Eamonn McCann: What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Given Christian teaching, does it make more sense to baptise dead adults rather than live babies?
enlarge
Print
Email
Why are the Catholic bishops so concerned about Mormons baptising dead parishioners? The Mormons didn’t invent baptism of the dead. The practice has a significant history within mainstream Christianity. The decision to order its abandonment was taken only after heated debate, and was a close-run thing.
What’s the difference, anyway, between baptising the dead and baptising babies? A tiny infant will have as much understanding as a dead person — none at all — of the complex philosophical belief-system it’s being inducted into when baptised, say, a Catholic. Transubstantiation? There’s daily communicants go to their deaths without any clear understanding of the concept. So what chance the mewling tot?
Indeed, given that all Christian Churches believe that the soul lives on after death and retains understanding and consciousness of self, doesn’t it make more sense to baptise dead adults than live babies?
Apart from which, if the Catholic bishops hold that the beliefs of the Mormons are pure baloney (as they must), and their rituals therefore perfectly meaningless, how can it matter to them what mumbo-jumbo Mormons might mutter over Catholic cadavers?
The current controversy has been prompted by Archbishop Dermot Clifford and Bishop Bill Murphy complaining to the National Library in Dublin about records handed over by the Church being made available to all and sundry. The Mormons are believed to have taken advantage of this facility to comb through parish records and baptise the souls enumerated therein, a batch at a time.
The bishops stepped in after the Vatican warned all national churches earlier this year about Mormons misusing diocesan records. I have heard it suggested that the alarm of the Holy See had escalated after reports that Mormon multiple baptisms were regularly breaking the official record set by General Liu Kung Lee who, in one afternoon, baptised seven regiments of Chinese soldiers into Christianity with a fire-hose.
Let’s look at the facts as understood by the early followers of Christ. For more than 300 years after the Crucifixion, baptism of the dead was widely accepted, its biblical basis located in 1 Corinthians 15, 29: “Otherwise, what shall they do who are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptised for them.” In other words, a deceased person could be baptised by proxy: otherwise, how could such a person be included in the Resurrection? A good question.
The radical Cerinthians and the Marcionites were especially energetic baptisers of the dead. It was to wrong-foot these sects, seen as competitors with the official Church at a time when it was consolidating its position as the State religion of the Roman Empire, that the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) voted, after bitter debate, to condemn the practice.
Interestingly, a clear trace of baptism of the dead has lingered in official practice to the present day, in the form of prayers for divine intercession on behalf of the unbaptised souls. Prayers for intervention were encouraged in Catholic schools in the 1950s. For all I know, this remains the case.
Baptising the dead might be seen as analogous, too, to the Jewish prayer of intercession. Which serves as a reminder that US Jews put a halt to galloping post-mortem Mormonism a couple of years ago by arguing that deJudaising those who’d perished in the concentration camps constituted a profound insult to Holocaust victims. Following talks in New York between leaders of the two religions, the Mormons backed off.
The key point is, surely, that all religions believe that the soul, after death, at last knows what’s what — whether Hinduism, Free Presbyterianism, Jainism, Judaism, Islam, Catholicism or whatever is the true religion. What if it’s Mormonism? What if it’s an everyday occurrence on the other side that Catholics and Protestants are left standing dumbstruck at the Gates, gasping: “Mormons! Who’d have believed it?” And maybe a wife berating her husband: “There! I told you it would be the Mormons! But would you listen?! Now it’s eternal hellfire for the two of us, I hope you’re satisfied.”
In that scenario, shouldn’t all members of all other religions be literally eternally grateful to the Mormons for sharing their saving grace even unto and after death?
If, on the other hand, it isn’t the Mormons at all, those who turn out to have been right can wave a merry farewell to the crestfallen followers of Brigham Young as they trundle downwards to their eternal comeuppance.
What’s the problem?
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
Comments
342 Comments
As a teenager, I participated in "Baptisms for the dead" I took great pride in knowing that I had been a part of the possibility of saving even 1 persons soul from eternal darkness (If it is at all possible) After all, not everyone had the opportunity to learn God's truth while here on this earth. As an in-active, and baptised LDS member, I still have many wonderful and fulfilling memories of services we as youth provided for the community.
Thank You McCann for this article, beautifully written.
Posted by Kristina | 01.12.08, 22:37 GMT
I've always argued that these Baptisms for the Dead have never replaced other ordinances performed on earth so what would it matter if extra ordinances were performed on their behalf? At least it gives them choices on the other side, no matter who is right! In the end, only the Lord Almighty will be right, not one man, no matter which God you believe in.
Posted by Ian | 30.11.08, 22:24 GMT
I've been seduced into the habit of reading the strings of responses at the end of online articles. Almost always, they're full of invective and name-calling from both sides, especially if the article has mentioned Mormons. What's going on here? Kindness, reason, (dare I say it?) love? From both sides! Is it the Irish? Is it Mr. McCann? What a comforting surprise on a Saturday morning of surfing! Thanks to all.
Posted by Marvin, Utah, USA | 22.11.08, 18:46 GMT
Excellent, thought provoking and enjoyable! Only one thing to say, Mormons aren't followers of Brigham Young! We follow Christ!
I thoroughly enjoyed this article, compliments to the hand that penned it.
Posted by Sarah | 21.11.08, 13:00 GMT
Course, I have to interject that Mormons don't see everyone that isn't Mormon as going to hell. That just needed to be said. We believe that all people will be held accountable for the truth they have, and their efforts to search out and follow truth.
We also (obviously) believe that all God's children need ordinances (such as baptism) - these ordinances 1)teach us 2) allow us to covenant with God.
I sincerely hope people of all faiths can communicate in love. I would never want to offend someone else. Those proxy baptisms are done only with love in mind; we believe each individual has the right to accept or decline the proxy work, even after they've died. It's always their choice.
Posted by Heather | 20.11.08, 08:00 GMT
what is a sane, honest, logical and humerous person like you doing in journalism?
keep up the good work!
Posted by Don Wertz | 19.11.08, 19:00 GMT
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps those who are making such a fuss believe deep down that the Mormons are
right.
Posted by G Watkins | 19.11.08, 16:33 GMT
Refreshing to read a rational theologian. That's really all Mormonism is -- a rational theology. Well spoken, my man McCann.
Posted by Kelli Allred | 18.11.08, 17:46 GMT
Thank you, thank you, thank you all for thoughtful comments done without vitriol. It is so refreshing. I am LDS and have loved every minute of being of service to someone other than myself in all the work we do in the temples. Our Heavenly Father and our Savior love each of us - those who try their best to keep the commandments to love each other and to be kind He loves a little more. Say your prayers and be thankful.
Posted by Barbara | 15.11.08, 04:55 GMT
If the Mormon Church is the true church, anyone should be grateful for their baptising anyone who has passed on without baptism into that church. If it's false, do the foolish few who protest actually believe that Mormon ordinances will be eternally effective, and their loved one(s) will become Mormons for eternity?There's one born every minute. . .
Posted by Dorothy Nelson | 15.11.08, 03:36 GMT
Baptism for the dead does not insure any soul eternal salvation. It merely fills in a gap that could not otherwise be filled during a lifetime since they may not have had an opportunity. They still have the opportunity to accept or deny after death. There is no coercion as I understand it. Again, no problem.
Posted by Jerry Steorts | 14.11.08, 14:37 GMT
Good Job! Thank you so much for the insight on Baptism for the Dead and its history. I am LDS and have performed baptisms for deceased ancestors as well as for complete strangers. I had no idea of the biblical history and appreciate the education. It is a sacred honor to enter the Temple and perform these ordinances for those who didn't have the chance in this life. It only makes sense to me that a Just and Fair God would allow this to happen on behalf of those who have passed on without it. If, like you said, it isn't true, what's the harm? Thanks again for a rare, positive view of the LDS church and our good intentions.
Posted by A. Smith | 14.11.08, 05:07 GMT
With regards to comments by Maj 29.10.08, 20:48 GMT, not to worry! The LDS church also teaches that, although the ordinance of baptism must be done by the living, those on the other side can choose to accept the ordinance or not! Even if the Mormon's DO have it right, you don't have to automatically go along for the ride...
Posted by Gail | 14.11.08, 04:05 GMT
Mormons don't believe all who are non-mormon are bound for hell. They believe all but those who deny the Holy Ghost after having known first-hand of it will be in a place far better than they are today.
Posted by Laz the Gimp | 14.11.08, 02:26 GMT
Do you think God is going to force anyone to heaven? Of course not. Everything is contingent on that person accepting or rejecting that baptism that has been done for him/her. God has given us all our free agency - even in heaven/hell.
The only thing we know for sure is that "every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ." Even then - some will reject him!
Posted by Karla - devout mormon | 13.11.08, 22:37 GMT
Wow. Is everyone in Ireland so kind? I immediately noticed a tone to the comments which I wasn't familiar with when reading comments about Mormons in US newspapers. Even just reading the comments on Deseret News (the Church owned newspaper) you'll find dissenters filled hatred and spite towards the LDS church.
Always wanted to visit. You've given me even more reason now.
Posted by Mark M | 13.11.08, 04:24 GMT
You wouldn't want this to happen?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=3024057
Posted by Joe | 13.11.08, 00:29 GMT
I loved those words expressing such seldom seen evidence of common sense in print. I appreciate the effort to defuse the arguements that seem to have no foundation. What a rare thing to see a journalist take a peaceful tack, instead of feeding the flames of animosity. How refreshing to find a maverick among the media. Thank you!
Posted by Vicki | 06.11.08, 18:24 GMT
Very interesting article - thank you! As the (non-plural!) wife of one of Brigham Young's posterity and a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), I very much enjoyed reading it. As baptism for the dead is one of the tenets of my faith, I have spent countless hours researching the names of my ancestors that they may be baptized by proxy. The wonderful, God-given gift of free agency, or the ability to choose, allows these precious souls to accept or reject their vicarious baptism. But this work is always done in love, for them and for our Savior Jesus Christ.
Posted by Amy | 04.11.08, 21:10 GMT
Now exactly WHY would Catholics or Jews be worried about "Mormons" (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints")
baptizing names from their parish records or public registers
if they don't believe what their doing has any efficacy?
Are they worried? And if they ARE worried, WHY? After all, they don't believe what "Mormons" believe, so why should they worry?
Seems mighty, um, suspicious to me.
I think it's kind of the LDS folks to care about everyone.
If you don't believe that what they're doing has substance, you have nothing to worry about, do you? On the other hand...
I have had the opportunity and blessing of doing ordinances
for the dead in our nearby Temple and felt the sweet comfort
that the person I was there for (long since dead) was grateful and accepting. You don't have to believe me, of course. you can mock or deride all you wish, but then, you weren't there - but I wish you had been. It was celestial.
God bless you all and have a great day.
Posted by Dianne | 04.11.08, 19:17 GMT
342 Comments