Family History and Temple Work for Our Ancestors and Others

[nuclearfuels]

Merry Christmas, fam!

ISO: Church handbook version (as I can't find it in chapter 25: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/25-temple-and-family-history-work?lang=eng) which states: Doing Temple work for deceased people you are not related to is discouraged / bad / wrong / insensitive. Honestly it seems similar to the suggestion / recommendation / non-policy: Don't do Temple work back in time past 1400 or 1500 AD, as the records prior to that time aren't accurate. 

I get it - do your own ancestors' Temple work. Logical, spiritual, reasonable. 

At the same time:
1. We are all children of God (suggesting to me that we are all related). This is doctrine.

2. The Savior is our oldest brother and best friend, suggesting we are all related spiritually / premortally. This is doctrine.

3. How would I prove a direct relationship with descendants of the Magi or with Catholic saints who lived around 1000 AD? Knowing this isn't possible why would FamilySearch ask for such? They told me they follow the First Presidency's guidance. I agree we should do that - I'm just looking for that policy. More importantly, why would active faithful members I've known for decades say: Show me how I'm a direct descendant of he Magi or with Catholic saints who lived around 1000 AD? They also know such information is not available - even to what is termed "direct descendants."

4. The further we go back, the less reliable the records get. This is known. So why do some people and FamilySearch ask for proof of direct descendance? They know it's not there or there are multiple theories which are not verifiable (e.g. I had an ancestor who fought with Alexander the Great who married a woman of royalty in India; someone changed one of the generations or links somewhere several centuries back and the line now proceeds thru ancient Rome - how specifically would I prove one of those lines is more valid than another?)

What about those who passed away without kids? 

When we attend the Temple without our ancestors' names, we're doing other peoples' Temple work. I suppose that's fine as the names were submitted to the Temple?

TIA

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

.............

Doing Temple work for deceased people you are not related to is discouraged / bad / wrong / insensitive. Honestly it seems similar to the suggestion / recommendation / non-policy: ...............................

What about those who passed away without kids? 

When we attend the Temple without our ancestors' names, we're doing other peoples' Temple work. I suppose that's fine as the names were submitted to the Temple?

................

I have often done temple work for those whom I have known well, but who died without issue or LDS relatives.  I also did their genealogy for several generations back, just to place them in proper context.  I think they all appreciate it.

In the most recent case, I did the work for a couple I knew only when I was a child.  They were both such close friends of my mom & dad, and every Xmas they would mail us a homemade fruitcake no matter where we lived.  They were such dear friends.

In doing their genealogy, I found that they had only one child, who died, perhaps stillborn.  Perhaps that is why they doted on me and my siblings.

[the narrator]

From a faithful to the doctrine approach, just do immediate ancestors and wait for the Millennium to sort out and finish the rest. Better to treat the temple as a device for teaching and establishing relationships than as a conveyor belt for mass celestial production of possibly non-existent persons while causing unnecessary hurt along the way.

[nuclearfuels]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

causing unnecessary hurt

??
Also - the more Temple work we do now, the less we'll have to do in the Millenium - giving us more time to perfect the Saints and proclaim the gospel - to about 7 Billion people.

[the narrator]

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

??

Pain, anger, and bad feelings caused by performing proxy work for Holocaust victims, Hitler and similar monsters, and the feeling that proxy work may make a mockery of the very personal and deliberate choices the persons made in their own lives.

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Also - the more Temple work we do now, the less we'll have to do in the Millenium - giving us more time to perfect the Saints and proclaim the gospel - to about 7 Billion people.

Mere drops in a bucket–better to just wait and do it right rather than create ill will by treating them as mere names to throw into an assembly line of rituals to appease a supposedly stubbornly legalistic deity.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have often done temple work for those whom I have known well, but who died without issue or LDS relatives.  I also did their genealogy for several generations back, just to place them in proper context.  I think they all appreciate it.

In the most recent case, I did the work for a couple I knew only when I was a child.  They were both such close friends of my mom & dad, and every Xmas they would mail us a homemade fruitcake no matter where we lived.  They were such dear friends.

In doing their genealogy, I found that they had only one child, who died, perhaps stillborn.  Perhaps that is why they doted on me and my siblings.

The only time proxy work felt truly meaningful for me was when I sat in for my maternal grandfather (who I had only met once at a young age) being sealed to his parents. The push to extract names of people who seem to exist to patrons only as names so that ordinances can be rushed and oftenly thoughtlessly pushed through for the sake of merely checking them off seems (to me, at least) to make a mockery of those sacraments and presents God as a being primarily concerned with legalistically checking off boxes, and those rites become things to be checked off rather than divine tools to teach and establish relationships.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The only time proxy work felt truly meaningful for me was when I sat in for my maternal grandfather (who I had only met once at a young age) being sealed to his parents. The push to extract names of people who seem to exist to patrons only as names so that ordinances can be rushed and oftenly thoughtlessly pushed through for the sake of merely checking them off seems (to me, at least) to make a mockery of those sacraments and presents God as a being primarily concerned with legalistically checking off boxes, and those rites become things to be checked off rather than divine tools to teach and establish relationships.

I don’t think it would be a bad idea to treat temple and baptism rituals in the same way we do the sacrament.  Many people don’t know about rebaptisms.  Do we have information on why there was the move to ‘one and done’?

Edited December 13, 2024 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, the narrator said:

The only time proxy work felt truly meaningful for me was when I sat in for my maternal grandfather (who I had only met once at a young age) being sealed to his parents. The push to extract names of people who seem to exist to patrons only as names so that ordinances can be rushed and oftenly thoughtlessly pushed through for the sake of merely checking them off seems (to me, at least) to make a mockery of those sacraments and presents God as a being primarily concerned with legalistically checking off boxes, and those rites become things to be checked off rather than divine tools to teach and establish relationships.

I agree.

[manol]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t think it would be a bad idea to treat temple and baptism rituals in the same way we do the sacrament.  Many people don’t know about rebaptisms.  Do we have information on why there was the move to ‘one and done’?

I know little of the history of rebaptisms, but can envision the logistics of providing baptismal services for those who decided to be rebaptized becoming an unwieldy and inefficient use of time for an organization which consists entirely of volunteers, especially when an individual theoretically has the opportunity to accomplish the exact same re-newal when they partake of the sacrament. 

But maybe there is a way after all.  Maybe you could get yourself excommunicated for teaching that the Church lost its authority when it ceased doing rebaptisms... and then repent, and get re-baptized?? 

[OGHoosier]

23 minutes ago, manol said:

 

But maybe there is a way after all.  Maybe you could get yourself excommunicated for teaching that the Church lost its authority when it ceased doing rebaptisms... and then repent, and get re-baptized??