By mid-eighteenth century, two religious titans of the Anglo-Saxon world, erstwhile allies, were at loggerheads over the question of just how many people were destined for an eternity in hell. George Whitefield attacked John Wesley in 1740 for asserting “God’s grace is free to all.” Wesley had agonized over “How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings!” Some, like Francis Okely, simply abandoned the restrictive hell: “Neither doeth it damn any Man, that he hath not the Word of God, if it is not given to him.” And some went on trial for so doing: Robert Breck was charged with believing “the heathen who obeyed the light of nature could be saved.”
In 1823, Joseph Smith claimed a visitation from an angelic messenger, who called himself Moroni. He recited to Smith a number of scriptures, one of which bore rich fruit in the early years of Mormonism. The book of Malachi ends with a cryptic prophecy of Elijah’s return to the earth, when he will “turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that [the Lord] will not come and strike the land with a curse.”
Jewish tradition, full of anticipation and yearning, weaves this interpretation: At the coming of the great judgment day, “the children . . . who had to die in infancy will be found among the just, while their fathers will be ranged on the other side. The babes will implore their fathers to come to them, but God will not permit it. Then Elijah will go to the little ones, and teach them how to plead in behalf of their fathers. They will stand before God and say, ‘Is not the measure of good, the mercy of God, larger than the measure of chastisements? . . . [May they] be permitted to join us in Paradise?’ God will give assent to their pleadings, and Elijah will have fulfilled the word of the prophet Malachi; he will have brought back the fathers to the children.”
The beauty of this story is in its intimation that any conception of heaven worth pursuing is inseparable from reconciliation—not just to God, but also to our loved ones, those of our household and those of generations past. A year before his own death Smith wrote, “There is a thought more dreadful than that of total annihilation. That is the thought that we shall never again meet with those we loved here on earth. . . . If I had no expectation of seeing my mother Brother & Sisters & friends again my heart would burst in a moment.”
Smith eventually divined in the words of Malachi a promise of bridging the gulf that separates the dead from the living, in order to unify and bind together in one heavenly family the numberless generations that have peopled the earth. In August of 1840, the last pieces in his project of a universal human salvation came together. At a funeral for Seymour Brunson, he had been reading to the audience from Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians on the resurrection, with its reference to baptism for the dead. Then, noticing a widow in the audience who had lost an unbaptized child, and invoking the words of Jesus that “except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,” he “said that this widow should have glad tidings in that thing. . . . He went on to say that people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and that the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God.”
In other words, Smith believed the same ordinance that connects the deceased to the Lord by baptismal adoption is itself integrally related to the welding together of “children” to “fathers.” This is so because, in Mormon thought, there is only one heavenly family, and Christ is its head. The ultimate end of those ordinances is to affect “one eternal bond of kindred affection and association.” Too excited to wait for the completion of the Nauvoo Temple then underway, Mormon elders immediately began baptizing members in the Mississippi on behalf of their deceased ancestors, by dozens and then hundreds. Today, that same work that Mormons see as fulfillment of Malachi’s promise is performed in over 130 temples around the world.
The effect of posthumous baptisms is not conversion; only a personal, conscious decision to accept the baptismal covenant, in this life or the next, constitutes conversion. The intention is to provide an opportunity for participation in that “whole and complete and perfect union” of the human family. Certainly the scheme reflects a Mormon vision of the eternities, and many are not happy to be put on a guest list for a party they have no intention of attending. Others, on the other hand, can appreciate the motive if not the substance associated with the ordinance. Krister Stendahl, The Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm and dean of Harvard Divinity School, expressed “holy envy” for a practice so conspicuously rooted in love for one’s ancestors. He recognized in this practice, with its hints of ancient origins, acts of devotion performed across a veil of silence, a reaching after our dead in the hope of uniting them to us. And it is these personal ancestors, not celebrities, holocaust survivors, or anybody else, who are the appropriate objects of proxy baptism, as the LDS Church has repeatedly affirmed.
Terryl Givens is a professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond.
RESOURCES
Church Statement on Jewish Names Entered in Genealogical Database
Stephen H. Webb, Mormonism Obsessed with Christ
Breaking The Rules: Critics of the LDS Faith
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
We've long had Mormon authors writing for First Things. What's going on is the same kind of ecumenical and interreligious conversation that the magazine always has sought to foster.
For the same reason that there are Roman Catholics (including priests, including me) who are members of the Mormon History Association, and even on its editorial board. Teryl Givens is a thoughtful writer on matters LDS: his books "By the Hand of Mormon" and "People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture", both published by Oxford University Press, are on my bookshelf.
The idea that our loved ones who did not embrace the gospel, simply don't exist anymore is indeed one way to eliminate the pain we might otherwise feel from them suffering in hell. But wouldn't it be nicer to know that we could be together with our loved ones in heaven or at least to know that they are not suffering in the type of hell that most Christian denomination believe in. LDS doctrine teaches that almost everyone will enjoy eternal life in some level of heaven (John 14:2, 1 Cor 15: 40-42). The doctrine of proxy baptism (1 Cor 15: 40-42) gives us the opportunity to give our ancestors the chance to be together with us in the highest level of heaven.
Since you are clarifying, would you please detail the scope of First Things' interreligious conversation(s)?
Heaven forbid the Mormons become mainstream! Next thing you know they will want voting rights and statehood.
In your comment you say God is not bound by any law. But do you believe God keeps his promises? Does He stick to His word? Mormons believe He has commanded all who can be held accountable for their actions to be baptized, so even though God is not somehow forced to follow through with that, He will choose to follow through because he has integrity.
A second thought: I was surprised to read a statement from a Roman Catholic saying that baptism is a "technicality"! I had always thought Roman Catholics held baptism in the highest regard, and considered it to be a sacred covenant with God. I may be wrong in that respect, and am happy to be corrected. To understand the Mormon point of view: Mormons believe baptism to be much more than a technicality, but a life-changing event. The highest levels of heaven are filled with those who have given their lives to Christ, and who seek every moment to live as He lives, to love as He loves, to be as He is. A baptism asserting one's allegiance to and intention to follow Christ is then not a technicality, but rather an essential beginning step on that path.
Our belief does not tell God anything. God told us that he requires this ordinance of all mankind who have lived to the age where they are accountable for their sins. (See John 3:5) He also has provided a way for us to help our deceased receive it. He did not have to do that. Perhaps he did it that way to give us the opportunity to increase our love for our fellow humans by serving them. Before the judgment, he will provide the opportunity to all to accept or reject the ordinance.
Some have claimed that authority is by the laying on of hands as described in the Bible and that no man taketh this honor unto himself.
Some have said that as the Protestants have broken away from the Catholic church-- with a claim that the Bible gave them authority in the priesthood, while others said they had none.
Still others say that the direct line of Priesthood authority was lost even to the Catholics who attempted to keep it.
Interestingly I know of only one faith that claims that the priesthood authority has been restored from God, by a visit of the resurrected Peter James and John for the Melchizedek, and John the Baptist for the Aaronic priesthood.
One guess which church that is. (hint- look it up on Mormon.org).
That is where Adam, in his pre-existent state, knew the Savior and heard His plan for the salvation of all. As did you and I.
"And there is also a logical flaw because the LDS church also teaches that children that die before the age of accountability (8 years old) does not require baptism which means that it is not completely essential to have this ordinance done according to their own doctrine despite what they say."
It is not a "logical flaw", it is because of one of the reasons for baptism, which is to clean the sinner of all past sins.
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)
All adults are sinners and therefore require baptism. The baptism is a sign that one has repented of all his sins and is now made clean and pure again. Small children do not have the ability to sin so there is no reason to baptise them. Jesus said:
"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 19:4)
Requiring children to be baptized who never had the chance to be baptized,
would be like forbiding them to be with Jesus in heaven.
The clear and repeated teaching of the Apostle Paul was "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Baptism, while extremely important to the Christian faith as a symbolic gesture of allegiance and affiliation with Christ and his death, burial and resurrection, can add nothing to the atoning and redeeming work of Jesus - which alone brings about cleansing from sin and restored relationship to God and which can be received only as it is offered - as a gift (Eph. 2:1-10; Titus 1:3-5).
When Joseph Smith posited the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation and eternal life (for both the living and the dead) he demonstrated his superficial theological understanding of man's true need and God's solution in Jesus.
For a detailed examination of LDS teaching on proxy baptism in light of the New Testament teachings of Jesus' apostles please see this well-reasoned and documented article: http://www.irr.org/mit/GP-BSG-40-temples-and-ordinances-for-the-dead.html by author and scholar Robert M. Bowman.
Really?
So what did Christ do for YOU?
Did not the very Son of God do something for you (pay for your sins) that you could not do for yourself?
That's right: Christ was our PROXY and did for us what we could not do for ourselves, for how can one who owes a great debt and has no power to pay that debt themelves pay what they do not have? (Romans 3:23)
I am not Christ nor do I claim that I alone have the power to save any man but I can certainly help in the salvation of one's soul by being baptized in the flesh in LDS temples on behalf of those who no longer have a physical body but yet are bound by the same commandment of Jesus to be "born again of the water and of the Spirit" (John 3:3-5).
If those on the other side of the veil choose to not follow Christ and reject the baptism I performed on their behalf, that is their choice, just as those here in mortality can likewise also choose to not follow Christ.
THIS is the great mercy of our God: to offer the opportunity to ALL of God's children, regardless of race, class, age, nation or time, the opportunity to know and follow the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints are the only church in the world to teach and practice this Divine theology.
Really?
So what did Christ do for YOU?
Did not the very Son of God do something for you (pay for your sins) that you could not do for yourself?
That's right: Christ was our PROXY and did for us what we could not do for ourselves, for how can one who owes a great debt and has no power to pay that debt themelves pay what they do not have? (Romans 3:23)
I am not Christ nor do I claim that I alone have the power to save any man but I can certainly help in the salvation of one's soul by being baptized in the flesh in LDS temples on behalf of those who no longer have a physical body but yet are bound by the same commandment of Jesus to be "born again of the water and of the Spirit" (John 3:3-5).
If those on the other side of the veil choose to not follow Christ and reject the baptism I performed on their behalf, that is their choice, just as those here in mortality can likewise also choose to not follow Christ.
THIS is the great mercy of our God: to offer the opportunity to ALL of God's children, regardless of race, class, age, nation or time, the opportunity to know and follow the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints are the only church in the world to teach and practice this Divine theology.
For those interested in the past here are some links:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Baptism_for_the_dead
http://www.fairlds.org/authors/misc/the-new-mythmakers-a-reply-to-the-film-the-god-makers
Here are some quotes:
John A. Tvedtnes, Feb. 1977, 86 (perhaps more info now)
“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?” (1 Cor. 15:29.)
“In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul cited the early Christian practice of proxy baptism for the dead as evidence of a future resurrection and judgment…some pass it off as an outmoded practice of the early church, while others believe it refers to an apostate or heretical doctrine.
But historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the Marcionites of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote:
“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (Heresies, 8:7.)
Early Christian writings attest to the fact that baptisms for the dead were performed, and that not only Jesus, but the Apostles, preached to the dead.
After their death the apostles visited Hades in order to preach there to such as had not heard the gospel and to baptize the righteous. (NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA, p. 43. also in THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, vol. 2, p. 49).
Do not the Scriptures show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood…shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord; preached (to the dead)..if, then, He preached the Gospel to those in the flesh that they might not be condemned unjustly, how is it conceivable that He did not for the same cause preach the Gospel to those who had departed this life before His advent? (THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, vol. 2, pp. 490-492.)
Bible commentary:
"...some Christians would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure..."
While it is a Christian derivative, the LDS is, by way of sharpest contrast, in radical discontinuity with historic Christianity. The sacred stories and official teachings of the LDS could hardly be clearer about that. For missionary and public relations purposes, the LDS may present Mormonism as an "add-on," a kind of Christianity-plus, but that is not the official narrative and doctrine.
(http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2550)
Here is what Fr. Ladaria said about LDS baptism, in a Vatican document:
The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
( http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/MORMBAP1.HTM)
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
Not sure what you mean by "fees". Nobody pays any money to have this done or to do this. Living decendents of the deceased ancestors simply need to be in good standing with the church and they can go to the temple and perform the proxy baptism for them for no cost to them; except maybe the gas it took to make the trip.
As for fees, I would like to know what the financial component is to being in good standing with the LDS church.
Why doesn't the LDS have a team of people on duty 24/7 for baptisms and then go through their extensive geneological records and proxy baptize everyone? We're all related through Adam!
Refering to temple work God said:
"And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers." (D&C 2:2, Malachi 4:6)
Like most other religions, to be in good standing one should donate what they can to the church to help it grow and move forward; therefore the LDS church practices the law of tithing (Mal 3: 8-10), where they give a tenth of their income as a donation to the church. But no one ever thinks of this as a "fee" that must be paid to do temple work.
Even though I don't want to be considered as part of your "mainstream," I also want to be able to refer to myself as a Christian and not have people snear and stand in judgment of my committment to Christ. Your "mainstream" wants to claim that Mormons pay tribute to a Mormon Jesus, who is different than your "mainstream" Jesus. I don't buy that. The deeper you look into that lie, the more you will find professional pastors and professors of religion trying to protect and preserve their economic livelihood. I would prefer that people accept me at my word and by the way I live when I profess faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior.
So many of the misunderstandings, doctrinal twisting, and downright smear-campaign directed at Mormons since the 1830s has its roots in people using their incomplete understanding (and/or being utterly uninformed) to make statements about what the LDS religion teaches and practices. And you are doing the same, quoting not original sources from people who know the most about Mormonism (which would be LDS scholars or leaders-- or even talking with your LDS friends) but instead opinions and and criticism from people with no firsthand knowledge (Richard Nahaus? Fr. Laderia??) When I wish to learn about the the Catholic Church, for example, I seek out sources FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. They would be the experts, not people who are disaffected or have other motives to hate that religion. I would never to presume to defend an argument against Catholic doctrine or practice by quoting, say, a Lutheran. Kinda wish folks like you would show the same respect.
†
I'm saddened by the statements of Joel. Mormons have just as much of a right to write for FIRST THINGS as any other Christian, or any other religious person.
One thing that I know, having grown up LDS, is that Christ is absolutely central to Mormonism.
Joel states that he has one of the books written by Terry L. Givens, "BY THE HAND OF MORMON'', but, interestingly, he doesn't state that he's read it. If he hasn't, that wouldn't be suprising, because if he had, he couldn't write what he's written on this thread.
Things like this go far to reinforce my suspicions that the very spirit of Ecumenism is diseased; there's just no firewall that will hold against its deadly presumption of inclusion. The WCC didn't start out as the debased and despicable vehicle of the Pagan Renaissance it has since become, but it would be easy to argue (given the benefits of hindsight) that, given their foundational presumptions, they were more or less destined to arrive there from the beginning. Our stance should be courtesy to all, always, but Truth first and foremost; it is in the end the only important consideration. You don't need to level the playing field to the point where everyone argues from an absolutely equal position; if you do, you will soon have to give up your pretensions to be a Christian Journal. In creeds as in currency, it often happens that the false drives out the true, if the latter is not combated with the energy of a zealous faith.
First Things has many articles and letters from Jewish readers, who share with Catholics and Protestants the concern about the ability of religious people to express their beliefs in connection with debates in the public square over public policy. Mormons have just as much interest in this project, if not more, in light of the experiences they have had in the United States of having their religious liberty constrained by state and federal government action despite the First Amendment.
Richard John Neuhaus had his own views on how closely related Mormonism is to traditional Christianity, but he never proposed to censor or censure Mormon writers, and willingly published Mormon letters disagreeing with his own opinions on this relationship, including my own. It would be a terrible betrayal of the entire purpose of First Things and the spirit of Father Neuhaus to impose censorship in a journal whose raison d'etre is to invite MORE religious speech in the public square.
I don't expect you to believe that this event occurred, but one of the remarkable things about Joseph Smith's visionary experiences is that so many of them involved other people, who attested to the reality of those experiences. Thus, eleven other men signed affidavits that appear in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon attesting to seeing the original metal book on which the Book of Mormon was inscribed by its original ancient editor.
As to how Adam could know that Christ would be the Savior of mankind in his far future, if you actually read the entire chapter, rather than quote form some secondary source (which is obvious becuase you miscited it as being in the Doctrine & Covenants, when it is in the separate book called the Pearl of Great Price.
Adam, having lived in the presence of God, was also the first prophet, and like Moses and Isaiah foresaw the life and mission of Jesus Christ many years before his birth. Exactly how can you presume to deny salvation in Christ to people who actually received direct communication from God? Of course, if you don't believe in the reality of Christ being the Son of God and the resurrected Savior, Adam's salvation means nothing to you. But there are billions of Adam's children who lived before Christ's birth, who deserve an opportunity for salvation as much as us modern sinners.
But for all of the tradition and good intentions, there is no "proxy" baptism... for anyone. It is unfair to to the lost, especially the lost among the living, to purport a belief that is false, nevertheless that false hope. In addition, "proxy" insults the very context of 1 Corinthians 15:29...as such "proxy" is not to be found within those words. And still, there are many passages insulted by the false "proxy", say Hebrews 9:27.
Which is the worse... false hope or no hope?
Don't build a "proxy" upon the sand! It will not stand.
Father Neuhaus suggested in essays in First Things that God has provided some means to resolve this conundrum, and that, even though there is no explicit Catholic teaching supporting his conclusion, he hoped that God would provide a means to offer salvation to such overlooked billions.
Some theologians have suggested that an opportunity to accept Christ is given, miraculously and instantly, to every human being at the point of transition from life to death. Again, this is more earnest desire than actual doctrinal exposition.
Then there are some Protestant theologians who cite the same passages Mormons look to in 1 Peter to support the belief that the dead are given an opportunity to hear the gospel and accept Christ through "post-mortal evangelism". That is also the basic Mormon position, and to it the Mormons add the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:29 about baptism for the dead.
Indeed, supporters of the theory of post-mortal evangelism point out that the Apostles Creed refers to the early Christian belief in the "Harrowing of Hell" by Christ during the brief time between his death and resurrection. The teaching that Christ visited the world of the dead and rescued many of its inhabitants was popular for centurioes but mostly has died as an official teaching.
However, surveys included in the book American Grace, found that large majorities of American Christians of most denominations believe, often contrary to their pastors' teachings, that people of other religions can be saved in heaven. For Mormons, that percentage if 100%, but of course this is different because it is a belief officially taught by that church. That is why the recent book by Rob Bell, Love Wins, is so popular. Most Christians cannot conceive that the majority of mankind burning in hell is an attractive prospect or one that God would desire. If God has the power to save or not, what kind of personality quirk causes him to prefer putting the majority of his created intelligent creatures into eternal suffering? It is a picture of God that is off-putting and invites many to embrace atheism. It certainly suggests that all Jews, including those who suffered innocently in the Holocaust, will burn in hell forever, something which the Jewish critics of Mormon vicarious baptism curiously ignore when they claim to be offended by an offer of rescue.
When a person requests it not to be done, and it is still performed against their will. My non-LDS paternal grandparents specificially requested that this not be done for them after they died - and another LDS relative still did it anyway.
The same temple work has been done for some of my relatives eight or more times under different spellings of their names, different birth, marriage and death dates.
Ficticious people are being married to real people. Saint Damien, the celebate Catholic Priest of Molokai was married to a woman "Marie."
The Jewish victims of the Holocaust were murdered by the Nazis for being Jewish, not LDS. In spite of the LDS Church requesting their work not be done unless done by a living relative - no one is being disciplined for doing temple work for Holocuast Victims - including Anne Frank, whose temple work has been repeated for her at least six or more times.
Someone sealing Jaweh to Elohim.
Are these truly ordinances to save the dead? Or are they merely busy work to keep LDS from questioning their faith?
We don't have to accept the baptism. That is our choice. God however has given all mankind, past, present & future the means to obey his commandments.
As for Mormons being permitted to appear in the pages of the magazine: I've been a subscriber, I think, since the very first issue. I have utterly no interest in ecumenism, but I do very much value charity and accurate understanding. Moreover, I can definitely say that I don't see myself, when I'm reading and contemplating articles in First Things, as engaged in an "inter-religious" activity. (I know what inter-religious activities feel like; I've been participating in them for many years, and I'm a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic.) I see myself as reading the work of reflective and highly intelligent fellow Christians, almost always from traditions quite different than my own but with whom I nonetheless have very much in common. I've profited a great deal from such encounters.
When we die, our bodies are buried in the ground....our spirits go to "spirit prison" or a waiting place until the resurrection and final judgement. Envision for a moment what is going on there.....are people being taught the gospel of Jesus Christ? I believe they are....I believe the same sociality we enjoyed here on earth is also possible beyond the veil of death.
The proxy ordinances performed by the LDS Church is one of the most beautiful, love inspired doctrine of God, restored to the earth in these last days in preparation for the Second Coming of the Savior.
Baptism as the Lord established it is a beautiful ordinance, and a beautiful experience. Thus the Lord desires everyone to experience it. Lovingly, He has provided the way that all may experience this too-be-cherished teachig ritual. Performing this cherished ordinance for deceased persons, truly "turns the hearts of the children to their fathers and thehearts of the fathers to their children." It creates a loving and Eternal bond.



This problem, which to my mind is even more daunting than the "problem of pain," of how we can be happy in heaven when loved ones are in hell, has been addressed in Catholic theology. My (limited) understanding of it is that the person we loved, or thought we loved, no longer exists. Meanwhile we had better pray fervently for the salvation of those we love. (Perhaps this in one incentive for entering religious life.)