Baptism For The Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29)

[Norman]

As peculiar as the new practice may have been to the Saints in the first century Church, it was met with incredulity by other Christian groups. The general feeling among Christians then, as now, is that Paul's mention of those who are "baptized for the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29) was enshrouded in mystery. However, this is not a mystery to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints. Latter-Day saints stand in proxy for their deceased relatives in our Temples.

The Marcionites, an early Christian group, baptized others in the name of the dead. (Homily 40 on 1,)
Tertullian, did not embrace Marcion, though acknowledging in one place that the Corinthians did indeed practice proxy baptism for the dead. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 48.)

St. Chrysostom similarly rejected Marcion's interpretation of Paul and concluded that the apostle's real referent was the profession of faith in baptism, part of which was, "I believe in the resurrection of the dead" (Homily 40 on 1 Corinthians 15.) These words, recited before baptism, indicated to Chrysostom that baptism is performed in hope of the resurrection.

The Copts of Egypt continued baptisms for the dead. The vast majority of Christianity, however, rejected proxy baptism. In some casesas in the Roman Catholic faith proxy baptism was replaced by prayers and masses for the dead.

Such a philosophy appears to have existed in some Jewish circles. The earliest reference to the idea is from the history of the Hasmonaeans. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 BC, it was discovered that each of the Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had been guilty of concealing pagan idols beneath his clothing. In order to atone for their wrong, Judas Maccabaeus collected money from the survivors to purchase sacrificial animals for their comrades. And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection. ((2 Maccabees 12:43–45 KJV)).

In a sense, sacrifice did in ancient Judaism what baptism does in Christianity: it cleansed from sin. Since Jesus declared that baptism is essential for salvation (see John 3:5–7) and that he later went into the spirit world to bring the message of salvation to those who had not received it in mortality (see 1 Peter 3:18–21; 4:6; compare John 5:25–29), it seems reasonable to expect that the Lord would have provided a means for those who died without hearing the gospel to receive this sacred ordinance.

Though most Christians stopped baptizing for the dead in the early centuries after Christ, documentary evidence makes it clear that the practice was known in various parts of the Mediterranean world and that it found ready acceptance in such areas as Egypt. The ordinance is especially attested in pseudepigraphic texts whose authorship is open to question; nevertheless, from their geographical distribution it seems that these documents were widely circulated among early Christian groups and therefore contain doctrines with which those Christians were familiar.

Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints alone in this ordinance of baptism for the dead? What do other Churches think about this?

 

[Nietzsche]

Baptism for the dead is an insult not just to the person being 'baptized' but for the surviving family. It's inexcusable on any level as the individual being 'baptized' has no say in the matter. Just..no.

 

[Norman]

Baptism for the dead is an insult not just to the person being 'baptized' but for the surviving family. It's inexcusable on any level as the individual being 'baptized' has no say in the matter. Just..no.

Norman: Jesus Christ stood in proxy for us when he took upon himself all the sins of mankind, you believe evidently that the dead are just dead. I believe that the dead go six feet under, however the spirit that gave life to that physical body life goes to the spirit world where they can accept his ordinance or reject it. It is a service of unselfish love for our deceased ancestors. You need to take time and read why we practice baptism for the dead, because I know you haven't just by the way you responded to my thread. We seek permission from living family before we do this, however, if the name is more than a hundred years old, we do not need permission. It all comes down to building bridges of understanding instead of pointing the finger.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Baptism for the dead is an insult not just to the person being 'baptized' but for the surviving family. It's inexcusable on any level as the individual being 'baptized' has no say in the matter. Just..no.

Im assuming they are baptizing the deaceased who were also believers in baptism of the dead.

Id find it an offense to pray to Mary for my deceased grandmother, for example, because she is not Catholic. However, since she believes in baptism, and more important, she is a believer, why would it be unethical to baptise her? (Christian viewpoint)

 

[Nietzsche]

Norman: Jesus Christ stood in proxy for us when he took upon himself all the sins of mankind, you believe evidently that the dead are just dead. I believe that the dead go six feet under, however the spirit that gave life to that physical body life goes to the spirit world where they can accept his ordinance or reject it. It is a service of unselfish love for our deceased ancestors. You need to take time and read why we practice baptism for the dead, because I know you haven't just by the way you responded to my thread. We seek permission from living family before we do this, however, if the name is more than a hundred years old, we do not need permission. It all comes down to building bridges of understanding instead of pointing the finger.

The LDS Church has baptized at least 300,000 Holocaust victims, and despite the agreement in 95' it has come up repeatedly, most recently in 2008. Not to mention the LDS using their genealogical services as a means to accrue information for that purpose(baptism of the dead). You claim the church only does so with consent of surviving family. That clearly isn't entirely true. It may indeed be Church policy, I do not doubt it is. But that hasn't stopped those on the lower levels of the Church from doing it anyway.

I do not care why you do it. The motivation can be as well-meaning as it wants. You wouldn't want me to perform rites involving your ancestors, would you?

If the practice was only ever done by the request of living relatives, I wouldn't care at all. But that's not the case.

Im assuming they are baptizing the deaceased who were also believers in baptism of the dead.

Id find it an offense to pray to Mary for my deceased grandmother, for example, because she is not Catholic. However, since she believes in baptism, and more important, she is a believer, why would it be unethical to baptise her? (Christian viewpoint)

I'm a Heathen. I don't want my ancestors baptized by an offshoot of the faith that drove them from their homes.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Most of us have already moved on from the superstitions of the past.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not care why you do it. The motivation can be as well-meaning as it wants. You wouldn't want me to perform rites involving your ancestors, would you?

If my ancestors where of the faith that believed in baptizing the decease, I would to honor them.

Its not historical or in numbers. Its not unethical in and of itself. Also, I didnt say the Church does so only with the concent of the living relative.

If that deceased relative was a Catholic, for example, she doesnt need to give me concent to pray to Mary for her well being. Opposite side, if the relative was baptist he doesnt to tell me he is against deceased baptisms. Id know hencd I would not do it.

Baptizing the deceased in and of itself is not an insult.

Its an insult when you baptize someone who does not believe in it. It is not killing or anything, so baptizing holocaust members are well meaning and only ethical if the family members agrees to it.

The practice itself is not an insult.

 

[psychoslice]

To me it sounds like a cheap way to get your loved ones into heaven.

 

[Nietzsche]

If my ancestors where of the faith that believed in baptizing the decease, I would to honor them.

Its not historical or in numbers. Its not unethical in and of itself. Also, I didnt say the Church does so only with the concent of the living relative.

If that deceased relative was a Catholic, for example, she doesnt need to give me concent to pray to Mary for her well being. Opposite side, if the relative was baptist he doesnt to tell me he is against deceased baptisms. Id know hencd I would not do it.

Baptizing the deceased in and of itself is not an insult.

Its an insult when you baptize someone who does not believe in it. It is not killing or anything, so baptizing holocaust members are well meaning and only ethical if the family members agrees to it.

The practice itself is not an insult.

I don't think I was clear enough. I'm not against baptism of the dead for families that consent. I'm against it when it's done without that consent. For instance, let's say my neighbour's mom and my grandfather are buried relatively close to one-another. If my neighbour asked for that to be done for his mom's grave, that's great. That's his family. But I do not want it done to my grandfather, nor do I want it done to relatives of other families who do not give their express permission.

If I came off as against the practice entirely, then I apologize. Not what I meant. I mean, I don't like it, but just because I don't like something(assuming it is more or less harmless) doesn't mean I would make it illegal. Just leave me, my family & others who do not wish to partake out of it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think I was clear enough. I'm not against baptism of the dead for families that consent. I'm against it when it's done without that consent. For instance, let's say my neighbour's mom and my grandfather are buried relatively close to one-another. If my neighbour asked for that to be done for his mom's grave, that's great. That's his family. But I do not want it done to my grandfather, nor do I want it done to relatives of other families who do not give their express permission.

If I came off as against the practice entirely, then I apologize. Not what I meant. I mean, I don't like it, but just because I don't like something(assuming it is more or less harmless) doesn't mean I would make it illegal Just leave me, my family & others who do not wish to partake out of it.

I agree. I feel its well meaning to whomever has that faith; and, I agree without concent (Id say if not the person, at least their immediate family) its an insult.

 

[Norman]

The LDS Church has baptized at least 300,000 Holocaust victims, and despite the agreement in 95' it has come up repeatedly, most recently in 2008.

Norman: This is old news, howver I will giave an answer. Unfortunately, some of the names inappropriately submitted for temple baptism have been Jewish Holocaust victims who were not relatives of Church members. In the early 1990s, the leaders of a number of Jewish organizations approached the Church about the issue. The Church has always had the deepest respect for the Jewish people and close relations with many Jewish groups. In 1995, in a spirit of brotherhood and accommodation, the Church identified a number of measures to address the problem. Leadership of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors agreed these measures would be sufficient to satisfy their concerns and that they would use their best efforts to persuade other Jewish organizations as to their sufficiency. Many subsequent meetings and discussions have been held to clarify positions, explain the Church’s efforts, and address issues. The Church has worked diligently and at significant expense to do what it said it would do.

Norman: I come from a long line of Jews back to Poland and Russia there fore I have the right to access the Holocaust list because I had family killed in two camps. For anyone that does not have that history, there is no reason to do work from the Holocaust list.

Not to mention the LDS using their genealogical services as a means to accrue information for that purpose(baptism of the dead).

Norman: You may feel that way, however that is not true. Genealogy, the study of one’s ancestors or family history, is one of the most popular hobbies in the world. People of all faiths and nationalities enjoy discovering where they come from. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, learning about one’s family history is more than just a casual endeavor. Latter-day Saints believe families can be together after this life. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen relationships with all family members, both those who are alive and those who have died.

Latter-day Saints believe that the eternal joining of families is possible through sacred sealing ceremonies that take place in temples. These temple rites may also be performed by proxy for those who have died. Consequently, for Mormons, genealogical research or family history is the essential forerunner for temple work for the dead. In Latter-day Saint belief, the dead have the choice to accept or reject the services performed for them.

Since 1894, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has dedicated time and resources to collecting and sharing records of genealogical importance. Due to cooperation from government archives, churches, and libraries, the Church has created the largest collection of family records in the world, with information on more than 3 billion deceased people. This effort was originally facilitated through the Genealogical Society of Utah and now through FamilySearch, a non-profit organization sponsored by the Church.

FamilySearch provides access to information from 100 countries, including birth, marriage, and death records, censuses, probates and wills, land records, and more. These records are made available to the public free of charge through the FamilySearch.org website, the world-renowned Family History Library in Salt Lake City, and through a network of 4,600 local family history centers in 126 countries.

You claim the church only does so with consent of surviving family. That clearly isn't entirely true. It may indeed be Church policy, I do not doubt it is. But that hasn't stopped those on the lower levels of the Church from doing it anyway.

Norman: Church members are encouraged to request temple baptism only on behalf of their relatives. However, well-meaning Church members sometimes bypass this instruction and submit the names of non-relatives for temple baptism. Others — perhaps pranksters or careless persons — have submitted the names of unrelated famous or infamous people, or even wholly fictitious names. These rare acts are contrary to Church policy and sometimes cause pain and embarrassment. They are also extremely difficult to prevent because the temple baptism process depends on voluntary compliance by millions of Church members around the world. The Church nearly always learns about problems after the fact.

I do not care why you do it. The motivation can be as well-meaning as it wants. You wouldn't want me to perform rites involving your ancestors, would you?

Norman: It would not bother me at all, because those who are deceased have there angency to accept any work done for them, including anthing that you might do for your deeacesed ancestors. That is the point that I think a lot of people do not understand.

If the practice was only ever done by the request of living relatives, I wouldn't care at all. But that's not the case.

Norman: Sorry for the repeat answer: Church members are encouraged to request temple baptism only on behalf of their relatives. However, well-meaning Church members sometimes bypass this instruction and submit the names of non-relatives for temple baptism. Others — perhaps pranksters or careless persons — have submitted the names of unrelated famous or infamous people, or even wholly fictitious names. These rare acts are contrary to Church policy and sometimes cause pain and embarrassment. They are also extremely difficult to prevent because the temple baptism process depends on voluntary compliance by millions of Church members around the world. The Church nearly always learns about problems after the fact.

I'm a Heathen. I don't want my ancestors baptized by an offshoot of the faith that drove them from their homes.

Norman: I do not understand this comment?

Notes:

The Family History library’s collection includes the names of more than 3 billion deceased people from over 100 countries. This information is contained on:
2.4 million rolls of microfilm
727,000 microfiche
356,000 books, serials, and other formats
Over 4,500 periodicals
3,725 electronic resources

Increasingly, these materials are being made available on the FamilySearch website. The records that are still only on microfilm or microfiche can be found by searching the FamilySearch Catalog. Many items can be loaned to local family history centers for a small fee.

The Family History Library is one of the top tourist destinations in Utah, with tens of thousands of people making a pilgrimage to the facility every year. Those considering a visit to Salt Lake City can find more information on visiting the Family History Library on FamilySearch.org. This library is just not for LDS members. People from other faiths, cultures and other back grounds that utilzie this library.

Example: The LDS Church helped a little Catholic parish preserve there records that were in bad shape. A hand full of students from BYU traveled there and digitzed the records and gave all of the recovery to that parish. With no strings attached this work was done and the students did not ask for a copy of any of the records.

 

[Norman]

Most of us have already moved on from the superstitions of the past.

Norman: I do not understand your comment?

 

[Norman]

To me it sounds like a cheap way to get your loved ones into heaven.

Norman: Please explain?

 

[JayJayDee]

As peculiar as the new practice may have been to the Saints in the first century Church, it was met with incredulity by other Christian groups. The general feeling among Christians then, as now, is that Paul's mention of those who are "baptized for the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29) was enshrouded in mystery. However, this is not a mystery to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints. Latter-Day saints stand in proxy for their deceased relatives in our Temples.

The Marcionites, an early Christian group, baptized others in the name of the dead. (Homily 40 on 1,)
Tertullian, did not embrace Marcion, though acknowledging in one place that the Corinthians did indeed practice proxy baptism for the dead. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 48.)

St. Chrysostom similarly rejected Marcion's interpretation of Paul and concluded that the apostle's real referent was the profession of faith in baptism, part of which was, "I believe in the resurrection of the dead" (Homily 40 on 1 Corinthians 15.) These words, recited before baptism, indicated to Chrysostom that baptism is performed in hope of the resurrection.

The Copts of Egypt continued baptisms for the dead. The vast majority of Christianity, however, rejected proxy baptism. In some casesas in the Roman Catholic faith proxy baptism was replaced by prayers and masses for the dead.

Such a philosophy appears to have existed in some Jewish circles. The earliest reference to the idea is from the history of the Hasmonaeans. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 BC, it was discovered that each of the Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had been guilty of concealing pagan idols beneath his clothing. In order to atone for their wrong, Judas Maccabaeus collected money from the survivors to purchase sacrificial animals for their comrades. And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection. ((2 Maccabees 12:43–45 KJV)).

In a sense, sacrifice did in ancient Judaism what baptism does in Christianity: it cleansed from sin. Since Jesus declared that baptism is essential for salvation (see John 3:5–7) and that he later went into the spirit world to bring the message of salvation to those who had not received it in mortality (see 1 Peter 3:18–21; 4:6; compare John 5:25–29), it seems reasonable to expect that the Lord would have provided a means for those who died without hearing the gospel to receive this sacred ordinance.

Though most Christians stopped baptizing for the dead in the early centuries after Christ, documentary evidence makes it clear that the practice was known in various parts of the Mediterranean world and that it found ready acceptance in such areas as Egypt. The ordinance is especially attested in pseudepigraphic texts whose authorship is open to question; nevertheless, from their geographical distribution it seems that these documents were widely circulated among early Christian groups and therefore contain doctrines with which those Christians were familiar.

Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints alone in this ordinance of baptism for the dead? What do other Churches think about this?

I would like to present JW's explanation of this scripture.....

"Where an expression can grammatically be translated in more than one way, the correct rendering is one that agrees with the context. In the context, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 shows that what is principally under discussion is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The following verses then present evidence of the soundness of that belief (vss 5-11); they discuss the serious implications of denying belief in the resurrection (vss 12-19), the fact that the resurrection of Christ gives assurance that others will be raised from the dead (vss 20-23), and how all of this works toward the unification of all intelligent creation with God (vss 24-28). Verse 29 obviously is an integral part of this discussion. But whose resurrection is at issue in verse 29? Is it the resurrection of the ones whose baptism is referred to there? Or is it that of someone who died before that baptism took place? What do the following verses indicate? Verses 30 to 34 clearly show that the future life prospects of living Christians are there being discussed, and verses 35 to 58 state that those were faithful Christians who had the hope of heavenly life.

That agrees with Romans 6:3, which says: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” As this scripture makes plain, that is not a baptism that a Christian undergoes on behalf of someone already dead but is, instead, something that affects the person’s own future.

In what sense, then, were those Christians “baptized for the purpose of being dead ones,” or “baptized into his death”? They were immersed into a course of life that was to lead them as integrity-keepers to death, as was the case with Christ, and with the hope of a resurrection like his to immortal spirit life. (Ro 6:4, 5; Php 3:10, 11) This was not a baptism that was accomplished quickly, as water immersion is. More than three years after his immersion in water, Jesus spoke of a baptism that was not yet completed in his own case and that was yet future for his disciples. (Mr 10:35-40) Since this baptism leads to resurrection to heavenly life, it must begin with the operation of God’s spirit on the person in such a way as to engender that hope, and it must end, not at death, but with realization of the prospect of immortal spirit life by means of the resurrection.—2Co 1:21, 22; 1Co 6:14."

Baptism — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Katzpur]

Baptism for the dead is an insult not just to the person being 'baptized' but for the surviving family. It's inexcusable on any level as the individual being 'baptized' has no say in the matter. Just..no.

I'm trying to figure this out. Unless I'm mistaken, you are an atheist, and don't believe in life after death at all. In other words, when you die, that's it. There's no consciousness, nothing. (I'm open to correction if I've misspoken.) If that's the case, how is it that a dead person can be insulted?

 

[Katzpur]

The LDS Church has baptized at least 300,000 Holocaust victims, and despite the agreement in 95' it has come up repeatedly, most recently in 2008. Not to mention the LDS using their genealogical services as a means to accrue information for that purpose(baptism of the dead). You claim the church only does so with consent of surviving family. That clearly isn't entirely true. It may indeed be Church policy, I do not doubt it is. But that hasn't stopped those on the lower levels of the Church from doing it anyway.

It is impossible for the Church to police the actions of 15 million members. There is a firm directive in place prohibiting posthumous baptisms of any Jewish person (unless the person initiating the baptism is a descendant of the person for whom the baptism is being performed). Violation of this directive results in the offender losing his privileges to do temple work in the future -- for anybody. The Church is doing its best to respect the requests of the Jewish community, but now and then someone disregards the rules.

I do not care why you do it. The motivation can be as well-meaning as it wants.

And to me, the motivation makes all the difference in the world.

You wouldn't want me to perform rites involving your ancestors, would you?

Why on earth would I care? It would only matter to me if I felt that those rites would have any effect on my ancestors' eternal destiny, but I don't. I don't believe in a God who would allow the living to magically convert people to their religion, which is apparently how you think this whole thing works.

I'm a Heathen. I don't want my ancestors baptized by an offshoot of the faith that drove them from their homes.

Whose ancestors weren't driven from their homes by someone? Are all Germans today to be held accountable for Hitler's actions? Are today's Mormons supposed to still be hating the people of Missouri and Illinois for driving them from their homes, or is it time to just move on?

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think I was clear enough. I'm not against baptism of the dead for families that consent. I'm against it when it's done without that consent. For instance, let's say my neighbour's mom and my grandfather are buried relatively close to one-another. If my neighbour asked for that to be done for his mom's grave, that's great. That's his family. But I do not want it done to my grandfather, nor do I want it done to relatives of other families who do not give their express permission.

Well, you really don't need to worry since -- unless your grandfather has a Mormon descendant -- nobody's going to be baptized without his next of kin's consent for at least 100 years after the fact. Now if you've got an LDS cousin who wants to be baptized for your grandfather, that's a different matter.

I am kind of curious about one thing, though. How far back is this an issue for you? You're opposed to the practice being performed for your grandfather. What about your great, great, great, great, great grandfather? How about your 30th great-grandfather? Is there a point at which it no longer matters to you?

 

[Katzpur]

Most of us have already moved on from the superstitions of the past.

In other words, you couldn't care less?

 

[Katzpur]

Im assuming they are baptizing the deaceased who were also believers in baptism of the dead.

Id find it an offense to pray to Mary for my deceased grandmother, for example, because she is not Catholic. However, since she believes in baptism, and more important, she is a believer, why would it be unethical to baptise her? (Christian viewpoint)

I've got to admit I'm a little bit surprised to hear you say this, Carlita. Don't you think God looks beyond religious denomination when it comes to judging us or to answering prayers said on our behalf?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've got to admit I'm a little bit surprised to hear you say this, Carlita. Don't you think God looks beyond religious denomination when it comes to judging us or to answering prayers said on our behalf?

Praying for the deceased isnt a denominational oriented practice. Just modern denomni striped a lot of traditons and folk practices of that day by trying to pick or Christ teachings without practing context too.

I just see denomni as different ways to follow God. I dont follow Catholicism anymore and never believed in a entity God. Id assume, objectively speaking, He would not judge based on denomni. Since I remember reading in scripture somewhere God says something on sabbath. He says why do you get upset if someone practices on this day and another on a different day. He said the same in fasting in the same chapter. I wish i had the verse.

It made me think that He is not concerned with How we practice as long as it is by His teaching and for Him only (heart practice).