My wife has a cousin that was severely mentally disabled due to near constant seizures (averaging about 7 times per day.) Due to her mental disabilities, her family did not feel the need to baptize her until her teenage years when she wanted to participate in baptisms for the dead in the temple. The bishop noted that she needed to be baptized herself, which she readily agree to do. She died in the middle of the night when she seized in bed and suffocated at the age of 26.
I noticed her temple work was not completed, and her family said that was because of her mental disabilities and the bishop and stake president noted that it is not necessary. I mentioned to her sister that in 100 years, nobody is going to know her (I’ll call her Amber) and that someone was going to wonder why the ordinance wasn’t completed in her life and submit the name to the temple anyway. I recommended that it it would be nice for a family member do her temple work, rather than some stranger that doesn’t know her. What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
#mormonproblems
Anon, I’m getting really tired of your snarky comments. Please be disrespectful elsewhere.
I just had a similar conversation with my mom. My dad converted a few years after marriage. My parents went through the temple after having multiple children. My mom had a stillborn baby before they had gone through the temple.
She was told that because the baby was deceased at birth, there was no reason to do temple work.
My mom worries about that baby not having been sealed to them. She also worries about someone looking at her records 100 years from now, and wondering why all her children were sealed except that one baby. She worries that she has missed a ordinance for that child.
All I could tell her was that God is bigger and kinder that any administrive task .. As a devout LDS woman, she believes in a coming millennium. I told her the millennium is supposed to be the time when all those things get straightened out.
Let God do his job and assume he is aware.
About the mentally incapacitated, temple ordinances are promises made to God that are essentially equivalent to a nun or priest making vows. One is dedicating their life to God and the LDS church.
The ordinances require free-will, full understanding, and all lack of coercion. For this reason, I would like to see them untethered from temple marriage. For a woman to be unable to take out endowments until 2 weeks before her wedding — after all the wedding invitations and plans are made — is social coercion.
IMHO, For a mentally incapacitated person without full free-will, the ordinances would not be appropriate.
Oh man, we had a similar relative that died in the 1920’s and my Mom had only heard of them and we had them baptized. We figured over there they aren’t disabled anymore so why not? We never said boo about it to anyone and just did it
@whizzbang
“We figured over there they aren’t disabled anymore so why not? We never said boo about it to anyone and just did it.”
You have exactly the right attitude. Reminds me of the quote attributed to Bob Hope (or Yogi Berra). On his deathbed, his wife asked him where he wanted to be buried. He replied “Surprise me.”
If a person with an intellectual disability is judged “not accountable” then a notation can be put on their Church record that they do not need baptism (and other ordinances) as long as they are not accountable and as long as they are alive.
However, there is no way to indicate in Family Search that a person was unaccountable so when someone considered “not accountable” while alive dies they should be treated the same as anyone else who has died without receiving the ordinances.
For children who die before the age of accountability, their age (under 8) is the indicator that they died before reaching the age of accountability and their work is not done for them. I’ve never fully understood why those children don’t need ordinances (2 Nephi 31:5-7), but that’s the current policy as I understand it.
Convincing her family, bishop and stake president might take some time, but the Handbook is pretty clear. Perhaps they just assumed that the same policy for someone living applied to someone who is deceased. Depending on how they feel about the issue, it may not be worth pushing. But if the parents of the deceased are interested in pursuing it I would recommend they start by sitting down with their bishop to review sections 3.3.3 and 3.7.6 of Handbook 1.
You don’t need the stake president’s approval to submit a name to the temple, though I’m sure his position while she was alive weighs heavily on the parent’s minds.
I believe the current terminology in Family Search is “not needed”. It is used for those who do not need ordinance work because they are not accountable, often because the individual had not yet reached the age of 8. In every edit field for Family Search, the person entering the information is asked why they believe this information is correct. This field is an appropriate location to enter the information that the individual was not accountable. It is my understanding that those who die before the age of accountability are covered by the Atonement of the Savior, as far as the ordinances are concerned. Ordinances require the ability to covenant, which is not possible for those who are not accountable. If the information is entered, the ordinance fields will say “not needed”. In difficult cases, you may need to phone Salt Lake to have someone with override authority enter the info in the fields for you. I have done that before.
Not everyone is on familysearch and my Mom had this done in the 1990’s sometime. Do we or don’t we believe that in the next life people are free from being disabled in order to accept or reject the gospel? if it’s the accountability issue in this life then what about folks that were disbabled but who lived say who lived 150 years ago but we have their names, we have no way or knowing if they are not accountable or not. You just have 2 parents and and their kids and birth dates and death dates but maybe not much else is really known about them. I’d say just baptize them as where they are now they are accountable, no one gets a free pass for the gospel
I think the “not needed” is only for people who never end up being baptized in life because of disability. I think if she was baptized and confirmed a member as a teenager, then the rest of her ordinance work needs to be done. Obviously, she’ll have a choice to accept any work performed on her behalf in the next life.. A call to the local temple should solve the issue.
I don’t believe that one can mark a record “not needed.” The only way that happens is if a person dies before age 8. Then the FamilySearch website notes “Not needed”. However, you can’t say, as in the case in this post”, well she is mentally disabled and the endowment is not needed. The temple has no power to mark a record “not needed” and neither does anyone else. The functionality is simply not in the software.
I have a great aunt who I was researching on FamilySearch. I found out she died in a sledding accident (her head hit a tree) at age 19. She never married, and obviously does not need to be sealed to a husband. There is no way to mark that a sealing to spouse is “not needed.” and FamilySearch will sometimes prompt me that it is possible that she is married. I wish the functionality was added to say that she never married, but the capability simply isn’t there. I seriously doubt calling the temple and asking about it would do any good.
“She never married, and obviously does not need to be sealed to a husband.”
Doesn’t D&C 132 say such a woman will not become a goddess, will not enter the highest level of exaltation, and will be a ministering angel or servant for eternity? That doesn’t sound good.
I thought all the business about sealings and ordinances was to ensure everybody makes it to the highest level of heaven and becomes a god or goddess.
Anon, I can’t tell if your question is sincere or a purposeful twisting of Mormon theology. Certainly it betrays that you don’t understand Mormon theology very well and given your frequent snark and disrespectful comments, I’m voting for the latter option.
I’d be happy to teach you correct principles if I felt you were being fair. Since your comments about Mormons are often disrespectful, I’m going to simply tell you that your question is fundamentally flawed and incorrectly portrays Mormon theology. If you want to be more respectful, I’ll give you a better answer after you’ve proven yourself worthy of a respectful answer.
It’s there in black and white. My understanding of 17 “remain separate and singly without exaltation… to all eternity … are not gods, but are angels [servants] of God forever” is that a woman who is not sealed to a husband may not become a goddess, may not achieve exaltatation and is a servant for eternity. If this were not the case, why place so much emphasis on sealing and ordinances. I also don’t see anything here about men getting the same treatment.
Here are the relevant passages:
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
I wanted to like MH’s last comment to disingenuous anon but when I click on the like star I get a window asking me to sign in to WordPress.
Yes, anon, why are you asking a question you think you know the answer to? Oh, you’re a troll. Please troll somewhere else, and quit misconstruing Mormon doctrine. I knew the question wasn’t genuine. Thanks for proving my instincts right.
KLC, I think our new hosting site requires logins for likes now. It’s kind of a bummer, but we hope in the long run the site will work better.
I stand by my earlier comments, as backed up by scripture and taught by the LDS church. See:
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-28-celestial-marriage?lang=eng
Anon, you are proof texting things and wresting the scriptures. In short you don’t know what you’re talking about and obviously are an anti- mormon who truly didn’t understand lds doctrines. Just stop now. Or be respectful, apologize for the snark, and i will explain. But if you’re simply here to argue lds doctrines you clearly don’t understand, then leave. Everyone here knows you dont know what you’re taking about. And proof texting isn’t making your case. You’re simply digging the hole deeper and show that you clearly have no respect for LDS theology.
Anon, in the early part of the 20th century it was not uncommon to have single people posthumously sealed to spouses in order to meet the exaltation requirements. Not sure when we stopped doing that, but the brethren have been pretty consistent in saying that people who die single in this life will be given a chance to get married in the next life and thereby qualify for exaltation. We leave it to the next life to determine who they will be sealed to. Prominent single women in the church (Sheri Dew, Barbara Thompson, and Sharon Eubank) have shared their thoughts and viewpoints on the subject in several venues.
“…people who die single in this life will be given a chance to get married in the next life and thereby qualify for exaltation.”
That is how I understood the website. I will say that I personally dislike this state of affairs: that women *must* be married, must be married to a man, that the negative consequences are eternal for women, that men are not subject to the same constraints, etc.
To the topic at hand, I find the statement that a deceased relative “obviously did not need to be sealed to a husband” incredibly callous. Given the eternal consequences, it seems to me that working the on the behalf of deceased and incapacitated individuals ought to be a top priority. It’s not just some trivial formality. It’s damning a person to eternal servitude.
Anon, I am really tired of you misconstruing my comment as well as LDS doctrine. To whom was she to be sealed to? You want her sealed to Joseph Smith like they used to do? Who is the man she is to be sealed to? She was not married. Please. Your remarks are stupid and disrespectful. Please troll elsewhere. I am tired of your BS responses that are neither thoughtful nor accurate.
Clearly you do not understand LDS doctrine and are making up things now. In order to be sealed, she must have been married in life. If she did not have the opportunity to marry, God will not deny her that opportunity. It’s really quite simple. Your “confusion” is easily clarified in a Gospel Principles Sunday School class. I suggest you start learning before shooting off your mouth and exposing your ignorance.
Anon, I agree with MH that you seem to be deliberately obtuse. You said, “I find the statement that a deceased relative “obviously did not need to be sealed to a husband” incredibly callous.” Most members would have correctly understood his statement to mean, “Since I know for a fact she wasn’t married in this life, obviously we don’t need to worry about performing a vicarious sealing ceremony to a nonexistent spouse.” It was not callous. It was a recognition that he knew the particulars of this relative’s life as well as current temple sealing rules, correctly concluding that a vicarious marriage sealing would be thoroughly inappropriate at this time.
“You said, “I find the statement that a deceased relative “obviously did not need to be sealed to a husband” incredibly callous.” Most members would have correctly understood his statement to mean, “Since I know for a fact she wasn’t married in this life, obviously we don’t need to worry about performing a vicarious sealing ceremony to a nonexistent spouse.” It was not callous. It was a recognition that he knew the particulars of this relative’s life as well as current temple sealing rules, correctly concluding that a vicarious marriage sealing would be thoroughly inappropriate at this time.”
I am not sure how most members would understand the meaning of that statement, just how I understand it. It certainly seems to contradict: “…in the early part of the 20th century it was not uncommon to have single people posthumously sealed to spouses in order to meet the exaltation requirements.” That sounds to me like it’s possible to have a single person posthumously sealed to a spouse, and that it’s up to living relatives to take care of this matter. Given the dire consequences, it seems callous not to perform this duty for an ancestral loved one who died single.
The post continues “…people who die single in this life will be given a chance to get married in the next life and thereby qualify for exaltation. We leave it to the next life to determine who they will be sealed to.” The D&C passage says *sealing”, not marriage, is required for exaltation. It makes no sense to separate the concepts, as I read the passage.
Love the fake outrage anon. You don’t even believe in sealing, and you are trying to misquote me!!! That takes a lot of nerve! Really I’m done with this conversation with you.
Please talk to the missionaries if you really want to learn how Mormons believe, and quit warping our theology. It’s not nice.
Anon, your viewpoint is understandable and very similar to how early Mormons would have seen things. Getting the work done for exaltation was of the utmost importance, regardless of the family relationships established through the sealing ordinances. When my great-grandma’s little sister died young, it only made sense to seal her posthumously as a plural wife of my great-grandfather. WE DON’T DO THIS ANYMORE. IN FACT, WE WOULD BE BREAKING CURRENT SEALING RULES IF WE *TRIED* TO DO THIS. As MH explained in the Law of Adoption post, the emphasis has shifted towards family relationships. We won’t seal a man and woman together for time and all eternity (qualifying them for exaltation via the new and everlasting covenant) unless there is good reason – usually based on an existing marriage. We won’t seal a child to a parent unless there is good reason – usually a biological relationship. In fact, from a purely orthodox viewpoint, it would be incredibly callous nowadays to seal a family member as a spouse to someone they did not have a relationship with in this life. It’s a mockery of the depth of commitment the sealing ceremony represents.
For the mentally disabled, the last I heard was to submit their names for Temple Work after they die, and if they are over the age of 8. I helped a member prepare his deceased mentally disabled son’s work to be done.
As far as finding a spouse for any unmarried deceased person: This will be taken care of in the Millennium.