Comments on: Baptism for the Dead: An Erroneous Practice? – Part 1

By: Bryan Hansen

Bryan Hansen — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:58:49 +0000

I think it is interesting that the prophet’s response is to announce intentions to build a Temple in Rome. From what I see on the internet, that Temple is moving towards groundbreaking.

By: Bryce Haymond

Bryce Haymond — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:48:22 +0000

Thank you for explaining the Catholic view.

One detail that I didn’t mention is that we also believe that baptism is the method by which someone becomes a member of the LDS Church. When a member is excommunicated, they are no longer a member, and so to become a member again they must be baptized.

Thanks for your kind words.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:30:30 +0000

Thank you again for explaining your beliefs. I guess it does stem from our differing views on baptism and excommunication. I think that for me, the LDS view on the “permanence” of baptism is more of a conditional permanence, where the effects of the baptism are permanent as long as one follows the LDS faith and commandments. The Catholic viewpoint is not that one is “permanently” given a “spot” in Heaven, but that the effects of baptism are permanent, and can never be taken away, no matter what one does, since that real change in the soul can never be undone. So, if one is excommunicated and would like to come back to full communion with the Catholic Church, they would repent, and make a profession of Faith, with no need to be baptized anew. This is related to the lay phrase “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”.

Thank you again for your views, and I’ll continue to read your very interesting website.

By: Bryce Haymond

Bryce Haymond — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:16:12 +0000

We have different views about baptism and excommunication which I think causes the confusion. We believe that baptism is a requirement to enter into the celestial kingdom of God. It is a required ordinance of the gospel. It is also a gift that comes because of the grace of Christ. But we also believe that one can forfeit the right to that gift by certain transgressions. We don’t believe that once a person is baptized, that they are permanently guaranteed a place in the celestial kingdom. We believe that the blessings of eternity will be granted through our enduring faithfulness, life-long repentance, and obedience to the commandments, not through one-time acts or conversions. Baptism is the gate which starts us on the path to eternal life, but one can exit the gate as voluntarily as they entered. When a member commits very grievous sins, they can be excommunicated from the LDS Church, which also forfeits their place in the kingdom of God, unless they repent of their sins and return to the fold. If they do repent, they are baptized afresh, they enter the gate, and their journey begins once more. Thus we don’t believe in a “rebaptism” per se, but a first baptism, a baptism which enters them into the straight and narrow way which leads to eternal life.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:15:16 +0000

Thank you for the quick response. I guess I just don’t see how this statement: “We both believe that valid baptisms are permanent, and don't need to be repeated. So on this we agree.” agrees with “Because for those that are excommunicated, it is as if they were never baptized.”. For Catholics, valid baptism is permanent in that no matter what one does, including excommunication, they still have the valid baptism, as it is not erased (baptism causes a real, permanent change in the soul). So I’m just a little confused as to how a LDS baptism is considered permanent, if it can be erased (as in, excommunication causes the person to be as “if they were never baptized”.

By: Bryce Haymond

Bryce Haymond — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:04:52 +0000

Because for those that are excommunicated, it is as if they were never baptized. If they join the LDS Church again, they must be baptized again, as a first baptism, not as a rebaptism.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:55:13 +0000

why do you say that “valid baptisms are permanent”, in reference to LDS baptism, when the LDS Church practices rebaptism, usually for those that are excommunicated?

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:31:40 +0000

As wrong as I feel they are in doing so, I agree that it is their records to do with as they please. If a person doesn’t get baptized by proxy b/c of the withholding of records…they won’t be denied blessings. That’s beyond our control.

By: Morguerat

Morguerat — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:29:14 +0000

Re Ferreira:

The tact I use when discussing it is that it DOES NOT make them Mormon in and of itself. All it ever does is provide the dead the chance to accept the baptism for themselves. If in their current state they decide not to accept it, then for all intents and purposes, no baptism was performed, except in the ledgers of the church acknowledging that it doesn’t need to be done again for that person.

By: Ferreira

Ferreira — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:56:04 +0000

Great post, Latter-day Guy. I understand the accessory-to-a-sin feeling. We would probably feel the same way under different circumstances.

A Jewish friend told me that she didn’t want her deceased family to be considered Mormon because we performed a temple baptism. From my perspective, I want to say, “If you believe there is no authority on the LDS church, then this should be a non-issue for you; only a waste of time and water for Mormons.” That is looking at the issue from my perspective in which only a priesthood called as Aaron may act for God, and everything else is without effect. Where others don’t have that same view of God’s order (or is it Order?) of priesthood, a rite that they consider erronous may still be troubling. For example, I find it interesting that the Catholic church recognizes baptisms performed in other Christian churches–with exceptions.

The feeling of kinship and family ties that draws some to withold records from practices they feel are apostate does shed an interesting light on the value of family ties. What did Malichi say about Elijah?