Discussing
Baptism with Mormon Missionaries
Over the past few years I’ve gotten to
know and befriend a number of Mormon missionaries. We’ve had some good discussions. It’s hard to tell how fruitful they have been
but the Holy Spirit can bring forth a beautiful orchard from one planted seed,
so you never know.
In our last round of talks we got into
an interesting discussion regarding Baptism.
We didn’t discuss the issues that would usually come up with
Protestants, however, namely baptismal regeneration and the baptism of
infants. Instead the focus was on the
Mormon practice of having oneself baptized on behalf of those who have died,
and their claim that only baptism by full immersion is valid.
One verse to be prepared to discuss is
the very mysterious 1Cor. 15:29, “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?” This verse is part
of a section of the letter in which St. Paul is arguing for the resurrection of
the dead.
When Mormons do their “temple work,”
one of the main things they do is have themselves baptized in place of someone
who has died so that person can, in the spirit world, accept the Mormon gospel
and progress in heaven (actually they believe in three distinct heavens). This verse, they will often claim, is a proof
text for the practice.
The Catholic responses are many. First, this verse is passed over quite
quickly by St. Paul in the midst of a number of arguments for the resurrection
of the dead, and nothing similar to this verse is found anywhere else in
Scripture. That doesn’t seem like a very
important religious activity. Contrast
that to the numerous references and prefigurements of the Eucharist, for
example. Notice, too, that St. Paul
makes no commentary on the practice itself, but only points out that the people
participating in it obviously believe in the resurrection of the dead. Next, Mormons will agree that the practice
must have dropped away rather early in Church history (not to reappear until
the nineteenth century) and yet there is no historical mention of a struggle
regarding the purging of the practice, although there are ample historical
records surrounding every heresy to pop up, all the way to the first century.
These are classic responses and they
are quite valid, but I wanted to find something more. I did.
According to my research, the Greek
term that is usually translated “for,” as in baptized “for” the dead, can mean
“on behalf of,” as Mormons would assert (although even that is a bit
ambiguous). But it can also mean “on
account of,” which I suspect is the manner in which Paul meant to use it.
They say that the blood of martyrs is
the seed of the Church. If that is the
case, many people became Catholic after witnessing the powerful testimony that
martyrs gave with their lives, a testimony that proclaimed a belief in the
resurrection of the dead.
More than that, it seems that it was
common for ancient pagans to enter the Church after the death of a loved one
who had become Christian in the hopes of being reunited with that person at the
resurrection. St. Paul may have been
pointing to the converts who were baptized into the Church on account of their
dead Christian loved ones because they knew that at the resurrection they would
be able to be with them again.
Apparently the Greek word used in
1Cor. 15:29 can linguistically be interpreted either way. However, I think the rest of the verse gives
us some clues. St. Paul refers to “they”
when he talks of those baptized for the dead.
The practice seems not to be universal, but the experience of a group, a
group to which Paul himself does not belong.
If it were a primary religious duty, Paul would certainly have
participated. We do know, however, that
his conversion was not on account of a deceased Christian loved one, but due to
his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.
Regarding baptism by immersion, it was
helpful to let the missionaries know that we do practice baptism by immersion, but
there is ample evidence that pouring water has always made for a valid
baptism. First, we see in Scripture and
history that babies have always been baptized.
The book of Acts refers multiple times to entire households being
baptized, and there is no exclusion of children regardless of how young. Also, we can find debate in the early Church
about baptism of infants, but the debate was whether the baby needs to be eight
days old. Scripture says that baptism
replaced circumcision, and circumcision was done on the eighth day, so some
thought that babies also should be baptized on the eighth day. The Church, by the way, decided that it was
not necessary to wait until the eighth day.
Why is all this important? Because no one would baptize a newborn by immersion. Clearly these babies would be baptized by
pouring. There is actual textual proof
that pouring, though not the norm, was also used for adults as early as the
first century.
The Didache is a first-century
document that scholars agree is authentic and was for a while even considered
for inclusion in the canon of the Bible.
This is what it says, proving that from the beginning baptism did not
have to be by immersion to be considered valid:
“baptize into the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if
you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in
cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times
upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
My Mormon friends were quite surprised
and at times interested by what I shared with them. However, we must be cautious when deciding
whether to engage in discussions with Mormon missionaries. Their presentations are very professional and
well-crafted. And though the missionaries themselves will certainly be sincere,
the lessons they have been given can be misleading and manipulative.
I would recommend two books by Isaiah
Bennett, who himself is a testimony for the need for prudence in this
area. Bennett was a Catholic priest who
left the Church to become a Mormon. He
has since returned to the catholic Church and has tried to equip Catholics with
the tools they need to avoid his mistake.
Tom
Smith, former Mormon and current Catholic priest is also a valuable and
charitable contributor.
