So…if anyone makes a deathbed request, they are violating their children’s free will?

No, that’s silly. Just as silly as saying vicarious baptism violates someone’s free will.

cbiden seems to be one of the ONLY people who understands “it”.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Jeff’s mother is deceased. She is out of the realm of this existence.

Ten points to Griffindor! SHE isn’t here. SHE has been buried (or cremated). SHE is not involved in any subsequent temple rituals whatsoever. If her work is performed, her NAME will be spoken, but it will be spoken by a living person (or persons) with his/her OWN free will.

While alive, she had the choice to accept or reject Mormonism. She made her choice. Why are you going to make her choose again? Now she’ll have to make a gazillion phone calls, be on hold listening to horrible elevator music, fill out a bunch of confusing forms, wait six months for the letter to arrive inviting her to a Court of Love, only to have her be counted as a member anyway (uh oh, did I digress into my personal life experience? Shame on me.)

Cute. Irrelevant, but cute.

I guess my question would be this–Jeff, why didn’t you go ahead and forcibly baptize her while she was alive? She could just have rejected it here.

As conflated as that sounds, I think it effectively makes my point.

No, not even remotely. Forcible baptism WOULD have been a violation of her agency. But as you yourself stated, “She is out of the realm of this existence”! Thus, whatever rites and ceremonies may be performed concern the free will/agency of the LIVING. What THEY do in the temple violates HER free will no more than it violates your own. Should no living soul ever be allowed to speak your name without your permission?

If she didn’t believe the Mormon Church to be true, then her request was not to keep her from being arrested by the Posthumous Mormon Police; it was a final request asking her son to respect her wishes and beliefs.

Jeff chose not to.

That is something with which he will have to live and from what I gather from his comments, he is comfortable with his choice.

Either way, it isn’t about free agency, it’s about respect.

Again, as you stated, “Jeff’s mother is deceased. She is out of the realm of this existence.” If respect is the issue, then Jeff’s choices deserve as much consideration as his mother’s. What HE does, what HE says, what HE wears, etc., in the temple is his own business. (And, yes, Ulysseus, I am aware that the proxy for those ordinances would have been a female, but the principle remains the same; what SHE did/does is ALSO nobody’s business but her own.)

In any case, some people will disagree with Jeff’s decision and that’s fine. But let’s not have any more disingenuous (and frankly ridiculous) hypocrisy about respecting wishes and protecting free agency, when it’s clear that you feel Jeff’s wishes and free will don’t deserve the same protection.

Let me take a stab at this:

1. Nonbelievers/Athiests/Christians (other than the Mormon kind)/Buddhists/Shinto Fundamentalist Taoists/etc. — approximately 99.99% of those who have ever tread on the planet (You’ve got a lot of dunking to do folks — maybe you should be getting wet instead of posting on blogs — oh wait, the temple isn’t open on Sunday.) don’t ascribe to the belief in the need to baptize the dead and except to the extent that it interferes with the belief of those currently living on this planet who find it offensive to their heritage to have the Holocaust victims submerged after being gassed — kind of insult after injury. For these folks, not submersing mother in the watery grave after being placed in her earthen one is a non-issue.

2. Jeff is a guy. He can’t be baptized for his Mom because he dangles. End of argument. No conflict.

To end with some scripture of my own:

But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

re: 35 & 36
cbiden seems to be one of the ONLY people who understands “it”. Jeff’s mother is deceased. She is out of the realm of this existence. We are talking about an earthly ritual that, according to your belief system, can’t be done in the afterlife (for some bizarre reason, despite the resurrection of the physical body).

While alive, she had the choice to accept or reject Mormonism. She made her choice. Why are you going to make her choose again? Now she’ll have to make a gazillion phone calls, be on hold listening to horrible elevator music, fill out a bunch of confusing forms, wait six months for the letter to arrive inviting her to a Court of Love, only to have her be counted as a member anyway (uh oh, did I digress into my personal life experience? Shame on me.)

I guess my question would be this–Jeff, why didn’t you go ahead and forcibly baptize her while she was alive? She could just have rejected it here.

As conflated as that sounds, I think it effectively makes my point.

If she didn’t believe the Mormon Church to be true, then her request was not to keep her from being arrested by the Posthumous Mormon Police; it was a final request asking her son to respect her wishes and beliefs.

Jeff chose not to.

That is something with which he will have to live and from what I gather from his comments, he is comfortable with his choice.

Either way, it isn’t about free agency, it’s about respect.

That’s why this is a dilemma – not a slam-dunk, easy question. The best argument applies equally to both parties – exactly the same.

“I respect an individual’s right to exercise agency.”

My point is that her deathbed request violates Jeff’s agency to precisely the same degree that a posthumous baptism violates her own. If you “respect an individual’s right to exercise agency,” that respect must extend to Jeff’s agency as well.

1. Jeff’s mother DID exercise her own agency. Performing a posthumous baptism in her behalf violates her free will no more than her asking Jeff not to perform the ordinance violates HIS agency. If on her deathbed she had asked him to never again wear anything blue, should he honor that request? If so, what is the limit for fulfilling the requests of the deceased? What Jeff chooses to watch (the endowment video), listen to (ordinance texts), speak (oaths), and where he chooses to go (the temple), is entirely his decision.

2. If the LDS Church happens to be true, doing her temple work actually increases her agency, broadens her opportunities to choose. NOT performing the ordinances ties her hands.

Jeff, #26: “I am not sure we cause the offense as much as they choose to take offense. All we are doing is taking a name and performing a ritual. Nothing else is affected by it. in the end, it either matters or it does not.”

With the gajillions of folks not having records to do their work, surely there is a way to provide the opportunity to everyone who wants it (in the millennium or whatever). So it either matters or it does not, it will either happen in our temples now or later…surely there is a lot to figure out how it will all work…so with all that said, it comes down to do YOU feel you MUST do it or you’ll be accountable, or do you honor their verbal request and have faith the Lord will provide a way?

I can see it either way working out. Are we running out of names in the temples? Why not just let that one name slide for said reasons, and go do 10 other names and receive blessings for helping others?

She died about 15 years ago. About 5 years ago, I caught the genealogy bug, and discovered her work had not been done. I asked my dad if he cared if I submitted her name to the temple. He said, “Go for it,” but of course did not want to participate in any of the ordinances. My sister and I did her baptism, my mother did the endowment, and my wife were proxy as we sealed her to her husband. (I did most of her husband’s temple work.) My dad still acts pretty indifferent to the whole thing, but it was a nice experience to do some temple work for someone I actually knew (though I only met her one time when I was about 7.)

Ray, I agree with Imperfection that this isn’t about showing your kids how you live YOUR life. I think it would be a huge mistake to make such an issue about you. It is clearly about the family member who has passed on, and their potential salvation. Like I said, that doesn’t mean I think it’s wrong to do the work, but I think it’s a little flippant to basically act as if the wishes of the individual are meaningless in the equation. I would respect the decision of someone NOT to do the work out of respect for his or her parents’ wishes, just as I would respect the decision of someone to go ahead and do it. Frankly, as long as the person approached the issue thoughtfully and sincerely, I find it impossible to believe that the church or the lord would juge them for having made the “wrong” decision.

“It is this lack of respect for the beliefs of other groups that causes the offense with this practice.”

I am not sure we cause the offense as much as they choose to take offense. All we are doing is taking a name and performing a ritual. Nothing else is affected by it. in the end, it either matters or it does not.

Honor also means doing what right in spite of opposition. As I said, I’d rather get yelled at than not having done it. I was doing what I thought was the right thing to do.

“What do you think? Maybe, after all these years, Granny finally accepted the Gospel.”

That might be it or her wishful thinking. the question is, would any of us want to face a family member on the other side and have to admit you didn’t do the work? And the reason was because at the time, they didn’t want us to? And there is no one left to do it some, it will be happenstance as to when it might get done?

That is what drove me and what drives me now.

If you choose not to do the work, historical precedent is on your side. For many years, all of the US presidents had their temple work done EXCEPT Martin Van Buren (who refused to aid the Mormons when driven from Missouri) and James Buchanan (Who sent federal troops to Utah). The temple department refused to clear their names. Sometime in the last twenty years, they’ve finally been baptized.

Sometime, it takes time (in this case, more than 100 years) for the pain and ill will to diminish.

Maybe temple work is really a blessing for the living more than a necessity for the dead since, as mg pointed out, not all the dead can possibly have their work done in LDS temples this side of the millenium. The idea that God would keep righteous people who hadn’t had the opportunity to receive ordiances in this life out of the celestial kingdom because no one did their temple work seems as unreasonable as Calvin’s doctrine of salvation only for the elect.

Even with our current temple work rate there are millions and millions who will not receive these ordinances in the foreseeable future. It would seem right to keep your honor and the Lord work out the rest. However, I’m also reminded of the Anti-Nephi-Lehites who promised to lay down their swords. It didn’t mean that others could not fight in their defense. There could come another who will do the temple work who did not give their word.

Of course, If no such word was given then I think that’s a different story.

Mom is not asking anyone to change how they live. What she asked for is that the way she lived her life, and the beliefs she held, be respected by her family. Just as we would want our beliefs respected.

It is this lack of respect for the beliefs of other groups that causes the offense with this practice.

I think I’ll take the lesson I mentioned over, “Do what I demand you do even after I’m dead.”

We do not have the right to control how other people remember us – even our own children.

Your mom was eventually trying to control how you remembered her.

Which is something that is out of her hands. If you want to remember her life and think of her as possibly joining the LDS faith in the hereafter, then you have a right to do so. It’s not something she can control.