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
428 Comments
I'm a temple attending Mormon. To those of you who are offended that I might one day be baptized for you to help you get into heaven, I say this: If you Catholics think that lighting a candle for me might help my eternal soul, hey, go for it. I can use all the help I can get, and I would be happy to accept the kindness of your gift. You Jews have a prayer of intercession, and you want to do it for me? Thank you. And I mean that sincerely. Anyone else? Muslims? Buddists? You can chime in. All of you, believe me. When we Mormons do baptisms for the dead, it is for the best of intentions and out of real love. Disagree with us? Fine. But then do what YOU think YOU should do and don't judge us because we're trying to help. And remember this saying: "A fool takes offense when none is intended."
Posted by Ray | 11.05.09, 21:42 GMT
Baptism for the dead was practiced by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. That being said, it was an ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ. Peter (1 Pet 3:19) even expounds on what Christ did after his death by saying that he went to preach to the spirits who were in prison . A spirit cannot be baptized without a body. After death it must be done by proxi, the early saints were taught this principle.
It is every LDS members duty to perform redemptive work for their kindred dead. That being said if we are all descendents of Adam, some point in time we'll cross the line into the Jews, Muslims and everone else doing this work. Jesus received His baptism from John because John was ordained to baptize by holding the Priesthood of Aaron. If the Son of God submitted himself to baptized by authority of John, why should not our dead be baptized vicarious by one one having authority.
Vicarious work is a divine law, Christ performed it for us so we perform it for our dead.
Posted by Frank | 29.04.09, 22:07 GMT
I applaud the writer of this article. It is the open attitude we all should have about other religions. I think at face value, "baptism for the dead" just sounds wierd. But as this article points out, it's not a new concept, the Mormons didn't create it. Just because we're not familiar with it doesn't mean we have to mock them and cast them out. It's not like they're offending the dead people who this is actually happening to. Besides, I've spoken to the LDS Missionaries and found them polite and civil, not the crazy grave diggers some want us to believe they are. They deserve more respect than they get. After all, it's quite a sacrifice for them. What kind of sacrifice have we done for our religion?
Posted by Rowan | 16.03.09, 20:34 GMT
If maybe those Mormons are correct. Then what. Ya know the guy
is dead. If he is headed to hell without it, just think how happy he would be.
Posted by Ken steltzner | 10.03.09, 23:14 GMT
RE: COLIN 18.01.09
You fail to explain how baptism for the dead contradicts the scriptural teaching in 2 Nephi 9:15. I infer that you read this scripture to support the immediate judgment timeline discussed in many comments here. However, it is critical to note in the opening sentence of this verse the line "passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal." Passing from the first death (separation of body and spirit) to immortal life (permanent rejoining of body and spirit) is the resurrection. This scripture supports the timeline of judgment after resurrection, and is therefore consistent with the doctrine in question.
Posted by Neli42 | 10.03.09, 19:19 GMT
As a Mormon, whose son spent two years serving a mission for the Church in Ireland, and who I might add, fell in love with the people and country, I think your comments are a breath of common sense and fresh air.
One of the reasons for baptising for the dead is so that families can be joined together in the eternities. This is also one of the reasons why we pay such attention to genealogy. We are all sons and daughters of God, whatever religion we choose to follow, and as your well researched piece says "what's the problem?"
Posted by Lee West | 10.03.09, 11:51 GMT
Biblical principles: (1) Christ commanded us to be baptized (John 3:5) “…to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matt. 3:15), (2) Jesus doesn’t change (Heb. 13:8), (3) God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34) (see also I Pet. 4:6), (4) God loves all, & wants to save, not condemn, us, (John 3:16-17), (5) Baptism for the dead is Biblical (I Cor. 15:29), (6) Christ’s atonement is universal in hope/ potential for all, & (7) The Mal. 4:5-6 prophecy is closely intertwined with baptism for the dead. Mormon teachings are consistent with, & fulfill, all of the above.
Posted by Richard B | 09.03.09, 00:04 GMT
Being baptised for the dead and performing the ordinances that are of the Mormon faith are purely a service of the heart. It is done in love and with love and we freely apply the time for the service to be rendered. It is an honor to serve those that could not make the journey themselves by having the Mormon church taught directly to them.
I thank you.
Posted by Tracy Best | 02.03.09, 04:40 GMT
Here is some insight for you to consider- it helps with the true translation for which Paul intended it.
15} Else what shall they do which are baptized {o} for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
(15) The argument taken of the end of baptism, that is, because those who are baptized, are baptized for dead: that is to say, that they may have a remedy guarding against death, because baptism is a token of regeneration.
(o) They that are baptized to this end and purpose, that death may be put out in them, or to rise again from the dead, of which baptism is a seal.
Posted by Leigh | 01.03.09, 21:32 GMT
It's sad that the Jews think that LDS are denying their "Jewishness" when baptizing by proxy. We honor their place in the tribe of Judah and put great doctrinal significance on the House of Israel as the Covenant People of the Lord. The fact that we do genealogical research to link all the families of the earth together means, in addition to extending the blessings of the Gospel to all, that our ethnic heritage is discovered and affirmed and thereby honored. Through researching my own history I found out that I have African and Jewish ancestors in my recent past, both denied by succeeding generations trying to avoid the stigma traditionally placed on these two peoples. In any case, my ancestors, whether Catholic, Jewish, Druid or whatever, are MY relatives and I have a right to be sealed to them as part of my eternal family.
Posted by Mari | 01.03.09, 08:00 GMT
What do I care if mormons are baptizing my dead ancestors or even me once I die. If they are wrong it doesn't matter. The way I see it is that if they want to believe it works...fine let them. I actually hope they continue the practive because of the geneology resources that are available to anyone with an internet connection because of their belief.
Posted by john | 26.02.09, 19:09 GMT
I love it!
Posted by Dorothy L Roper | 24.02.09, 16:57 GMT
aleta, you wrote
Indeed, what is wrong with the Mormons baptising the dead. They have a choice to accept or decline. So why is it so upsetting that the holocaust people think that this is bad for their ancestors.
Give it a rest. If the Mormons are wrong, as they think, what does it matter to them?
I think part of this is the beliefs of the Jewish here
I am a Latter Day Saint (aka Mormon) and have read a LOT on this subject
If I am correct in my understanding the Jews believe that IF any work was done for the holocaust victims then (despite the LDS beliefs about agency and freedom to chose) they believed that all the work they did in their life according to their beliefs would basically be "wiped out" and therefore that would harm their chances for salvation as they understand it
Posted by steve | 23.02.09, 15:12 GMT
A hundred years ago my great-grandmother joined the LDS church at the age of 20 in Copenhagen, Denmark, her wealthy father was so upset with her that he disowned her. On hope and a prayer she left the comforts of home and immigrated to the USA, settling in the wilderness of southern Idaho. She got married and raised 10 faithful children. In her elderly years when widowed she started doing temple work for her dead family members. When it came time to submit her father's name for baptism she hesitated, due to his bitter feelings toward the church while living. She held off for awhile to see if her feelings would change. She told my mother this sacred experience- Her father whom she had not seen since leaving Denmark appeared three nights in a row at the foot of her bed. The expression on his face said it all. He was ready for baptism and she submitted her father's name to have his saving ordinances preformed in the House of the Lord. I'm grateful to our loving Savior Jesus Christ.
Posted by Peter | 21.02.09, 19:53 GMT
Indeed, what is wrong with the Mormons baptising the dead. They have a choice to accept or decline. So why is it so upsetting that the holocaust people think that this is bad for their ancestors.
Give it a rest. If the Mormons are wrong, as they think, what does it matter to them?
Posted by Aleta | 20.02.09, 16:14 GMT
it is not dishonorable to offer this to all, to pray for the salvation of those who never found it in life.
however, jesus himself accepted baptism in life, although john the baptist didn't understand why the son of god wanted or needed this.
i can also tell you of my expeirence. i was baptized just alittle over a year ago, as an adult. upon promise of baptism, holy crosses began to appear on my face. i now have visible signs of sainthood from all four houses of god. i have many other holy gifts, of which i am very greatful for all of this.
if you accept baptism in life, then it you are very much making a concious decision.
Posted by tina (anit01) | 20.02.09, 03:22 GMT
What a well written article with solid arguments and admirable impartiality. The fact that the Mormons, or to be correct, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perform baptisms for the deceased by proxy shows the genuine care they have for the salvation of the human family of God. When such baptism is performed, it is not done so to 'make' the deceased a Mormon. It is rather to give to the deceased ones, who have never heard nor taught of the Gospel while beign still alive on the earth because of various circumstances, a chance to accept or to reject the saving ordinances performed for them. Without going into details, if the principle of agency is well understood, and if the principle of baptism is equally well understood, then the baptism for the dead poses no problem of any kind.
Posted by Eric Phan | 18.02.09, 20:53 GMT
11th Article of Faith of the LDS Church -
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
What could be more Christian than that?
Posted by Jeff | 18.02.09, 20:15 GMT
we know tha the church of latter day saints is the true chuch.the article that i just read makes sense to many of other denominations. in due time,at least not in my life time ,that true church will become dominant amongst all, including the jews.
how wonderful it is to be a member,being able to have a temple to participate in our beleif.
Posted by armand mingione | 09.02.09, 20:46 GMT
Hi Eamonn! ... or anybody else. Whether you like to call yourself Catholic, Mormon or anything else, beware:
"And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment, " Hebrews 9:27
I would not think it wise to try and settle one's salvation after death. Is there any hint in the Bible we should try to do something about it? If so where?
If you ask me, Jesus took care of it all between His death and resurrection.
Posted by Alex | 05.02.09, 09:12 GMT
428 Comments