Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1415Doing the work (was: ? on reserving ordin)

Expand Messages
  • PCDirector
    Jul 31, 2013
      I thought I better change the subject line before the conversation deviated

      Brother Tom-- I applaud your desire to do things as correct as possible.
      Certainly doing things as *complete* as possible should be the standard we
      strive for. It is NOT however, the requirement for submitting names to the
      temple, nor I doubt, is having everyone's name/pob, death/pod, marriage/pob
      event filled out the only fulfillment of having a book worthy of all
      acceptation (in fact, I would disagree strongly on your interpretation of
      that scripture, but that is an entirely different conversation.)

      President Ezra Taft Benson made it clear that the *minimum** *acceptable
      information for a family group to be submitted was a *single* qualifying
      event for the entire family. One doesn't even need the names of both
      parents. Now, does that mean that we should rest there and submit the
      majority of the family blank? Of course not !!

      But neither should we revert back to the standard in the 1940s (yes, I'm
      old enough) when the standard was: a specific birth date (or christening)
      and place, a specific death (or burial) and place, a specific marriage date
      and place, and TWO PIECES OF MATCHING DOCUMENTATION for each event (and I
      mean, the spelling could not be off one iota), or the work could not be

      That's how I ended up with 165,000 names which need to be input, verified,
      compared and done. I'm sure you have had enough experiences with those on
      the other side of the veil to know they care more about accepting their
      ordinance work, than whether or not you have a specific death date & place
      when you know they were born 2 Apr 1836 in New York City, New York, New

      My point in this is, it is great that you have a personal standard of
      completeness. I agree with you that we should strive for that rather than
      send in records wily niley, or worse, blank. But I disagree that we should
      present that opinion to others as doctrine, when President Benson directed

      A case in point.

      I have an acquaintance in a former ward whose parents when he was small (4
      or 5) were involved with the mob. He *saw* them taken away at gunpoint.
      They never returned. A few weeks later, his mother's body was found on a
      deserted road out in the desert. His father's body has never been found. A
      decade+ later, this young man joined the church. Post mission and marriage
      (so we are now 35+ years after the event) he had a desire to do his
      parent's temple work.

      A well meaning, but ignorant, FHC worker told him that *without proof of
      death* his father's work could not be done. Now you and I know that is *
      technically* true. It is also extremely unlikely given the circumstances
      and the fact they were dealing with the mob, that his father is alive. This
      same person overstepped his/her authority and then told him EVEN IF he had
      his father declared dead, that because *there was no body*, the work could
      not be done.

      To this day (we are now 50 years after the fact), this poor man has still
      not had his work done (the member finally relented and did his mother's
      work without his father, he wanted to do them both at the same time.) He
      lives without being sealed to his parents (despite having dream visits from
      both of them), and all the blessings which flow from that. All because some
      FHC consultant decided to lay down his/her opinion as doctrine.

      I think most members find family history daunting enough that we don't need
      to add more obstacles in their path.

      But that's just my *opinion.*

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic