Comments on: In Which I Suddenly Understand

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:02:26 +0000

I have long had zero sympathy (or close to it) for those who rail against LDS temple ordinance work. This is the most compelling piece I have ever read to provide some insight into the emotional element of this subject, helping to demonstrate why such offense might possibly consist of something other than sheer religious bigotry. Thank you for the essay. It has given me something important to think about.

By: michelle

michelle — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:01:28 +0000

Thanks for sharing your experience, here, Ardis.

And I also appreciated your ideas in #31.

By: Dovie

Dovie — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:44:07 +0000

My dad was born in covenant but never received his endowment. He passed away in 2009. My many of my aunts and uncles and his parents are very eager to have his work done. One of his brothers is willing to go and do it himself. I am anxious to have it done. I haven’t been to the temple myself not for lack of desire or worthiness. My husband is not LDS and while not prohibiting me from participating in temple worship he is very uncomfortable with the idea. He would be hurt if I were to take that next step in my spiritual development without careful consideration. I love my father very much but our relationship in mortality was at times complicated and at times painful. My hope is that someday (hopefully soon) when his work is done to be there, so that I might receive a measure of peace and healing to my heart, I hope that on the other side he will also be blessed by this beyond the endowment itself that ALL three of his children being there when his work is done would bring him joy and healing and peace. I would be devastated if someone took that from me no matter their good intentions. Often growing up he would parent by proxy through his siblings (because of distance and other factors). It is significant to me that this work be done for my father by his children.

So yeah I get it, at least a little bit.

By: Jami

Jami — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:30:35 +0000

I’ve gone and reserved all of my direct ancestors who have living children for this very reason. My grandfather objects (a lot) to the idea of having his parents’ names used in a cultish ritual. Certainly I disagree, but I’ve done what I can to honor his wishes.

My FIL asked us to be proxies for his parent’s sealing and some stranger had already had them sealed. Irritating and decidedly against church policy.

By: Michelle Glauser

Michelle Glauser — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:17:45 +0000

I’m glad you linked to this again. It truly gave me a perspective shift this morning.

By: Sam Brunson

Sam Brunson — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:08:39 +0000

Thanks for this, Ardis. I’m sympathetic with Jewish objections, but it’s nice to have a tangible Mormon-side experience to help crystallize why I’m sympathetic.

By: E

Sat, 25 Sep 2010 04:13:43 +0000

Great post Ardis. As someone who has had some difficulty understanding why anyone would get upset about proxy ordinances, it is helpful and enlightening to read this.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:50:10 +0000

re: my previous comment about sympathizing with living Jews’ opinions of LDS proxy ordinances.

Lest anyone misunderstand where I stand on the issue:

Yes, I can sympathize with hurt feelings, but I’m still submitting the names/information for my Jewish ancestors to have their temple work done.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:24:54 +0000

As of this afternoon, the missionaries at New Family Search have added the fact of my father’s sealing to his parents 20 years ago in Las Vegas so that no stranger can come along and redo the ordinance. They have also gotten rid of the record showing the bogus 2007 Nauvoo sealing of my parents, allowing their 1967 sealing to show as the official record.

This still may seem like a small thing to get upset about, but it did bother me. If the dead are to be judged out of the books, I jolly well want the books to show the correct record, especially where people as important as my parents are concerned.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:32:50 +0000

I’m coming late to the party. I read this yesterday and then was away from my computer before I could comment. Into the twentieth century, you could not perform proxy temple work for someone unless the “family heir” gave approval. Temple work for non-relatives generally needed either Temple president or First Presidency approval. I understand why they went away from that method of organization, however, it, coupled with the Woodruff’s revelation, has created a bit of an anarchy. I’m sorry Ardis.