, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

The baptism of desire applies to catechumens who die before they are baptized. In this current moment, they desire baptism, but they die before they can receive it. This has been taught since the early church and is connected to baptism by blood, where an unbaptized person is martyred before they receive baptism.

Baptism of desire is not being shown heaven, purgatory, and hell and then asking which of these would you desire.

For those who have never heard of Christianity, we leave it in God's hands and say nothing is impossible with God. We are bound by God's sacraments, but God is not bound by them.

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The baptism of desire applies to catechumens who die before they are baptized. In this current moment, they desire baptism, but they die before they can receive it. This has been taught since the early church and is connected to baptism by blood, where an unbaptized person is martyred before they receive baptism.

Baptism of desire is not being shown heaven, purgatory, and hell and then asking which of these would you desire.

For those who have never heard of Christianity, we leave it in God's hands and say nothing is impossible with God. We are bound by God's sacraments, but God is not bound by them.

Thanks.

I was just not sure how one would "desire" baptism if one had never heard of the consequences, or not believed the doctrine because they did not know the consequences; I hope that was not taken as disrespectful.

It seemed to me that one would not desire baptism unless one WAS already a "catechumen," (one studying to be baptized) thus making either the ordinance OR doctrine ineffectual.  

Since in an emergency any person can baptize, if done correctly, baptism of desire for only people already desiring baptism seems redundant.

Surely God judges us on intent.

I have never understood how this works, I guess.

Edited August 10, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.

I was just not sure how one would "desire" baptism if one had never heard of the consequences, or not believed the doctrine because they did not know the consequences; I hope that was not taken as disrespectful.

It seemed to me that one would not desire baptism unless one WAS already a "catechumen," (one studying to be baptized) thus making either the ordinance OR doctrine ineffectual.  

Since in an emergency any person can baptize, if done correctly, baptism of desire for only people already desiring baptism seems redundant.

Surely God judges us on intent.

I have never understood how this works, I guess.

I try not to get too legalistic with this. It's like the same with unbaptized children. I just go back to the Church's teaching that we are bound by the sacraments but God is not. I trust in His perfect justice and mercy.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I try not to get too legalistic with this. It's like the same with unbaptized children. I just go back to the Church's teaching that we are bound by the sacraments but God is not. I trust in His perfect justice and mercy.

I get it and it works for me, but I am stuck on having consistent paradigms even if they are a little crazy!  I am fine even with "well we don't pretend to know all of God's ways" but when I perceive what seems like a contradiction in a central paradigm,  as if someone thoughtit through and came up with an answer that just seems to me to make more questions,it tends to bug me until I either just let the question go or make up my own resolution if I want to keep the rest of the paradigm.

Got a bit of OCD I suspect! 

Thanks for responding.