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

[TrueIntent]

This is my own personal Story.

A few years ago, my father died. He died of AIDS, he had lived a gay lifestyle near the end of his life--but expressed a desire to find God, religion, and where he fit in with the gospel of Jesus christ (I personally have different views the the church on homosexuality, but that is a separate issue, and I keep my feelings to myself at church).

Church policy is that if a member was excommunicated and has died, a letter must be written requesting first presidency approval before their work can be done. My father never had an official court to my knowledge (but I don't know for sure because there was some distance between us before he died, but he may have removed his name from the records)....either way, I wrote a letter to the church, and waited over a year to have them approve his "baptism for the dead"....it is common procedure for families to ask the first presidency approval when someone was excommunicated or no longer on the records of the church. The letter was sent to my bishop and stake president, and then to the first presidency....Only to be told over a year later that I would not be allowed to do his work, that only the Temple presidency in Salt Lake could perform the baptism. Some months later after that, my bishop received a letter that his work was completed in Salt Lake....he passed this copy off to me...of which I possess.

It never had occurred to me until now, how this has impacted me (until last night actually)? I know of other members who were allowed to do their excommunicated families work....the only difference was that my dad was gay. Why do some member families get to do work and not others? (The letter doesn't give an official reason why, but my bishop speculated that this was the case...and they must have taken the "sins" into account)...and what other reason would there be? Why is the policy of the church that Gay Deceased Persons family members are not given permission to do the work themselves for their dead? Has anyone else had this experience, or would be willing to comment on what they know about why this was handled this way? I can't imagine that we would be keeping this a secret behind the scenes, and my hope is that there is another reason that I am not aware of. But for the life of me....that seems to be the only reason they would have said no to me doing my own father's work. This was just a few years ago....I just want to try and understand it.

Please keep insensitive comments to yourself....I don't want this thread to drift off into a debate. I would like to discuss policies, their appropriateness, and why or why not this may be occurring. Thanks for your understanding in advance.

*Update LDSFF Friends: My former bishop responded quickly...He is a great guy!...um...so he said that a "restoration of blessings" requires a certain Priesthood key that only a temple president holds. So...i will have to ponder that through scripture and understand what that means...Anyway...thats my update.

[eddie]

I can understand your feelings, I went through a
Similar situation, I finally realized what matters most is that the work is being done, I decided to rejoice in that knowledge!

[Robin Hood]

This is my own personal Story.

A few years ago, my father died. He died of AIDS, he had lived a gay lifestyle near the end of his life--but expressed a desire to find God, religion, and where he fit in with the gospel of Jesus christ (I personally have different views the the church on homosexuality, but that is a separate issue, and I keep my feelings to myself at church).

Church policy is that if a member was excommunicated and has died, a letter must be written requesting first presidency approval before their work can be done. My father never had an official court to my knowledge (but I don't know for sure because there was some distance between us before he died, but he may have removed his name from the records)....either way, I wrote a letter to the church, and waited over a year to have them approve his "baptism for the dead"....it is common procedure for families to ask the first presidency approval when someone was excommunicated or no longer on the records of the church. The letter was sent to my bishop and stake president, and then to the first presidency....Only to be told over a year later that I would not be allowed to do his work, that only the Temple presidency in Salt Lake could perform the baptism. Some months later after that, my bishop received a letter that his work was completed in Salt Lake....he passed this copy off to me...of which I possess.

It never had occurred to me until now, how this has impacted me (until last night actually)? I know of other members who were allowed to do their excommunicated families work....the only difference was that my dad was gay. Why do some member families get to do work and not others? (The letter doesn't give an official reason why, but my bishop speculated that this was the case...and they must have taken the "sins" into account)...and what other reason would there be? Why is the policy of the church that Gay Deceased Persons family members are not given permission to do the work themselves for their dead? Has anyone else had this experience, or would be willing to comment on what they know about why this was handled this way? I can't imagine that we would be keeping this a secret behind the scenes, and my hope is that there is another reason that I am not aware of. But for the life of me....that seems to be the only reason they would have said no to me doing my own father's work. This was just a few years ago....I just want to try and understand it.

Please keep insensitive comments to yourself....I don't want this thread to drift off into a debate. I would like to discuss policies, their appropriateness, and why or why not this may be occurring. Thanks for your understanding in advance.

It seems to me you have a choice.
You can focus on the fact you didn't get your way and feel miffed about it, or you can rejoice that the work was done and your father now has a chance to move on.

[TrueIntent]

I can understand your feelings, I went through a
Similar situation, I finally realized what matters most is that the work is being done, I decided to rejoice in that knowledge!

I understand that....i think for me though.....this event is connect to a spiritual witness I received in the last year. I received some information through the veil about this incident.

I received a personal witness of something that involves work for the dead and my father...not necessarily a confirmation that how the church handled the situation was good? but its highly symbolic of those scripture passages as quoted by Joseph Smith, referring to Moroni, "turning the hearts"........I need to understand scriptural basis for why the church may be handling baptisms--because I believe it's possible I was supposed to have been able to do that work in the temple. What's done is done But, I think God wants me to understand something about all of that in relation to the ordinances. My understanding is that it is very important for the families to be completely the work for their dead....(an ordinance is symbolic)...but i was not allowed to do this. I don't want to go into too many details...but it is important that I understand what the church's doctrinal basis is for handling this...

Was your family member gay?

[TrueIntent]

This is my own personal Story.

A few years ago, my father died. He died of AIDS, he had lived a gay lifestyle near the end of his life--but expressed a desire to find God, religion, and where he fit in with the gospel of Jesus christ (I personally have different views the the church on homosexuality, but that is a separate issue, and I keep my feelings to myself at church).

Church policy is that if a member was excommunicated and has died, a letter must be written requesting first presidency approval before their work can be done. My father never had an official court to my knowledge (but I don't know for sure because there was some distance between us before he died, but he may have removed his name from the records)....either way, I wrote a letter to the church, and waited over a year to have them approve his "baptism for the dead"....it is common procedure for families to ask the first presidency approval when someone was excommunicated or no longer on the records of the church. The letter was sent to my bishop and stake president, and then to the first presidency....Only to be told over a year later that I would not be allowed to do his work, that only the Temple presidency in Salt Lake could perform the baptism. Some months later after that, my bishop received a letter that his work was completed in Salt Lake....he passed this copy off to me...of which I possess.

It never had occurred to me until now, how this has impacted me (until last night actually)? I know of other members who were allowed to do their excommunicated families work....the only difference was that my dad was gay. Why do some member families get to do work and not others? (The letter doesn't give an official reason why, but my bishop speculated that this was the case...and they must have taken the "sins" into account)...and what other reason would there be? Why is the policy of the church that Gay Deceased Persons family members are not given permission to do the work themselves for their dead? Has anyone else had this experience, or would be willing to comment on what they know about why this was handled this way? I can't imagine that we would be keeping this a secret behind the scenes, and my hope is that there is another reason that I am not aware of. But for the life of me....that seems to be the only reason they would have said no to me doing my own father's work. This was just a few years ago....I just want to try and understand it.

Please keep insensitive comments to yourself....I don't want this thread to drift off into a debate. I would like to discuss policies, their appropriateness, and why or why not this may be occurring. Thanks for your understanding in advance.

It seems to me you have a choice.
You can focus on the fact you didn't get your way and feel miffed about it, or you can rejoice that the work was done and your father now has a chance to move on.

I haven't been mifed about it....if you'll see my post below you will see what my motivation is. You should pull the beam out of your eye before you judge a persons motives....you would have heard me complaining about it on the forum long before this if I was motivated by what you suggest.

[TrueIntent]

And Robin Hood......your comment is exactly the reason why people don't put themselves out there to ask questions at church. Because people will take the most sensitive topics, and insult others with their pride and arrogance. Until you've walked in my shoes............God knows my heart!

[TrueIntent]

Actually....what may help me.....if people could post information about work for the dead, elijah from early church sources (preferably teachings directly from Joseph smith).....I would like to study this topic more deeply.

[eddie]

I can understand your feelings, I went through a
Similar situation, I finally realized what matters most is that the work is being done, I decided to rejoice in that knowledge!

I understand that....i think for me though.....this event is connect to a spiritual witness I received in the last year. I received some information through the veil about this incident.

I received a personal witness of something that involves work for the dead and my father...not necessarily a confirmation that how the church handled the situation was good? but its highly symbolic of those scripture passages as quoted by Joseph Smith, referring to Moroni, "turning the hearts"........I need to understand scriptural basis for why the church may be handling baptisms--because I believe it's possible I was supposed to have been able to do that work in the temple. What's done is done But, I think God wants me to understand something about all of that in relation to the ordinances. My understanding is that it is very important for the families to be completely the work for their dead....(an ordinance is symbolic)...but i was not allowed to do this. I don't want to go into too many details...but it is important that I understand what the church's doctrinal basis is for handling this...

Was your family member gay?

No, but a very complicated situation.

[TrueIntent]

I can understand your feelings, I went through a
Similar situation, I finally realized what matters most is that the work is being done, I decided to rejoice in that knowledge!

I understand that....i think for me though.....this event is connect to a spiritual witness I received in the last year. I received some information through the veil about this incident.

I received a personal witness of something that involves work for the dead and my father...not necessarily a confirmation that how the church handled the situation was good? but its highly symbolic of those scripture passages as quoted by Joseph Smith, referring to Moroni, "turning the hearts"........I need to understand scriptural basis for why the church may be handling baptisms--because I believe it's possible I was supposed to have been able to do that work in the temple. What's done is done But, I think God wants me to understand something about all of that in relation to the ordinances. My understanding is that it is very important for the families to be completely the work for their dead....(an ordinance is symbolic)...but i was not allowed to do this. I don't want to go into too many details...but it is important that I understand what the church's doctrinal basis is for handling this...

Was your family member gay?

No, but a very complicated situation.

were you allowed to do their work, or did they only allow the temple presidency in SLC?

Im trying to figure out if Sins play a role, or if it was specifically because of the homosexuality thing.....and on a personal level...why I would received the experience I received beyond the veil.

[Robin Hood]

I think you have misunderstood me.
In the scheme of things, why does it matter? My point was that this appears to be a glass half full/half empty situation.

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance. For a living individual this is performed by an apostle or by apostolic assignment to another general authority. This is just a speculation so I am open to greater understanding on this point, but I would have thought a temple president would have devolved authority to do this for a deceased person. He would be the only person in the temple who could do it.

[TrueIntent]

I think you have misunderstood me.
In the scheme of things, why does it matter? My point was that this appears to be a glass half full/half empty situation.

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance. For a living individual this is performed by an apostle or by apostolic assignment to another general authority. This is just a speculation so I am open to greater understanding on this point, but I would have thought a temple president would have devolved authority to do this for a deceased person. He would be the only person in the temple who could do it.

.i appreciate this second response you gave. This is a better answer. Thank you.......So, this gets debunked when you find out that excommunicated deceased persons work is already being done by their family...The families are always allowed to do the work....the only thing that separated my case, was that my dad was gay? The reason this may be important in my situation is....in the scriptures...it DOES matter if the ordinances are administered correctly....im not held accountable for that....but the Levites who administer the ordinances in scripture are. The Levitical priesthood is charged with correct administration of the ordinances.....

See LDS Manual "Descendants of Aaron were designated as priests, and they were the ones given the stewardship to preside in the ordinances of the tabernacle."

D&C Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.


Ive been pondering what this scripture means on a personal level......What does it mean "until" the sons of Levi do offer again.....Until they offer again means we aren't offering an acceptable offering....

joseph Smith said this,

The Prophet Joseph Smith commented as follows on this scripture:

“It is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in the future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

“The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. …

“These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.” (Teachings, pp. 172–73.)



This last phrase....sacrifices will be continued (so the church leaders over time believed this meant blood sacrifice...I don't...and let me tell you why)....Because I made a covenant with God, in connection with my bishop...that I would do certain things to prepare myself for receiving this ordnance with my dad....I kept my end of the bargain for over a year...But then I was told I couldn't do the work. Recently I went into my bishops office (last year)...and told him that I believed in the ordinances differently...and then I received a "message" through the veil that is connected to Elijah, and my dad...I still don't understand it all...but that's what Im trying to figure out right now.

[TrueIntent]

Whats interesting is that that verse in in Chapter 24 of 3 Nephi......the following Chapter...2 Nephi 25...is the chapter about Elijah coming to turn the hearts.

[e-eye2.0]

I guess we can assume it was because he was gay or maybe the first presidency prays about these situations and some are allowed to be done by family and some are not. I can understand wanting to do it for your family member especially your dad as that would be awesome. However, if you couldn't do it that's kind of cool that the temple presidency did it.

Now you just mentioned baptism - were you able to do the other ordinances for him? If so they saved the best ones for you to do.

I also wonder if they pass it on to the temple presidency to pray about it and receive revelation on if the person has had a change of heart on the other side of the veil - not sure but maybe that is the reasoning.

[inho]

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance.

This is true, I just checked Handbook 1. However, the Handbook only states that permission from First Presidency is required. It does not say who can perform the ordinance, or who can be the proxy.

[Crackers]

I think you need to remember that you have made a leap in thinking that this is all based on the nature of your father's sins. There could be other reasons for you not being able to perform the baptism. If you had access to your dad's record and story in full, it might make more sense. Maybe not, but you may kill yourself trying to figure this out only to realize it wasn't the homosexuality issue at all. Good luck.

[kittycat51]

I think you have misunderstood me.
In the scheme of things, why does it matter? My point was that this appears to be a glass half full/half empty situation.

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance. For a living individual this is performed by an apostle or by apostolic assignment to another general authority. This is just a speculation so I am open to greater understanding on this point, but I would have thought a temple president would have devolved authority to do this for a deceased person. He would be the only person in the temple who could do it.

This reminds me, of Elder Renlund's talk in priesthood session where he tells the story:

"During a weekend, I had two assignments. One was to create the first stake in a country, and the other was to interview a young man and, if all was in order, restore his priesthood and temple blessings. This 30-year-old man had joined the Church in his late teens. He served an honorable mission. But when he returned home, he lost his way, and he lost his membership in the Church. After some years, “he came to himself,”22 and with the help of loving priesthood leaders and kind members, he repented and was readmitted by baptism into the Church.

Later, he applied to have his priesthood and temple blessings restored. We set an appointment for Saturday at 10:00 a.m. at the meetinghouse. When I arrived for the earlier interviews, he was already there. He was so anxious to have the priesthood once again, he just could not wait.

During our interview, I showed him the letter explaining that President Thomas S. Monson had personally reviewed his application and authorized the interview. This otherwise stoic young man wept. I then told him that the date of our interview would have no official meaning in his life. He looked puzzled. I informed him that after I restored his blessings, his membership record would show only his original baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination, and endowment dates. He choked up again.

I asked him to read from the Doctrine and Covenants:

“Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

“By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.”

Tears filled his eyes a third time. Then I placed my hands on his head, and in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and with the authorization of the President of the Church, I restored his priesthood and temple blessings."

[TrueIntent]

I think you have misunderstood me.
In the scheme of things, why does it matter? My point was that this appears to be a glass half full/half empty situation.

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance. For a living individual this is performed by an apostle or by apostolic assignment to another general authority. This is just a speculation so I am open to greater understanding on this point, but I would have thought a temple president would have devolved authority to do this for a deceased person. He would be the only person in the temple who could do it.

This reminds me, of Elder Renlund's talk in priesthood session where he tells the story:

"During a weekend, I had two assignments. One was to create the first stake in a country, and the other was to interview a young man and, if all was in order, restore his priesthood and temple blessings. This 30-year-old man had joined the Church in his late teens. He served an honorable mission. But when he returned home, he lost his way, and he lost his membership in the Church. After some years, “he came to himself,”22 and with the help of loving priesthood leaders and kind members, he repented and was readmitted by baptism into the Church.

Later, he applied to have his priesthood and temple blessings restored. We set an appointment for Saturday at 10:00 a.m. at the meetinghouse. When I arrived for the earlier interviews, he was already there. He was so anxious to have the priesthood once again, he just could not wait.

During our interview, I showed him the letter explaining that President Thomas S. Monson had personally reviewed his application and authorized the interview. This otherwise stoic young man wept. I then told him that the date of our interview would have no official meaning in his life. He looked puzzled. I informed him that after I restored his blessings, his membership record would show only his original baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination, and endowment dates. He choked up again.

I asked him to read from the Doctrine and Covenants:

“Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

“By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.”

Tears filled his eyes a third time. Then I placed my hands on his head, and in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and with the authorization of the President of the Church, I restored his priesthood and temple blessings."

This does not apply to my situation....This person is living. This talk does not apply to my situation. I am asking a different question for a different situation. Families request special permission from the first presidency, and the families do the work (baptism only...for excommunicated or names removed from records persons. (the same situation was going on in my ward with another person, but they were given permission...i was not)....I asked specifically why....my bishop said he was given no further information, but that it must be because of the "nature of his sins".

[TrueIntent]

I think you need to remember that you have made a leap in thinking that this is all based on the nature of your father's sins. There could be other reasons for you not being able to perform the baptism. If you had access to your dad's record and story in full, it might make more sense. Maybe not, but you may kill yourself trying to figure this out only to realize it wasn't the homosexuality issue at all. Good luck.

If that is the case, it is outside of the Handbook that the leadership (specifically the first presidency) followed this procedure. Why was no one given any reason. Im not trying to kill myself over this...im just now asking the question....and it's important. You don't know me, but I am an avid student of the ordinances...and it's all because of some experiences I have had. And of course, with all the controversy surrounding homosexuality in the church at this time....what reasons would there be to not put it in writing???..They didn't give my bishop or me, a reason???. Why would they not do that?

[TrueIntent]

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance.

This is true, I just checked Handbook 1. However, the Handbook only states that permission from First Presidency is required. It does not say who can perform the ordinance, or who can be the proxy.

Exactly...why would a specific letter be given to my bishop saying that only Salt Lake could perform the ordinance, and not given to the family. This makes no sense...Nor does it fit any procedures. and yes it matters..how it is administered matters...it's an ordinance.

[TrueIntent]

I guess we can assume it was because he was gay or maybe the first presidency prays about these situations and some are allowed to be done by family and some are not. I can understand wanting to do it for your family member especially your dad as that would be awesome. However, if you couldn't do it that's kind of cool that the temple presidency did it.

Now you just mentioned baptism - were you able to do the other ordinances for him? If so they saved the best ones for you to do.

I also wonder if they pass it on to the temple presidency to pray about it and receive revelation on if the person has had a change of heart on the other side of the veil - not sure but maybe that is the reasoning.

For excommunicated persons, only baptism is done. It's cool accept that I spent a year spiritually preparing for the moment that our handbook says I would have....why waist a persons spiritually energy if there are reasons that the church will not allow...just let them know up front.

Baptisms for the dead...seal the hearts of "fathers to children".....not temple workers, or church leaders..that's like saying it was great to have the temple presidency do my sealing as proxy to my spouse after we waited and spiritually prepared for a year....and they won't even give you a reason why?
...It matters for family members to do it for family members. It truly does.....the whole story of Alvin Smith and Joseph is a good example of why families members specifically need the ordinance.....Josephs family specifically carried heavy weights related to Alvin and previous teachings they had to overcome because Alivin wasn't baptized...work for the dead (although symbolic) was for people like them and me.

The only reason Im asking about this now, is I realize it matters...I received a spiritual witness of something that is tied to Elijah and my belief in the ordinances....it happened on the day my dad died....Im looking for answers now....I can't undo how it was handled, but somebody upstairs is trying to help me understand something about that specific teaching related to this scripture.....the one moroni quoted differently to jospeh.


1 Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

2 And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.

3 If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.


The parts I underlined specifically above apply to the very specific revelation I received. It was also related to me having a conversation with my bishop where I said I believed in the ordinances differently. So i believe this situation matters.

[inho]

For living excommunicated persons, there are some cases where the permission of First Presidency is required before they can be rebaptized. Maybe the procedure for the dead is different in these cases too. However, I don't know if any of the cases mentioned in the Handbook applies to your father. Unless your father was married to another man, that would be considered as apostasy.

[TrueIntent]

For living excommunicated persons, there are some cases where the permission of First Presidency is required before they can be rebaptized. Maybe the procedure for the dead is different in these cases too. However, I don't know if any of the cases mentioned in the Handbook applies to your father. Unless your father was married to another man, that would be considered as apostasy.

he was not married to another man...there is not further information in the handbook given. Permission is required for the excommunicated dead...but mine is the only situation I know of where the work was "allowed" but I couldn't do it--just a temple presidency. This is a good topic that should be raised for discussion. I know there are gay family members that have passed...but they probably just do the work....i specifically didn't know what my father's status was in the church (because he told someone he might remove his records), and so I gave the first presidency all the information I had on my dad...including how he died, and his lifestyle, and that i didn't know his status.....Im sure there are gay members baptized for the dead every day (my uncle was)....but this situation is unique, because they had the information in the hands of the first presidency, and they gave permission for the work to be done but wouldn't let me do it. Was my dad's work for the dead any less valid than my uncles? it's just that nobody publized that that person was gay...My hope is that if the church has special procedures...they let people know in advance in the future...and yes this matters to me. If the ordinances are real...then yes....all of this matters.

Anyway...my point in posting this was to hopefully get NEW information, or people who had had similar experiences who could shed some light.

[Robin Hood]

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance.

This is true, I just checked Handbook 1. However, the Handbook only states that permission from First Presidency is required. It does not say who can perform the ordinance, or who can be the proxy.

Exactly...why would a specific letter be given to my bishop saying that only Salt Lake could perform the ordinance, and not given to the family. This makes no sense...Nor does it fit any procedures. and yes it matters..how it is administered matters...it's an ordinance.

I think you're asking the wrong people.
Go back to your Bishop, your Stake President etc and get an answer.
We'll just confuse the issue further.

But like I said, ultimately what is important is that the work has been done and your father has the opportunity to move on. This should be a source of comfort to you, and I'm sure it is.

[TrueIntent]

Are you aware that your father's work, following baptism, simply requires a posthumous restoration of blessings. No washings and anointings, no endowment, no sealing ordinance.

This is true, I just checked Handbook 1. However, the Handbook only states that permission from First Presidency is required. It does not say who can perform the ordinance, or who can be the proxy.

Exactly...why would a specific letter be given to my bishop saying that only Salt Lake could perform the ordinance, and not given to the family. This makes no sense...Nor does it fit any procedures. and yes it matters..how it is administered matters...it's an ordinance.

I think you're asking the wrong people.
Go back to your Bishop, your Stake President etc and get an answer.
We'll just confuse the issue further.

But like I said, ultimately what is important is that the work has been done and your father has the opportunity to move on. This should be a source of comfort to you, and I'm sure it is.

I agree..Good point....Im trying mostly to unravel the meaning of some revelation I received. I can't undo the past...i can only move forward. Thank you.

[inho]

Here is a link to a story similar to yours:
http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/LD ... 1020210511
In this case too, it seems that the family was not taking part in the rebaptism, but it was done in Salt Lake.