Page 1 of 2

FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:45 pm
by I Have Questions
…she died a year ago.
Five years after top Latter-day Saint leaders refused to readmit excommunicated member Lavina Fielding Anderson to the fold, she finally got her wish.

The faith’s governing First Presidency now has granted Anderson, one of the famed “September Six,” a rebaptism and restoration of her temple “blessings” and membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No telling how it will affect her, though, because, well, she died a year ago.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/11 ... eadmitted/
A family member may seek this approval, the handbook instructs, “after one year has passed since the person’s death.”

As the first anniversary of Anderson’s Oct. 29, 2023, death at age 79 approached, her son, Christian Anderson, wished to see her be rebaptized by a living participant.

“I, naturally, wanted to be involved in (or at least aware of) my own mother’s restored blessings,” he says. “So, on Oct. 29, I logged into FamilySearch.org [the church’s genealogical arm] to try to register to perform baptisms for the dead. There was a lock on the record, and I was told to contact their help desk. ... I filled out a brief form that included my FamilySearch ID and hers and a bit of contact information.”
I suppose the question I’ve got is why did it take her to be dead for 12 months before they would reinstate her? Now, because it’s a family Church you’d think the First Presidency would let her son conduct the proxy ordinance…but no…
Christian also added a brief note: “I would like to fulfill her wish to be rebaptized in a holy temple. I would like to emphasize that though she was excommunicated in 1993, she continued to attend her ward faithfully for nearly 30 years until prevented by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent declining health.”

Instead, the First Presidency authorized others to do the rituals, known as “ordinances,” without inviting him to be included in any way or informing him it was happening until eight days after it was a fait accompli.
So as well as punishing the mother, they vindictively punish the son as well. Disgusting.

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:57 pm
by Dr. Shades
It’s church policy that every person submitted for baptism for the dead must be deceased for a minimum of one year.

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2024 5:43 pm
by I Have Questions
Dr. Shades wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:57 pm
It’s church policy that every person submitted for baptism for the dead must be deceased for a minimum of one year.
I know. It’s in the quote I provided above.
A family member may seek this approval, the handbook instructs, “after one year has passed since the person’s death.”

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:12 pm
by drumdude
It’s pretty Orwellian to deny this while she was alive and allow it when she’s dead.

It really highlights the dichotomy in Mormonism where the leaders have all the power in the real world, and they con the members into believing the members will have power in the fantasy world after death. All the members have to do is submit to the leaders here and now in the only world we know exists.

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:26 pm
by I Have Questions
drumdude wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:12 pm
It’s pretty Orwellian to deny this while she was alive and allow it when she’s dead.

It really highlights the dichotomy in Mormonism where the leaders have all the power in the real world, and they con the members into believing the members will have power in the fantasy world after death. All the members have to do is submit to the leaders here and now in the only world we know exists.
The waiting time is more forgivable than not allowing Lavina’s son to be involved. And to do it without his knowledge. That’s just vindictive.

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:23 am
by Kishkumen
It’s these kinds of interventions into family affairs that are prominent among my reasons for leaving. As soon as my spouse and I became parents, it became increasingly clear that the church culture did not respect family boundaries much. The way the LDS Church has taken over missionary farewells and funerals is just more evidence of the same intrusion into family affairs. No thanks, LDS Church, No thanks.

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:37 pm
by Moksha
I Have Questions wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2024 8:26 pm
The waiting time is more forgivable than not allowing Lavina’s son to be involved. And to do it without his knowledge. That’s just vindictive.
At least she was not sealed to Joseph Smith as a servant.

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:46 pm
by Markk
Dr. Shades wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:57 pm
It’s church policy that every person submitted for baptism for the dead must be deceased for a minimum of one year.
Shades...this idea was actually forced onto the church by necessity, because of MM.

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:45 pm
by huckelberry
Markk wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:46 pm
Dr. Shades wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:57 pm
It’s church policy that every person submitted for baptism for the dead must be deceased for a minimum of one year.
Shades...this idea was actually forced onto the church by necessity, because of MM.
Markk,

"MM"

This registered no meaning to my mind at all. I turned away but then it was like a riddle teasing my mind. I found no plausible answer to the riddle however. Random letters indicating no reason at all?

Re: FP invites Lavina F Anderson to be baptised, but there’s a snag…

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:50 pm
by Markk
huckelberry wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:45 pm
Markk wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2024 3:46 pm
Shades...this idea was actually forced onto the church by necessity, because of MM.
Markk,

"MM"

This registered no meaning to my mind at all. I turned away but then it was like a riddle teasing my mind. I found no plausible answer to the riddle however. Random letters indicating no reason at all?
LoL, sorry I was hoping Shades would bite....just a dumb joke from one of my favorite movies of all time.

Miracle Max

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M