Posthumous Baptism, Infant Baptism, Circumcision

Are we depriving persons of their right to choose their own religion?

There's been so much chatter, and not only among the chattering classes, lately about baptism for the dead, I began to wonder about some of the practices of other religions. The main objection seems to be that the dead have no opportunity to decide for themselves. Of course we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints see that differently. We believe the dead do have the opportunity to accept or reject the rite of baptism. And BTW, posthumous baptism, even if accepted by the deceased person, does NOT make anyone a Mormon!


Infant Baptism. Mormons don't do this, but many denominations do, because they read in John 3:5:

 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 Mormons baptize at the "age of accountability", which is generally set at eight years. Converts to the Church are baptized at that time, no matter how old they may be. Now whether an eight-year-old really has the ability to knowingly choose to enter into baptismal covenants is debatable, and parents may decide to wait a little while if they think it best.

The rationale for infant baptism, as I understand it, is that unbaptized persons, though they have committed no sins, will automatically burn in hell.

So what is hell? Actually, it's the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, or the Hinnom Valley, which runs along the side of Jerusalem, opposite the Chidron Valley, which in turn runs between the city and the Mount of Olives.
 "Hinnom" became "Gehenna" in Greek, and "hell" in King James English. So if you tell someone to "go to hell," you're sending him on a trip to the Holy Land.

The burnings came about because pagans, and sadly, some early Jews, burned their children alive there as offerings to their gods. Imagine the screams and sufferings of the sacrificed infants, not to mention their mothers. Later on, the Hinnom Valley became the trash dump for the city, and emitted its malodorous smoke as the offal smouldered.

This, in the eyes of many Christians, is the never-ending fate of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists and Mormons, along with anyone else outside the charmed circle.

The Fires of Hell. Eternal torment. And these same people purport to find posthumous baptism shocking!

Now ask yourself: would you do this to your child, no matter what he had done? Of course not. So give God credit for being at least as good a parent as you are.


Circumcision. This is a ritual not practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so not being a Jew, I cannot comment on it, beyond acknowledging its relevance to the Abrahamic Covenant.

Baptism for the Dead. Now we come to what seems to be the sticking-point for all this: choice. Do we deprive people of their free agency in performing this sacrament for them?

How many squawling infants have ASKED to be baptized? How many are saying, "May I have a bris please? Please Mama PLease! I want to be like my friend....puh-lease!"

So who makes these decisions? Not the person being baptized or circumcised, obviously. No; it's the FAMILY who decides.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints baptize their own relatives. In the absence of informed consent, the FAMILY members decide this matter.

Now infants grow up; some will remain Christians after their infant baptism. Some will grow up to be practicing Jews. Some will choose another path entirely. But it's their choice. Just as in the hereafter, persons will accept or reject the teachings preferred by their relatives. Mormons simply want to give them that opportunity.

Resurrection and Baptism for the Dead

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 Corinthians 15:29  King James Version

Here St.Paul is addressing two fundamental questions: Resurrection and Baptism for the Dead.

I have long suspected that, along with the Virgin Birth, Resurrection is one of the biggest pills for the non-Christian to swallow. A man was killed -- didn't just die, but was actually crucified -- wrapped in linens and laid in the tomb. And on the third day, he came out of the tomb, leaving his wrappings behind, and conversed with his followers. Afterward they saw him ascend into heaven.

Incredible. Unbelievable. If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

There is a name for people who believe that, and according to Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance they constitute about 32% of the world's population. They're called Christians. 

Many, if not most, Christians do not believe the other part of the verse in 1 Corinthians. They want to believe in the Resurrection, but they do not want to believe in baptism for the dead -- so they don't. They either ignore it or come up with some kind of explanation which relieves them of the necessity of belief.

By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious...[Of course. But not to me!]

 Read more:http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/28748/eVerseID/28748/RTD/Barnes#ixzz1ct2tpA6t

There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. Barnes' Notes on the Bible, referenced frequently on the Net.

As a believing Latter-day Saint, I point out the following:

 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3.

Should persons who have not been baptized, most likely through no fault of their own, be denied entrance? Does the Resurrection apply only to those of today, and the recent past, or did Christ die for us all? What of the uncounted millions who have lived in remote times and places where they never have even heard of Jesus Christ, much less baptism? Or, having heard of it, had no opportunity to participate?

Will a just and loving Father in Heaven stand at the gate and deny them entrance?

Ask yourself, would you stand at your front door and deny entrance to most of your children, providing food and shelter to only a favored few?

Surely a way has been provided, and Mormons believe that baptism by proxy for the dead is that way.

BTW we do NOT believe that baptism for the dead implies a forced conversion to or membership in the Church. God gave us all free agency, the right to choose. For those who wish to accept baptism, we provide it, just as we do for the living. We offer the key: whether anyone decides to use it is strictly a matter of individual choice.