DiscussMormonism.com

One half of my family (on my mothers side) are mostly Mormon.
The other half (my fathers side) are not.

My uncle has done some Genealogy work and has quite a few names ready for temple work to be done for them - going back on the side of the family that isn't Mormon (He converted to Mormonism). He has asked the non-Mormon side of the family if they are OK with the work going ahead for them. (Mainly his brothers and sisters who didn't convert).

Some of them have said flat out 'no'. Most of them are unsure about it.
They hear about 'rituals' in the 'temple' (for the dead no less!), and they really don't know what to think. My uncle has tried to explain the basics of it, and get across the concept that it forces nothing on the 'deceased'. It doesn't seem to have worked. (Thus far).

My uncle wants to respect the families overall wishes. But he also has a genuine desire to do the work for them.

I'd like to see what people think about this kind of situation.
NOTE: I have started this in the Celestial room specifically to avoid cheap slams from either side.
I'd like to discuss this sensibly and rationally. The concerns of both sides of my family are important to me...

I think the way your brother did it is fine. Now he should honor the wishes of family member for relatives that are dircet to that family member. By that I mean child, spouse or parent perhaps unless it is his parent.

FOr example, my wife is the only member in her family. A few years ago her SIL died. So she asked her brother how he would feel if she did temple work for her. Of course she explained the idea behind it and what it was. He said he would be be happy if she would. He is not really religious but is deceased wife was though not to any particular denomination. Had he said no of course my wife would not have done it.

Now for work she does for say long deceased relatives on the family line from hundreds of years back she just does it and does not ask the rest of the family. She figures she is as close to those ancestors and anyone since the rest of the family really does nothing by way of genealogy anyway so no need for input there.

Thanks for the reply Jason.

Jason Bourne wrote:I think the way your brother did it is fine.

Just to avoid confusion as we go on, it's my uncle I'm referring to.

Now he should honor the wishes of family member for relatives that are dircet to that family member. By that I mean child, spouse or parent perhaps unless it is his parent.

Ahh - that last bit is interesting. Lets take my grandmother as an example. i.e. my Dad and my uncle's mother. She was a Christian. (In fact I remember my 'Mormon' grandmother and her meeting up a few times and well - not so much arguing - but definitely making it known that they had different opinions on things..!) She died about 10 years ago now or so. Gotta be honest, I'm not sure whether her work has been done, or whether she is included in my uncle's request.
But are you saying that even if every single other child of hers (on that side, I have 4 uncles and 2 aunts) said they didn't want my grandmothers work to be done, that my uncle shouldn't feel it 'wrong' to still go ahead and do her work anyway? Would it make a difference if it's stated that she had heard quite a bit about Mormonism from plenty of contact and interaction with the other side of the family, but didn't accept it's doctrines?

Also, are these rules you've gleaned from any kind of 'official' sources? Or are these just the rules you personally feel are 'appropriate'?
Hopefully it's understood that none of the above is to get into a debate - I have no particular opinion on this. At least at the moment, which is why I want to hear different opinions. Just wanting to understand your viewpoint.


One thing that intrigues me about this is that - in my opinion - the problem has been made worse by the fact that my uncle asked in the first place. I don't think the temple ceremonies mean anything. As far as I'm concerned their harmless. So if my uncle had just gone ahead and done the work, no harm no foul.
Of course, I understand it could be considered right to ask the family - that makes total sense and I respect that. But now that he's asked and they've (pretty much - right now at least) said 'no', then if he goes ahead and does it anyway it will make a lie of the idea that he was 'really' asking in the first place.

I believe he was asking my family's permission far back enough that what you said about not needing to ask would come into play. But I think he went ahead and asked anyway And now that he's asked, I think he's placed himself in a bit of a wierd situation...

I was very much moved by an older couple we met while knocking on doors many years ago. She didn't speak the native language well and was having trouble getting rid of us. Her husband comes to the door, both of them visibly shaken. He rolls up his sleeve and puts it in our faces, " do you know what this is?" "have you seen before?". He holds up his wife's arm as well. It was just a tattoo with numbers. I thought, how strange.. what is so significant about a simple tattoo?..

Then he said, "we are from Auschwitz.. we are Jews.. we cannot change..please go away.."

It was quite a moving experience for us 19 year olds. But still, at the time, we felt very sorry for them that a little tatoo was what came between them and their salvation.

How woefully ignorant and insensitive I was. I just did not understand.

To gather names of the deceased and record them as potential members of a highly controvercial religeon is to mock their respective culture and legacys. I predict a time when proxy temple work will cease. I think the doctrine will be modified to reflect the outcome of insuing lawsuits. I imagine the new line will be that "the work will resume when Jesus returns for that 1000 years of peace". I see the temples becoming empty facades - examples of mismanaged funds allocation.

I believe your uncle is showing some sensitivity and is truly struggling within.

After my husband's death, his sisters went ahead and had his paperwork done and submitted it for baptism. They said nothing to me--I didn't know anything about it other than just having this hinky feeling. I am sure they are now going to do the same with my daughter. I guess I could demand they not do it. I just look at it that it brings them some comfort, although I don't believe in it. I guess, what does it hurt? It is either true or not.

However, when your uncle asked for permission, and once the relatives have said "no," he should respect their wishes. Why cause contention within the family? How would going against their wishes show love and respect?

I believe he only should have asked if he was sincere in wanting to respect their desires. Ethically, he should not do any work for anyone that said no.

It is a different question had he not asked.

I think I've posted this before and I'd like to know if anyone agrees with me. Baptism for the dead, especially for those who were not LDS, is in my opinion, identity theft.

Thanks for the reply Jason.

Sure

Just to avoid confusion as we go on, it's my uncle I'm referring to.

Sorry

t bit is interesting. Lets take my grandmother as an example. I.e. my Dad and my uncle's mother. She was a Christian. (In fact I remember my 'Mormon' grandmother and her meeting up a few times and well - not so much arguing - but definitely making it known that they had different opinions on things..!) She died about 10 years ago now or so. Gotta be honest, I'm not sure whether her work has been done, or whether she is included in my uncle's request.
But are you saying that even if every single other child of hers (on that side, I have 4 uncles and 2 aunts) said they didn't want my grandmothers work to be done, that my uncle shouldn't feel it 'wrong' to still go ahead and do her work anyway? Would it make a difference if it's stated that she had heard quite a bit about Mormonism from plenty of contact and interaction with the other side of the family, but didn't accept it's doctrines?

Let me clarify. If the person is such one as you describe I think that the other living relatives should have a say and their feelings should be considered. I was more referring to someone like a great, great, great uncle, Aunt, granparent that nobody living ever knew.

Also, are these rules you've gleaned from any kind of 'official' sources? Or are these just the rules you personally feel are 'appropriate'?
Hopefully it's understood that none of the above is to get into a debate - I have no particular opinion on this. At least at the moment, which is why I want to hear different opinions. Just wanting to understand your viewpoint.

Nothing official, just opinion.

One thing that intrigues me about this is that - in my opinion - the problem has been made worse by the fact that my uncle asked in the first place. I don't think the temple ceremonies mean anything. As far as I'm concerned their harmless. So if my uncle had just gone ahead and done the work, no harm no foul.
Of course, I understand it could be considered right to ask the family - that makes total sense and I respect that. But now that he's asked and they've (pretty much - right now at least) said 'no', then if he goes ahead and does it anyway it will make a lie of the idea that he was 'really' asking in the first place.

I think it was decent of him to ask.

To gather names of the deceased and record them as potential members of a highly controvercial religeon is to mock their respective culture and legacys. I predict a time when proxy temple work will cease. I think the doctrine will be modified to reflect the outcome of insuing lawsuits. I imagine the new line will be that "the work will resume when Jesus returns for that 1000 years of peace". I see the temples becoming empty facades - examples of mismanaged funds allocation.

I believe in being sympathetic cultures and other faiths. However, I think you are wrong and it reflects a PC thinking that seems to be vogue. The LDS Church has a right to worship as it sees fit. Members have a right to submit family file names. Perhaps the name extraction program could be hampered. However, but for the issue with teh Jewish faith nobody really seems to care if the LDS find names and baptize them. And really what does it hurt?

Jason Bourne wrote:

Members have a right to submit family file names. Perhaps the name extraction program could be hampered. However, but for the issue with the Jewish faith nobody really seems to care if the LDS find names and baptize them. And really what does it hurt?

Several points here, Jason.

1) perhaps members should have the right to submit family file names if they represent the only posterity of the deceased - but generally they do not. Just because there is a Mormon within the decendants doesn't make it set well with those that reject the mormonthink. There are many outside the church that just don't know what the names are used for. If they did, many would consider it a mockery/slap in the face to their family dynasty and for what these individuals stood for.

2) People do care. For a church that borders on worshipping their dead I would think they of all people would be more sympathetic to the various cultures that are sensitive to these issues. Why do you think John D. Lee's family pressed for his ordinance reinstatement even though he was a mass murderer? Legacy and a good name are everything - even if it is purely a facade - in Lee's case. Historically, the church takes the ethnocentric approach toward sensitivity.

3) There was a succesful suit against the church to remove/rescind holocast victims names from the temples ordinances. It does matter.