Could you move her a bit closer to the baptism font?
President Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was recently baptized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons).
She’s been dead for 14 years.
This is an example of the bizarre practice of the Mormon church called “baptism for the dead,” in which Mormons posthumously baptize people by proxy. (Many people don’t realize that this is a primary impetus for their famed genealogy work; as they discover their ancestors they perform these proxy baptisms for them.)
I had some discussions with Mormon missionaries recently, and when this topic came up their sole source for this belief is 1 Corinthians 15:28-29:
When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will (also) be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.
Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?
There are many problems with the Mormon exegesis of this passage (for one, nowhere does Paul actually condone the practice, he just mentions it in the context of another discussion), but I think the bigger problem is that this is an extreme example of sola scriptura (which is ironic, since Mormons claim to reject sola scriptura). Nowhere is there any evidence that the Christian Church practiced a “baptism for the dead” at any time in its history. Furthermore, the Church’s practice of baptism has never allowed for a “proxy” in the place of the recipient, especially in a situation in which the recipient doesn’t even know about it! This would run counter to the underlying reason for baptism, i.e. one’s personal inclusion into the family of God. And baptizing a dead person is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that baptism brings new life to the believer. Yet in spite of all this the Mormon church yanks this verse out of context and develops an entire doctrine out of it (this is similar to the fundamentalist invention of the “rapture”).
The Catholic understanding of Divine Revelation is more holistic: we believe that there are two means by which revelation has come to us – Scripture and Tradition – and we believe that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church is the authoritative teacher of that revelation. This three-pronged approach helps to prevent such egregious cases of ripping verses out of the context of the life of the Church. Read Dei Verbum for a beautiful exposition of the Church’s understanding of Divine Revelation.
For a more detailed explanation of the problems with “baptism for the dead,” see this page from Catholic Answers.
This article is timely for me as I have a meeting with some Mormon missionaries this afternoon. Thank you for providing more information on how to explain the truth.
I believe that there are few problems with your analysis of the Mormon doctrine of Baptism for the Dead.
While the missionaries may have quoted a “sole” source for the doctrine, they might have better said that it is the sole source in the current New Testament. Mormon’s believe in continuing revelation from living prophets and that is more accurately the source and continued support of the doctrine and practice. Also, it appears likely that the doctrine was indeed practiced in early Christianity until the Sixth Council at Carthage discouraged the practice.
The Mormon Church also has a three-pronged approach to Divine Revelation. The sources are Scripture, Prophets and Apostles and personal revelation from the Holy Ghost.
An official explanation of the doctrine from the Mormon point of view can be found at:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20august%201987.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1
while a more scholarly treatment can be found here:
http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Baptism_for_the_Dead_the_Coptic_Rationale.html
David,
Thank you for your post with further details of this doctrine.
I recognize that the Mormon church doesn’t consider this a case of sola scriptura. However, I would still say that, for all practical purposes, that is what it is. Note that the LDS church is not claiming this is a new revelation that occurred in the 19th century, since they claim that Paul refers to its practice in the 1st century – so according to them, it had to exist before the 1800′s. But their only “proof” of the Christian support for this practice is one lone verse, taken out of context. How is that anything other than sola scriptura?
So although they may formalize their establishment of this doctrine by referring to some other writing from the 19th century, this is no different, in practice, than fundamentalists who invented the doctrine of the rapture.