Weather: Hi 4°C / Lo 2°C
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
436 Comments
The cool thing about Mormonism is this. Those not baptized under the proper authority from God that the Mormons claim to have, will NOT spend eternity in hell fire. In other words, Mormons don't think you'll burn if you're not baptized into their church.
Posted by mush | 08.02.10, 18:07 GMT
Fabulous article. May my Dungarvan relatives and Ballyvoile ancestors be proud of Ireland and their media with this piece.
Posted by Las Vegas Mormon | 08.08.09, 19:44 GMT
Hebrews chapter 6 starting with verse 1 says that to work towards PERFECTION, we are NOT to repent from doing "dead works", as it is impossible for those who died and once was enlightened, but was not able to be baptized. Those who are baptized after death, do not have to accept the baptism done by the mormons, if they don't want to accept it, so what's the big concern about them being baptized? At least the people trying to live "perfect" as possible, should be blessed by God for doing this charitable act for others unable to do it for themselves. Maybe, the other religions should read the Bible and realize that they're not living the principles taught by God and his apostles.
Posted by Loi | 22.07.09, 18:57 GMT
I believe in eternal life and that the Spirit is eternal. When I was baptized into the Lalter Day Saint Church my body was immersed in water, but my spirit was saved. When my church does baptisms for the dead it is for the dead persons spirit which is still living. In most cases the baptisms for the dead are for souls who never had an opportunity to do it for themselves and are waiting anxiously for this blessing, so they can continue progressing.
Posted by Bonnie | 15.07.09, 00:45 GMT
Hypothetically, lets assume to gain enterance to heaven we need to be baptised. Through out history there are people who never even heard of Christ.
We believe God has some requirements, but wants us all to come home. Would a loving Father send his children to a time or place where they wouldn't have that chance?
We do this work in love, as a service to allow all those who've gone on, the chance. They still have their agency to accept or reject. We just want to make sure they have the choice.
Posted by Mandie | 14.07.09, 01:45 GMT
When I look at the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), I see the only church patterned after the original church Christ established. I don't see other Christian churches with the full complement of 12 Apostles, Prophets, Seventy, Patriarchs, High Priests, Bishops, Deacons, Teachers, Priests, Temples with family-centered ordinances (like forever marriages and baptisms for the dead, etc.). Maybe they're not too far off...
Posted by Art | 12.07.09, 22:07 GMT
Baptism for Deceased Ancestors is referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" It was practiced by Marcionites, an early Christian group, Orthodox Christian groups; Coptics (who even practice it today on occasion); Ethiopian Christians, called Abyssinians; and early Roman Catholics, as reported by Augustine and others.
More info: MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com
Posted by Mormons Are Christian | 11.07.09, 20:09 GMT
Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. Afterwards, the youth was dressed in a white robe, and anointed with oil and given a new name. This ritual was sacred and not open to non-family members to view. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/ind
Posted by Mormons Are Christian | 11.07.09, 20:04 GMT
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
436 Comments