Lavina Fielding Anderson (of "September Six" fame) has re-joined the Church (vicariously)

[smac97]

From the Tribune: Writer excommunicated during LDS Church’s ‘September Six’ purge is ‘rebaptized’ — with a twist

Quote

Five years after top Latter-day Saint leaders refused to readmit excommunicated member Lavina Fielding Anderson to the fold, she finally got her wish.

The faith’s governing First Presidency now has granted Anderson, one of the famed “September Six,” a rebaptism and restoration of her temple “blessings” and membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No telling how it will affect her, though, because, well, she died a year ago.

Latter-day Saints believe in doing vicarious rituals for the dead, including for those who were no longer members when alive — but only with approval from the top.

“If persons either had their church membership withdrawn or had resigned membership before they died,” the General Handbook explains, “First Presidency approval is required before temple ordinances, including restoration of blessings when applicable, can be performed for them.”

A family member may seek this approval, the handbook instructs, “after one year has passed since the person’s death.”

My wife's great-great grandfather, John D. Lee, had his membership posthumously reinstated in 1961.  Such events are, to me, one of the more singular peculiarities of the Restored Gospel, in a good way.

Alas, it looks like this instance could have been handled better:

Quote

As the first anniversary of Anderson’s Oct. 29, 2023, death at age 79 approached, her son, Christian Anderson, wished to see her be rebaptized by a living participant.

“I, naturally, wanted to be involved in (or at least aware of) my own mother’s restored blessings,” he says. “So, on Oct. 29, I logged into FamilySearch.org [the church’s genealogical arm] to try to register to perform baptisms for the dead. There was a lock on the record, and I was told to contact their help desk. ... I filled out a brief form that included my FamilySearch ID and hers and a bit of contact information.”

Christian also added a brief note: “I would like to fulfill her wish to be rebaptized in a holy temple. I would like to emphasize that though she was excommunicated in 1993, she continued to attend her ward faithfully for nearly 30 years until prevented by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent declining health.”

Instead, the First Presidency authorized others to do the rituals, known as “ordinances,” without inviting him to be included in any way informing it was happening until eight days after it was a fait accompli.

“We are pleased to inform you,” a temple department director wrote to Christian, “that the following ordinances were completed under the direction of the First Presidency, in the Jordan River Utah Temple, on behalf of Sister Lavina Anderson:

• Readmission by baptism: November 12, 2024.

• Restoration of temple blessings: Nov. 12, 2024.”

(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) The baptistry in the Jordan River Temple.

The son received the letter, dated Nov. 19, in an email, notifying him that his mother’s long-sought restoration, including her temple sealing to her husband, Paul, were back in place. In addition, the previous restriction would be removed from her records.

“We are grateful for your diligent efforts,” the letter states, “in making temple blessings available for your deceased mother.”

Christian wanted to do it himself, he says ruefully, “but I’m going to take the win.”

Still, he holds “deeply ambivalent feelings about this.”

“On the one hand, the outcome is exactly what I think she would have wanted (the original ordinances are restored as if the last three decades were just one big misunderstanding),” Christian says. “On the other hand, I feel like I was denied the chance to be part of the reconciliation process, and somehow the restoration feels like something that happened to her (and, secondarily to me), just like the excommunication was something that happened to her.”

Hmm.  I wonder who was involved in the temple ordinances.  If not family members, who?  

Quote

In the decades since her ouster, Anderson consistently attended weekly services at her Latter-day Saint congregation, the Whittier Ward. She sat quietly in the same pew as the emblems of the sacrament, or Communion, passed by her more than a thousand times without being able to partake. She participated as much as she was able — playing the piano and singing in the choir — and watched as lay bishops came and went.

After her husband, Paul, died in 2018, their then-bishop asked if Anderson wanted to be rebaptized. She was open to it and to sharing her faith — and questions — with the stake (regional) high council, which read one of her recent essays.

Christian, too, spoke with the council about her case.

“Her sincere belief in Jesus and determination to follow him no matter the adversity faced within or without the church should be commended, and this good and faithful servant should be rewarded,” he argued. “She embodies, more than anyone else I know, the ideal of a ‘broken heart and contrite spirit,’ which has influenced me so strongly that I, the last time I checked, was one of only two of the 21 children of the ‘September Six’ who is still an active member.”

The regional council forwarded her request to church headquarters, with the recommendation that she be approved for rebaptism.

The First Presidency denied it.

“I was not surprised or angry about the outcome,” Lavina Anderson said at the time, and had no plans to try to open that door again.

“I have kept my covenants, remained close to the church and have felt that what I have done is accepted by the Lord,” the Salt Lake City editor and writer said. “If there is unfinished business, it’s the First Presidency’s, not mine.”

I admire this.

Quote

Anderson once wrote about the contrast “between the poetic Catholic excommunication rite of stilling a ringing bell, closing a book, and blowing out a candle,” her son notes, “and the sterile transaction of Mormon excommunication, where a stake councilor brings an envelope to you and wishes you a nice day.”

Similarly, Christian believes a restoration “should have some ritual of welcome back to the community, not an email a week after the fact,” he says. “For something that should be such an intimate part of her spiritual life, both feel curiously impersonal, ham-fisted and bureaucratic.”

I wonder who it was that performed the ordinances.

While I don't think we can fabricate an ordinance (the equivalent, I think, of a "Catholic {} rite"), some sort of commemoration would be feasible (though perhaps not a "ritual").

Quote

Since 1993, two of the September Six have been baptized (Gileadi and Hanks), two have not sought reconnection (Whitesides and Toscano) and one other, D. Michael Quinn, has died.

On the outside, though, Quinn remained a believer to the end.

Under Latter-day Saint theology, as Anderson and Quinn venture into the eternities, could the historian be the next one welcomed vicariously back into the tent?

I hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

It is odd that family was not contacted given that is required.  The only other thing I can think of was a friend got written permission to do it from Sister Andersen, but neglected to inform the family.  I hope the family can find out the why and it won’t be as dissatisfying as it must currently be.  It would likely have given them closure.  Now it is probably too abstract.

If someone went ahead who did not have permission, but was a friend (is it still an honor system?), I hope they get an apology.  If it was not a friend, not family and no permission given, I hope that person gets at least partially restricted from use of the Temple Ready system (have to prove they are family) and they not only apologize to the family, but someone from the Church does as well.  I get why the system doesn’t have tight controls on it, but I wish they would put a restriction on more recent deaths, at least within 10 years, where documentation of someone near and dear giving permission was required.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Under Latter-day Saint theology, as Anderson and Quinn venture into the eternities, could the historian be the next one welcomed vicariously back into the tent?"

I hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yep.  There is no limit to God's grace, although impossible obstacles are imagined.  We have a whole millennium to get the entire job done.

[manol]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no limit to God's grace, although impossible obstacles are imagined.

Agreed.

God as more winning moves available than we could possibly imagine.  Imo there is nothing to fear; there is only service to be done. 

[ksfisher]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Restoration of temple blessings: Nov. 12, 2024.”

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

If someone went ahead who did not have permission,

I think the key to understanding here is the restoration of blessings part, which, I believe can only be done by a member of the quorum of the 12 under the direction of the First Presidency.  As the baptism took place on the same day I would imagine that this also took place under the direction of the First Presidency.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

I think the key to understanding here is the restoration of blessings part, which, I believe can only be done by a member of the quorum of the 12 under the direction of the First Presidency.  As the baptism took place on the same day I would imagine that this also took place under the direction of the First Presidency.

For some reason that part had not sunk in even though right at the beginning.  Thank you for reminding me.  I was thinking of it as the usual proxy baptism. My brain obviously was half asleep as I should have registered that. This is even odder because it says it has to be a family member who requested it, so perhaps one did and didn’t tell the others, perhaps because of concern it wouldn’t be granted?  But if so, why wouldn’t they say something?  I can’t imagine the son going to the news without having checked with family to see what was going on.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Wait a second, I think I misread it the first time through….he didn’t go on FamilySearch and found it locked and then found out someone had already done the work, he requested the rebaptism and they didn’t tell him it had been approved and went ahead and had it performed by a non family member and then notified him it was done?

Quote

Christian also added a brief note: “I would like to fulfill her wish to be rebaptized in a holy temple. I would like to emphasize that though she was excommunicated in 1993, she continued to attend her ward faithfully for nearly 30 years until prevented by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent declining health.”

Instead, the First Presidency authorized others to do the rituals, known as “ordinances,” without inviting him to be included in any way or informing him it was happening until eight days after it was a fait accompli.

 

Someone might have misread it thinking he was just requesting it be done, rather than requesting the opportunity to do it.  
 

Quote

Christian wanted to do it himself, he says ruefully, “but I’m going to take the win.”

If so, it would be nice for an explanation.  Perhaps they assumed he knew an apostle had to do the restoration (assuming ksfisher is correct here) and since he didn’t request to be there and couldn’t be the proxy, they didn’t contact him until it was done.  I wonder if he attempted to get an explanation as to why it was done without allowing him the opportunity to participate in some way.

@ksfisher….do you know if an apostle has to be the one who does the blessing or do they oversee it in some way?

If an apostle has to do the blessing itself, that could take a major chunk of time given the number of people who have been excommunicated or asked their name to be removed who still have family members in the Church who would likely want their blessings restored.  It would be difficult to arrange for family members to be involved, I would guess.  Really slow things down. 

Edited November 22, 2024 by Calm

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

do you know if an apostle has to be the one who does the blessing or do they oversee it in some way?

Unless this has changed in the past few years for living individuals it has been an apostle who personally performs the blessing. 

I’m not aware of the process for a deceased individual, but I would say that the same authority is necessary for restoring the blessings of a deceased individual as is necessary for a living one.  

[smac97]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Unless this has changed in the past few years for living individuals it has been an apostle who personally performs the blessing. 

I’m not aware of the process for a deceased individual, but I would say that the same authority is necessary for restoring the blessings of a deceased individual as is necessary for a living one.  

Is the "restoration of temple blessings" done through a proxy?  An endowment session?

Her son could not have been her proxy anyway, I suppose.  

[ksfisher]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is the "restoration of temple blessings" done through a proxy?  An endowment session?

Her son could not have been her proxy anyway, I suppose.  

For a living individual the person would meet with the apostle and the apostle would perform the blessing.  No particular location required. 
 

I don’t know what the procedure would be for the deceased.  I don’t even know if a proxy would be required at all. 

[Dario_M]

But we are talking about the 60s. The year 1961. Are you still busy with those matters...that happend  65 years ago in your family history? I myself don't care what have happend in my family history for so long into the past. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

For a living individual the person would meet with the apostle and the apostle would perform the blessing.  No particular location required. 
 

I don’t know what the procedure would be for the deceased.  I don’t even know if a proxy would be required at all. 

It is interesting that someone excomunicated needs to be baptized again, but their temple ordinances don't need to be done again. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Is the "restoration of temple blessings" done through a proxy?  An endowment session?

Her son could not have been her proxy anyway, I suppose.  

The First Presidency contacts the local temple president and says that the ordinance is to be done and how and all that and so in this case it seems like a matter of courtesy. The First Presidency or Temple President could have informed the son that it was happening and when or the son could pick a day. If the son wanted a female friend to act as proxy and he could have at least been in the room when it happened

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

But we are talking about the 60s. The year 1961. Are you still busy with those matters...that happend  65 years ago in your family history? I myself don't care what have happend in my family history for so long into the past. 

You may have missed something when you were reading.  It may be help you if you go back and read the things smac quoted from the article to get a better understanding of why this was important to the family member: 

 

[Dario_M]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The First Presidency contacts the local temple president and says that the ordinance is to be done and how and all that and so in this case it seems like a matter of courtesy. The First Presidency or Temple President could have informed the son that it was happening and when or the son could pick a day. If the son wanted a female friend to act as proxy and he could have at least been in the room when it happened

I don't think it works that way. Besides...this matter has past so long ago that i am afrait the the regular LDS church handbook doesn't know how to handle in these complicated situations. Smac need to ask a real bishop about this delicate casus i'm afrait. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I don't think it works that way. Besides...this matter has past so long ago that i am afrait the the regular LDS church handbook doesn't know how to handle in these complicated situations. Smac need to ask a real bishop about this delicate casus i'm afrait. 

I think you are mistaken.  Please reread the article again as you appear to have missed some important details.

[Duncan]

26 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I don't think it works that way. Besides...this matter has past so long ago that i am afrait the the regular LDS church handbook doesn't know how to handle in these complicated situations. Smac need to ask a real bishop about this delicate casus i'm afrait. 

Someone else died in 1961 and so we aren't talking about them. The sister in question, if you read the article, only died a year ago (2023). The Bishop has absolutely nothing to do with reinstatement of someone's membership via temple proxy-that's why it's bumped up to the First Presidency and local Temple President, they have the keys and not the Bishop

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I don't think it works that way.

Why don’t you think it works this way, Dario?  Did someone explain it differently to you and if so, how do you know he is familiar with the procedure?  (Not challenging, just curious as most new members would likely not be very familiar with the restoration of blessings process.)

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

The First Presidency contacts the local temple president and says that the ordinance is to be done and how and all that and so in this case it seems like a matter of courtesy. The First Presidency or Temple President could have informed the son that it was happening and when or the son could pick a day. If the son wanted a female friend to act as proxy and he could have at least been in the room when it happened

I think there is more going on in this situation than the one article in the Salt Lake Tribune has covered. 

[Dario_M]

59 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think there is more going on in this situation than the one article in the Salt Lake Tribune has covered. 

⬆️

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why don’t you think it works this way, Dario?  Did someone explain it differently to you and if so, how do you know he is familiar with the procedure?  (Not challenging, just curious as most new members would likely not be very familiar with the restoration of blessings process.)

Yeah i always go to the second hour class on sunday. After the first hour on the church service we always have the next hour class, where i learn a lot from. 

Edited November 22, 2024 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Someone else died in 1961 and so we aren't talking about them. The sister in question, if you read the article, only died a year ago (2023). The Bishop has absolutely nothing to do with reinstatement of someone's membership via temple proxy-that's why it's bumped up to the First Presidency and local Temple President, they have the keys and not the Bishop

I get that. But there is just more going on then only that one article from Salt Lake City. I'm sure that a bishop can give more specific advice about these kind of matters. So i encourage Smac to go to his local bishop and ask for further information. 

Edited November 22, 2024 by Dario_M