Why Does the Church Not Allow Excommunicated, Deceased, Gay Persons to be Baptized for the Dead by their Families?

[TrueIntent]

That would make sense. I wonder if anyone would be able to confirm or deny. Thank you for your post

Well, since you seem to know a family, who was able to be baptized for their deceased you could perhaps try to inquire them if that person was endowed while living or not. I only know that exposés of temple ordinances give words for combined confirmation and restoration of blessings for dead.

I live in a new state....and I'm really just curious because of some experiences.

[Crackers]

TrueIntent, are just read a post of yours in a different thread. Are you female?

[TrueIntent]

TrueIntent, are just read a post of yours in a different thread. Are you female?

do I sound like a dude? Last time I checked I was.... Why do you ask?

[Crackers]

TrueIntent, are just read a post of yours in a different thread. Are you female?

do I sound like a dude? Last time I checked I was.... Why do you ask?

Sorry, I suspect I have missed something somewhere. Wouldn't you have to be a man to stand as proxy in ordinances for another man?

[Crackers]

I have no idea why that smiley face grew to that size. Imagine it a normal size, if you would.

[brianj]

That still doesnt answer the question....after a person is excommunicated or name is removed, and dies...The family makes a request of the first presidency to have blessings restored. A Re-Baptism is required in both cases, whether they are exed, or name removed. The families are usually allowed to perform this baptism on behalf of their dead (as a woman in my ward experienced this)....I was not allowed to....You need to read all the former posts....excommunicated (or names removed) must be rebaptized......the families perform the baptism.....i was not allowed to, I knew others that were. My question is why? My former bishop said certain keys may be required....but that still doesnt answer why my case, and not theirs?....the only difference was sins.. They would only allow a temple presidency in salt lake. if keys mattered for mine, why didn't they matter for the other lady in my ward who got approval to perform her baptism for her deceased excommunicated family member.

I don't have an answer for you; I just wanted to express my hope that you will not let questions damage your faith. I have a lot of questions and serious problems with some church policies, but I don't let those problems or unanswered questions damage my faith.

[TrueIntent]

That still doesnt answer the question....after a person is excommunicated or name is removed, and dies...The family makes a request of the first presidency to have blessings restored. A Re-Baptism is required in both cases, whether they are exed, or name removed. The families are usually allowed to perform this baptism on behalf of their dead (as a woman in my ward experienced this)....I was not allowed to....You need to read all the former posts....excommunicated (or names removed) must be rebaptized......the families perform the baptism.....i was not allowed to, I knew others that were. My question is why? My former bishop said certain keys may be required....but that still doesnt answer why my case, and not theirs?....the only difference was sins.. They would only allow a temple presidency in salt lake. if keys mattered for mine, why didn't they matter for the other lady in my ward who got approval to perform her baptism for her deceased excommunicated family member.

I don't have an answer for you; I just wanted to express my hope that you will not let questions damage your faith. I have a lot of questions and serious problems with some church policies, but I don't let those problems or unanswered questions damage my faith.

No...believing certain teachings did damage my faith....like polygamy ...this doesn't damage my faith--after dropping that, everything else became easy to ask questions on...that was my trigger. Im not a zealot on this issue believe it or not--but I'm not blind either. Just a defender of those who I feel like get bullied....I do it for women a lot too. We should be able to have logical, appropriate conversations about this without being offensive....this girl in her article said that people made hurtful comments in the LDS community in general (having no idea that a gay person might be in their presence.....they assume everyone is on the same page as them). I think we do this a lot, not just about gays, I just read an article the same day about a young black man in the church (it was awful)...If we could just "hear" ourselves talk about others....as if they have no value before God, as if they make no effort, as if the atonement can not fully apply to them, as if grace isn't available, as if they are not trying, or doing their best--these are the greater sins. Really, this is not my fight (my passion is in a different area), I'm just an observer in a whole bunch of ignorance...but a lot of these comments are ignorant, and are a reflection of the individuals making them. I think we should be discussing doctrine, and scripture more.....and less cultural biases. Truth is things as they really are...all individuals have value before God, and every person a purpose in His great plan...we should not dismiss someone's experiences as not valid just because we haven't experienced it....and we should not assume that Homosexuals, or women, or blacks, or any minority group has a lesser role in the great plan of happiness. I realize there is an order to things...but the blessings are entitled to all of us. Grace applies to all of us...there is no place that his grace can not cover if we will not believe......and I have learned that the Church's definition of sin, is not necessarily always correct. Sins, and transgressions (like hypocrisy, and "keeping those out of the gate" because we've hidden the keys)....those are greater sins. Im just saying....we could be having better conversations...like "why doesn't God heal my desire" if I am genuinely offering a broken heart and contrite spirit...the next question would be....what is sin? am I sinning? Are my thoughts a sin? but you say my thoughts are okay?

[TrueIntent]

TrueIntent, are just read a post of yours in a different thread. Are you female?

do I sound like a dude? Last time I checked I was.... Why do you ask?

Sorry, I suspect I have missed something somewhere. Wouldn't you have to be a man to stand as proxy in ordinances for another man?

Currently, males are baptized for males...I was hoping to be able to witness my husband and brother-in-law....and at least be present at the ordinance. But in the early church, females were baptized for males and vice versa...it was purely about the ordinance and families....brigham young changed it to females for females, males for males.

[Crackers]

Gotcha, makes a little more sense now. And no, I don't think you sound like a dude. I just assumed as much since you were discussing doing proxy work for you dad. Sorry. I haven't been around here that long.

[TrueIntent]

Gotcha, makes a little more sense now. And no, I don't think you sound like a dude. I just assumed as much since you were discussing doing proxy work for you dad. Sorry. I haven't been around here that long.

its okay...i was being sarcastic. i like it that my picture doesnt necessarily reveal male or female.

[AI2.0]

true intent, I think your topic title was unnecessarily misleading and a big part of the problem with why you felt Church leaders were dealing unjustly with you over this situation.
I believe it had nothing to do with your father's being gay, deceased or excommunicated, I think it was most likely because your father was endowed and excommunicated. Those who have not been to the temple and are excommunicated, only need rebaptism. But, an endowed excommunicant requires more than just rebaptism, it requires action by the 1st pres--a restoration of temple blessings and in this case, a restoration of priesthood. So, it needs to be handled 'in house'. If your father had been alive and wanted to return to the church, he could have been rebaptized himself and then he would have had to have his blessings restored by an Apostle (unless they are not allowing members of the 70 to do the restorations).