Non confrontational question for any practicing Mormon (former mormons, please state so when posting)

[twopekinguys]

I have no idea whom the caller talked with, what was said, what was understood from what was said, what may have been misunderstood, and certainly a person answering the telephone is not necessarily in a position to know every answer to every question that may be brought up to them. The channel of asking questions is supposed to be that a member asks their bishop who may ask their stake president if it’s not in the General Handbook, and a non-member may ask a local bishop or may ask the mission president where they live. This way one goes through channels where these things can be looked up and answered using what has actually been approved and researched by someone who can take the time to do it.

I’ve seen this topic in writing, so it is not guess-work. It has been written up as a specific procedure to follow.

You know it is in writing somewhere, and I am assuming you don’t work at headquarters. Don’t you think that someone who is working in headquarters would have access to that information? That is just common sense.

If a person on this board who has never been mormon wanted to check this stuff out, exactly how would they know to go to a local bishop? They wouldn’t.

It would be easier to get through to SLC, and go from there.

I would hope that people working in the home office (so to speak) would be knowledgable about issues that involve thier department. If they aren’t, there should be a resource available to them to assit the inquiry, even if it means to have the person transferred to another department.

It would have been more appropriate to say something like, “I don’t have an answer for that, let me get you to someone who can answer it”, instead of going silent.

I can’t tell you how many calls I have had to transfer in my lifetime because a call landed in the wrong department.

Even a minimal amount of common sense would bring a person to that conclusion.

 

[vickimonica]

Vicki Monica,
I have no idea who may have led you to believe such a thing as you put in quotes here, but if one understands that free knowledgeable choice is a primary consideration, then it is obvious that when a person has chosen to have their name removed from the membership records and thus invalidate their baptism, that they made a knowledgeable choice about it so the only time a re-baptism is considered is when the name comes to the First Presidency for review of the individual situation. This would happen for a living person or for one who has died and whose descendants have decided to submit the name. The case would need to have demonstrable evidence that a re-baptism was warranted.

Just because the person in the Membership Department may not have been familiar with this kind of matter and did not want to speak about something they didn’t have first-hand knowledge about, doesn’t mean this topic isn’t covered in instructions–it is.

Parker,
As Anna said, she submitted a letter of resignation. Wouldn’t that be enough “proof” that she is no longer interested the the mormon religion, therefore, she does not wish to be baptised “by proxy”? Also, if an individual is working in the membership department, don’t you think that this person should be able to answer such questions. I realize that it may be a situation where the person did not know the answer to Anna’s ? at that time, but the right thing to do would have been to say something along the lines such as - “I’ve never had that question asked to me before, therefore, I can’t answer that at this time. Let me find out a definate answer and call you back w/ that info”. They didn’t. Sounds to me like they blew her off…

 

[vickimonica]

Don’t you think the headquarters would be the best place to have people that are capable of answering questions?

Even if the guy in the records department couldn’t answer the question, he should have known where to direct the caller for an answer don’t you think?

Also, if the person in the records department doesn’t know the ins and outs of your church’s teachings, why is he there?

Sorry, your logic is extremely flawed with this.

I agree 110%…

 

[vickimonica]

This is troubling to me on a few levels. If there is no need for a re-baptism of a former Mormon after they die, then why are the Mormons doing it upon request of family members? And, wouldn’t this save them a lot of their precious time on earth if they did not have to do what is not even necessary?
Please explain (hopefully Zerenius?)

I have Dianiaid on ignore.

That is too funny. I took it up w/ her today too…

 

[vickimonica]

Sorry, you did not make that claim, another poster did. I’ll try to find it. She said it wouldn’t matter, and that the person themselves could change their mind after death anyway I think…

Sorry, I made the claim. It is what I was told by a member of my ward (EX). Trust me, there are so MANY inconsistancies in the mormon religion, depending on who you ask, who answers your question. Parker, if you know the answer to Strawberry Jams ? – why don’t you just answer it…

 

[ParkerD]

You know it is in writing somewhere, and I am assuming you don’t work at headquarters. Don’t you think that someone who is working in headquarters would have access to that information? That is just common sense.

If a person on this board who has never been mormon wanted to check this stuff out, exactly how would they know to go to a local bishop? They wouldn’t.

It would be easier to get through to SLC, and go from there.

I would hope that people working in the home office (so to speak) would be knowledgable about issues that involve thier department. If they aren’t, there should be a resource available to them to assit the inquiry, even if it means to have the person transferred to another department.

It would have been more appropriate to say something like, “I don’t have an answer for that, let me get you to someone who can answer it”, instead of going silent.

I can’t tell you how many calls I have had to transfer in my lifetime because a call landed in the wrong department.

Even a minimal amount of common sense would bring a person to that conclusion.

Twopekinguys,
I certainly can understand why one would assume that to call “headquarters” is to find the best source for answers to questions, but the “headquarters” folks don’t have access to the General Handbook of instructions unless they also happen to be bishop or a stake president or other leader, and it is not as though there is an online resource for answering every question that may come up. A “customer service” person may have a specific area of responsibility, and may not know where such a question as that should be referred, particularly if the person was acting in a way that seemed impatient. We are talking about people, and people do imperfect kinds of things in this imperfect world.

As I had noted, a mission president would be a resource for a non-member who had a specific question about baptism for the dead especially as relates to a former member, and he could look it up in the General Handbook of instructions that is given to priesthood leaders.

 

[ParkerD]

Sorry, I made the claim. It is what I was told by a member of my ward (EX). Trust me, there are so MANY inconsistancies in the mormon religion, depending on who you ask, who answers your question. Parker, if you know the answer to Strawberry Jams ? – why don’t you just answer it…

I have seen several questions, if I have understood correctly.

A person who had their name removed from LDS church records would not be re-baptized nor should their name be submitted after their death for temple work except only to the First Presidency along with whatever documentation their office may require to be able to review the case on an individual basis.

The original question about baptism for the dead was answered by Zerinus and by Twopekinguys, if I remember correctly, and the points made were correct. A name can be looked up to see if baptism for the dead has been done for a specific person, but it would not be logical that the cases Strawberry Jam listed would ever have been done based on the rules in place.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Sorry, I made the claim. It is what I was told by a member of my ward (EX). Trust me, there are so MANY inconsistancies in the mormon religion, depending on who you ask, who answers your question. Parker, if you know the answer to Strawberry Jams ? – why don’t you just answer it…

Not a problem vickimonica, I am glad you posted. I can’t keep up with all the posts on this thread, I am the one who should be apologizing.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have seen several questions, if I have understood correctly.

A person who had their name removed from LDS church records would not be re-baptized nor should their name be submitted after their death for temple work except only to the First Presidency along with whatever documentation their office may require to be able to review the case on an individual basis.

The original question about baptism for the dead was answered by Zerinus and by Twopekinguys, if I remember correctly, and the points made were correct. A name can be looked up to see if baptism for the dead has been done for a specific person, but it would not be logical that the cases Strawberry Jam listed would ever have been done based on the rules in place.

Thank you Parker D,

I am sorry for the confusion here. The relative I was asking about died quite some time back. The rules would have been the same many years ago right?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m loosing my patience with some posters that are commenting on this thread, and it has come to my attention that some more commentary has been posted here that was sugar coating a slap in the face. I’m not able to pick up on these theological jabs at people that fast as an unbeliever- so I am going to make this very clear now that I am fed up with it. If this is any indication of what your belief system is all about, then I fear for you.

If it is in violation of your faith system, I fear for you.

So, since you know who you are- go away and don’t come back until you can examine your attitude please.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you Parker D,

I am sorry for the confusion here. The relative I was asking about died quite some time back. The rules would have been the same many years ago right?

Yes, the rules have been in place for many years. I will also private message to you for any help I can give.

Peace to all.

 

[TheosisM]

As ParkerD stated, the LDS Handbook of Instructions states this, on page 88, under the section “Temple Ordinances for the Dead”:

Persons Who Were Excommunicated or Had Their Names Removed from Church Records
*
First Presidency approval is required to perform temple ordinances for deceased persons who, at the time of their death, were excommunicated or had their names removed from Church membership records.*

 

[StrawberryJam]

As ParkerD stated, the LDS Handbook of Instructions states this, on page 88, under the section “Temple Ordinances for the Dead”:

Persons Who Were Excommunicated or Had Their Names Removed from Church Records
*
First Presidency approval is required to perform temple ordinances for deceased persons who, at the time of their death, were excommunicated or had their names removed from Church membership records.*

What if he is a liberal minded guy, who thinks everyone should have this?

It’s possible isn’t it?

 

[Anna_Scott]

As ParkerD stated, the LDS Handbook of Instructions states this, on page 88, under the section “Temple Ordinances for the Dead”:

Persons Who Were Excommunicated or Had Their Names Removed from Church Records
*
First Presidency approval is required to perform temple ordinances for deceased persons who, at the time of their death, were excommunicated or had their names removed from Church membership records.*

That means I basically have no control over whether or not any rites with be performed in my name/on my behalf after death. So, no assurances whatsoever.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

What if he is a liberal minded guy, who thinks everyone should have this?

It’s possible isn’t it?

Strawberry,

It seems you may never know if any of your family has been baptized by proxy. No one has that assurance, because the decisions belong to the living.

I’m sorry you have not found assurances regarding your family.

I do know exactly how you feel–the only difference being–they already have my name.
Anna

 

[StrawberryJam]

That means I basically have no control over whether or not any rites with be performed in my name/on my behalf after death. So, no assurances whatsoever.

Anna

That is how it appears to me also.

I have one question here, is it removing her free will to choose by doing this?

Her free will should be respected. Why would anyone try to interfere with a relationship the person chooses with God, based on mere hearsay of people who want to project their desires on someone? However “well meaning” they may be.

If a person is of sound mind, and can attest for themselves what they believe or reject- why would anyone take second, third or worse testimony of a person who objects while living? On what basis?

 

[zerinus]

Sorry, you did not make that claim, another poster did. I’ll try to find it. She said it wouldn’t matter, and that the person themselves could change their mind after death anyway I think…

She said what wouldn’t matter?

What if he is a liberal minded guy, who thinks everyone should have this?

It’s possible isn’t it?

What if who is a “liberal minded guy,” and everyone should have what?

That is how it appears to me also.

I have one question here, is it removing her free will to choose by doing this?

Her free will should be respected. Why would anyone try to interfere with a relationship the person chooses with God, based on mere hearsay of people who want to project their desires on someone? However “well meaning” they may be.

If a person is of sound mind, and can attest for themselves what they believe or reject- why would anyone take second, third or worse testimony of a person who objects while living? On what basis?

It is removing whose “freewill” to choose by doing what? Who is “interfering” in whose “relationship with God” by doing what? Who is taking whose “testimony” of whom on the basis of what? You are asking a lot of questions which I am not able to relate to what others have said. You need to think through your questions more carefully if you expect to receive clear answers to them.

 

[ParkerD]

That means I basically have no control over whether or not any rites with be performed in my name/on my behalf after death. So, no assurances whatsoever.

Anna

Anna,
There is not the slightest question in my mind that if your name were to be submitted by one of your descendants to the First Presidency for review of the case, it would be evident to them that there was not a special case where a re-baptism was warranted. If you’re that worried about it, then the office of the First Presidency has a mailing address in Salt Lake City, if the answer of no one else satisfies your worry and you need to hear it directly from someone in that office who is familiar with how such decisions are made (carefully, with a review of circumstances and evidence, I assure you).

Peace to you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
There is not the slightest question in my mind that if your name were to be submitted by one of your descendants to the First Presidency for review of the case, it would be evident to them that there was not a special case where a re-baptism was warranted. If you’re that worried about it, then the office of the First Presidency has a mailing address in Salt Lake City, if the answer of no one else satisfies your worry and you need to hear it directly from someone in that office who is familiar with how such decisions are made (carefully, with a review of circumstances and evidence, I assure you).

Peace to you.

Thank you for the information, Parker.

Anna

 

[kozlosap]

Anna,
There is not the slightest question in my mind that if your name were to be submitted by one of your descendants to the First Presidency for review of the case, it would be evident to them that there was not a special case where a re-baptism was warranted. If you’re that worried about it, then the office of the First Presidency has a mailing address in Salt Lake City, if the answer of no one else satisfies your worry and you need to hear it directly from someone in that office who is familiar with how such decisions are made (carefully, with a review of circumstances and evidence, I assure you).

Peace to you.

Parker - Thank you so much for your very detailed and thoughtful answers to questions about LDS theology and practices on these forums! I’m a newbie here and no matter if the answer is from someone from by background (Baptist as child, Catholic as adult) or from one of the forums regular LDS posters, I appreciate someone who takes the time to answer using scripture and research instead of just being trite (as I sometimes will tend to be) I am especially in awe of how you have tried to reassure Anna about the re-baptism.

Walk in peace and love with the Lord - April