• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baptism By Proxy an LDS perspective

Norman

Defender of Truth
This is from a lot of research and being an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I find this practice to be one of love and respect for my ancestors who are on the other side of the veil. It truly was and is a Christian ordinance.

Baptism for the dead was so central, in fact, that Justin Martyr accused the Jews of having removed a passage from Jeremiah about the descent and preaching to weaken the scriptural support for Christianity.
Here Trypho remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.' (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 71-72, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1.)

That Paul was not condemning the practice of baptism for the dead is evidenced by the fact that he cites it as evidence for the resurrection, as is clear from a full quote of the verse: "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?" Clearly, the practice would have been foolish if there were no resurrection.

That Paul was not referring to some ancient Babylonian or Gnostic practice is evidenced by the fact that his audience must have been acquainted with the practice. It makes little sense for an apostle to cite a pagan practice as evidence for the resurrection. This point was made in a recent article by Richard E. DeMaris, a non-LDS scholar at Valparaiso University, in his article, "Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology," Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (Winter 1995).

The Greek original of 1 Corinthians 15:29 does not use the pronoun "they." It says, "Otherwise, what will do the ones being baptized for the dead?" The text uses a passive participle form, "the being baptized [ones]," used as a substantive (where it is usually accompanied by the definite article). Participles reflect gender, number and case, but not person. Hence, there is no third person plural ("they") in the Greek original. Placing stress on the pronoun supplied by the English Bible translators for flow in English distorts Paul's meaning. The passage, being devoid of reference to person, does not exclude the Christians as the ones who performed the rite, as the critics have claimed.

Two of the early church fathers, Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), in Heresies 8.7, and Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), in Against Marcion 5.10, note that the Marcionites, a Christian group outside mainstream Christianity (like the Latter-day Saints) baptized others in the name of the dead. St. Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) tells how the Marcionites, when one of their catechumens died without baptism, would place a living person under the dead man's bed and ask whether he desired to be baptized. The living person would respond in the affirmative and was then baptized as a proxy for the deceased (Homily 40 on 1 Corinthians 15).

Some dismiss this evidence on the grounds that the Marcionites were heretics. Latter-day Saints, believing that the great apostasy was already well under way by Marcion's time and that no Christian group then possessed the full truth, see the practice as a remnant of an earlier practice dating from the time of the apostles. Since baptism is essential for salvation (John 3:5-7) and that Christ went into the spirit world to bring the message of salvation to those who had not received it in mortality (1 Peter 3:18-21; 4:6; cf. John 3:25-29), it seems reasonable to expect that the Lord would have provided a means for the dead who had not heard the gospel to receive this sacred ordinance.

Moreover, there is a precedent in one of the books of the Apocrypha, 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, where we read that Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and ruler, offered sacrifices to atone for the sins of some of his dead soldiers.

That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo, held in 393, declares, "The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them"

(fifth canon in the list of 41 rather than 36.). The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage. Churches not represented at these minor council did not feel bound to discontinue the practice. Consequently, the Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran and the Copts of Egypt continued baptisms for the dead while, in some churches, it was replaced by prayers and masses for the dead.

Since the scripture speaks of an ordinance which none of the traditional Catholic or Protestant Christian denominations understand, they feel that it is necessary to explain it away. The same feeling prevailed shortly after the Apostasy began. Even though there were some Christian splinter groups that were practicing the ordinance of vicarious baptism for the dead, it was officially abandoned in the sixth canon of the “Synod of Hippo” in the year 393 A.D.

I know by the power of the Holy Ghost, spirit to my spirit that this ordinance is of God. It truly is an act of love by my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I bare this testimony in the name of Jesus Christ Amen.
 

Marco19

Researcher
Well my question is in general not only for the proxy one.

Since baptism is the central ritual/doctrine for most Christians, I wonder if Jesus himself had baptised anyone while living on the earth?

Thanks in advance :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Well my question is in general not only for the proxy one.

Since baptism is the central ritual/doctrine for most Christians, I wonder if Jesus himself had baptised anyone while living on the earth?

Thanks in advance :)
There is no record of it. Baptism by water was frequently referred to in New Testament times as "John's Baptism." It was taught that it was necessary to receive this baptism prior to being baptized by the Spirit, which we know as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Jesus certainly had the authority to perform baptism by water, but it wasn't actually expected of Him as part of His mission.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Well my question is in general not only for the proxy one.

Since baptism is the central ritual/doctrine for most Christians, I wonder if Jesus himself had baptised anyone while living on the earth?

Thanks in advance :)

Hi Marco, to my knowledge Jesus did not baptize anyone. If He did then there is no record of it that I know of. Thank you for your question. :)
 

Marco19

Researcher
Thank you both for your kind answers,

Honestly for few years and I'm really stuck with this, because according to almost all Christian denominations is a "must". Even more, many churches force the convert to re-baptise in a way they don't accept others baptism as a correct or real... etc.

So, my question, how comes Jesus didn't do... or if he did, how comes no even single example recorded? if my memory serves me well, even in non canonical scriptures there is no mention.

Let's take one step further, just assume that Jesus did baptism and baptism, in general, was an essential doctrine, then my question:
Is there any record/example where Apostles or Disciple or anyone else from followers of Jesus did baptise the period where Jesus was alive?

Thank you :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Honestly for few years and I'm really stuck with this, because according to almost all Christian denominations is a "must". Even more, many churches force the convert to re-baptise in a way they don't accept others baptism as a correct or real... etc.
From the LDS perspective, the real issue is one of authority. While we don't baptize infants (we don't believe they have sinned until they are old enough to distinguish between right and wrong, and we don't see them as capable of repenting until them) and always baptize by immersion, we always rebaptize new converts. Even if a person was baptised into the Baptist Church, for example, at the age of twelve and the baptism had been by immersion, we'd require a second baptism, because we see baptism as an ordinance/sacrament that must be performed by someone holding the proper priesthood authority, i.e. the Aaronic priesthood (which John the Baptist held).

So, my question, how comes Jesus didn't do... or if he did, how comes no even single example recorded? if my memory serves me well, even in non canonical scriptures there is no mention.
I have no idea except to guess that His mission didn't require it when it could be performed by someone else. We do think that it is definitely significant, though, that He received baptism himself and went specifically to John, rather than just asking some random person to baptise Him. That's one area in which we differ from most Christians, who believe that any Christian may baptize someone else.

Let's take one step further, just assume that Jesus did baptism and baptism, in general, was an essential doctrine, then my question:
Is there any record/example where Apostles or Disciple or anyone else from followers of Jesus did baptise the period where Jesus was alive?
Not that I know of, although we do believe that all of His twelve Apostles held a priesthood that was even higher than John's. They would have had to hold both the Aaronic and the Melchizedek priesthood in order to fill their callings as Apostles. My person guess is that it's entirely possible that other people besides John could have been performing baptisms and that the Apostles could have performed some. It would be totally guesswork on my part, though.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Thank you both for your kind answers,

Honestly for few years and I'm really stuck with this, because according to almost all Christian denominations is a "must". Even more, many churches force the convert to re-baptise in a way they don't accept others baptism as a correct or real... etc.

So, my question, how comes Jesus didn't do... or if he did, how comes no even single example recorded? if my memory serves me well, even in non canonical scriptures there is no mention.

Let's take one step further, just assume that Jesus did baptism and baptism, in general, was an essential doctrine, then my question:
Is there any record/example where Apostles or Disciple or anyone else from followers of Jesus did baptise the period where Jesus was alive?

Thank you :)

Hi Marco19, just to add to what katzpur shared with you. Authority was important when Jesus established his church in the New Testament. Paul came across of group of twelve people. Apparently these people were just being baptized by the authority of John's baptism. Paul then re-baptized everyone of them and then bestowed the Holy Ghost upon them. Please see reference below.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/19?lang=eng

As Jesus taught his Apostles his doctrine the priesthood authority was important. Acts 19 is a prime example of this. A male had to have the Melchizedek priesthood which is the authority to baptize anyone in the day of Jesus and even now according to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I hope this helped. Thank you for your question and God Bless You. :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
A male had to have the Melchizedek priesthood which is the authority to baptize anyone in the day of Jesus and even now according to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I suspect this was just a typo on your part, Norman, but someone holding the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood can perform a baptism, just not a confirmation. One must have been ordained to the office of Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood in order to confirm someone a member of the Church and confer upon him the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
 
Last edited:

Norman

Defender of Truth
I suspect this was just a typo on your part, Norman, but someone holding the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood can perform a baptism, just not a confirmation. One must have been ordained to the office of Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood in order to confirm someone a member of the Church and confer upon him the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Hi Katzpur, yes, you are correct. Thank you for pointing this out to me. :bow:
 

Marco19

Researcher
Thank you Norman for sharing the example of Acts.
John was famous by baptising, and the fact till today his followers give a very special meaning to that, but for them baptising never ends with one time, it's a repeated practice.

But while reading the verses, the following qs popped to my mind:
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
What "speaking with tongues" means from LDS POV?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Thank you Norman for sharing the example of Acts.
John was famous by baptising, and the fact till today his followers give a very special meaning to that, but for them baptising never ends with one time, it's a repeated practice.

But while reading the verses, the following qs popped to my mind:

What "speaking with tongues" means from LDS POV?
This is a spiritual gift we believe in (in theory) but that few of us have ever experienced. You would never in a hundred years go to an LDS worship service and hear people speaking in a language unknown to either them or the rest of the congregation. I think this is what most people think of when they think of the gift of tongues. We believe that both speaking in tongues and the interpretation of tongues are among the spiritual gifts that were restored to the earth when the Church was established in 1830. These supposedly existed in the ancient Church, so why not today?

I would say that most of us probably believe that a person could conceivably be given the gift to either speak or interpret in a language he didn't know, because it would fill a purpose the Lord had. In other words, the Lord could give me the ability to communicate in Japanese (I don't know a word of Japanese) with a person who knew only Japanese, if it was His will that I be able to communicate with this person for a reason I may not even understand. It would likely be just a one-time thing, and it wouldn't be for the purpose of proving to someone that I was "speaking in tongues" and therefore "saved." A "tongue," after all, is nothing more than a "language." Speaking in tongues doesn't need to mean speaking gibberish, and I don't personally know of any Mormons who believe it does.

One final thought. The Church sends out tens of thousands of missionaries every year, and many of them must learn a new language. A missionary from Mongolian may be called to serve in Salt Lake City, while a missionary from Salt Lake City may be called to serve at the same time in Mongolia. Both of these missionaries must learn a difficult new language. People are often surprised at how amazingly quickly LDS missionaries pick up a foreign language. Some people say that this is evidence of the gift of tongues in operation. I really couldn't say for sure how I feel about this, but it is quite remarkable to see this at work.
 

Norman

Defender of Truth
Thank you Norman for sharing the example of Acts.

John was famous by baptising, and the fact till today his followers give a very special meaning to that, but for them baptising never ends with one time, it's a repeated practice.

But while reading the verses, the following qs popped to my mind:

What "speaking with tongues" means from LDS POV?

Hi Marco,

Acts 2: 1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
I high lighted key passages in red. For example, young men who go to serve foreign missions in my church have a four week crash course on the language of the country that they are going to serve in. I would say that learning the language quickly could be a gift of tongues. I do not believe nor is it stated anywhere in scripture that the gift of tongues is some type of sacrred babbling that a lot of people do and know one else knows what they are saying.

Paul explained it best.
1 Corintthians 14: 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.The gift of Tongues is simply being able to speak to someone in their own language. Some times not really knowing their language but can understand what they said.
I hope this helped answer your question. God Bless You. In scripture and in my church it is referred to as one of the gift’s of the spirit.:rainbow1:
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Unless things have changed, it's in eight week crash course on language at the MTC
 
Top