Baptism for the Dead
I’ve watched with fascination the discussion of baptism for the dead, both in online message boards I frequent and in the larger media, after the news that Mitt Romney’s atheist father-in-law was posthumously. Maybe I’m so fascinated because, like the gay marriage issue, there’s a “we mean well” attitude among Mormon church members that makes them completely tone deaf to legitimate, if sometimes blistering, criticism, and instead they just perceive persecution. (I’ve concluded that Prop 8 was less a bold moral stand than it was a gross miscalculation by elderly men who didn’t know how much the tide had turned. But, I digress.)
I’ve tried to put my finger on what is so bothersome about BFTD to so many people, beyond the “lack of respect” argument. It seems to violate an old American tradition—religion is a choice. We’ve usually done a decent job in this country—especially compared to others—of navigating religious freedom while not being oppressive. There are plenty of horror stories, sure, but by and large the Founders’ vision of a public, but not state, religion has worked.
Logically, the “you’re dead, what do you care?” argument lobbed at those who find BFTD distasteful is right. It is a little amusing to see people so dismissive of Mormonism’s faith claims get so worked up over something they have no faith in or belief in themselves. It is an emotional response, but one that I see as completely valid.
We prize individuality and choice above all else in this country. These are old notions, and the idea that someone is messing with our names, long after we’re dead, is troublesome. (Would Mormons want someone to donate money to a pro-choice cause in their name after they die?) It also removes choice from the equation (again, if illogically). Right now a Mormon can knock on a door and ask someone to listen. We (for the most part) respect that right in this country, with the understanding that others can refuse to listen.
We’ve decided in the last century or so, that religion is private, a choice, and like politics, damnit you just don’t discuss it in polite company. You gotta respect people’s religion! But BFTD doesn’t feel like it’s playing by those rules. (I think this is why so many people bristle at “in your face” atheism as well.) Baptism for the dead feels like…cheating, in some ways. An old American principle has been violated. It feels a little like “Neener neener, we’ll just get you when you’re dead,” even if that isn’t the intention. Americans are a prideful bunch, we don’t like the idea of anyone forcing us to do anything.
Maybe I’ve just over thought it, but I do find the whole thing to be interesting.
Amos,
I agree with most of what you’re saying, especially about the tone-deafness of many Mormons about how so many things they do will strike others. I guess my reason for feeling like those who are upset shouldn’t be quite so riled up is that this isn’t a baptism “into Mormonism” as much as an act that for most LDS folk who get involved with it feels like loving service. So what if it might be seen as crazy? And sure it may have been motivated originally with at least some dose of JS ego (I am going to “save” everyone who has ever lived!), but I also think it came simultaneously with him genuinely from strong feelings of expansive love (ones that I believe were fed by genuine encounters with Spirit).
Instead of solely going with the analogy of donating to some abhorrent cause in someone else’s name without their consent, I think we might also consider it as at least having a sense of someone sharing something that they think is beyond all ways of measuring with folks they (usually) don’t know with the hope that even if this person doesn’t understand it as feeling like love now, perhaps they will later (and in this case the “later” is assuming that our souls are immortal). I know it all seems very paternalistic and all that (but that kind of love still is rooted in “love” of some type and not just ego). I see both sides. And I guess my main hope would be for Mormons to do a better job of conveying the spiritual feelings that lie behind the whole vicarious work stuff. It seems to me not as much “colonizing” others as it is an effort to build a society (welded chain of being) in which all are welcome if/when they ever choose. I don’t think there’s really much evidence of smugness present in the hearts of those who do genealogy or serve so faithfully in temples.
My rambling two cents….
Jonah
There is little question that most Mormons are motivated by love to perform temple ordinances for people, but there is also another aspect involved, I believe. It is curious, for example, that famous individuals have their work done soon after their deaths, or multiple times, such as with Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, etc. Even Adolph Hitler has warranted attention from some members. These people are motivated, I believe, by a desire to be somehow attached, in a spiritual or salvic sense. They may be motivated by the idea that they personally will be recognized as having “saved” Franklin, or Washington, or Hitler. And this impulse is not just limited to famous personalities, but underlies work done for family members and others. For some members, this gives their lives a deeper meaning. They did something good in the world, and there are individuals who will always be beholden to them for that work!
As a missionary, I kept a detailed list in my journal of every ordinance I performed for another person. Looking back, I realize that I did that because I wanted to have written the names of those who “owed me”.
I do have a problem having the work performed for those who demonstrated a complete disbelief in Mormonism in this life, whether they be Jewish holocaust victims or excommunicated or non-believing family members. I do believe performing such rites for such individuals displays a religious arrogance on the part of the member, and a disrespect for the spiritual journey of others.
Interesting post but there is one aspect of baptism for the dead that needs to be clarified.
It still requires the individual being baptized—even if that baptism is done by proxy—to make a choice.
Just because someone has had an ordinance performed for them in the temple, doesn’t mean that they are automatically transformed into post-mortem-Mormons.
LDS doctrine teaches that while their mortal bodies are dead, individuals having work done on their behalf in the temple still exist, think and can make their own choices as living, immortal spirits. They can still make the choice to accept or reject the work that is being done for them in the temple. No one can honestly say, “We’ll get you when you’re dead.” All they can say is, “Someone will eventually do the work, but it’s still your choice to accept it or not.”
There is no cheating. God won’t allow that. He has given all of us free will and no one can take that away, even after our mortal bodies have died.
I can remember as a young man sitting alone in the temple with a slip of paper in my hand that read the Spanish name of the person whose endowment I was performing. I could not pronounce the name. Back then I thought I was doing the most important service in the world for this person. In a way, I would be his savior. Sporting a “veil worker” pin on my robe, I was once again memorizing one more segment of the temple narrative which I felt added another thread to my Mormon tapestry of secret knowledge. I was content that I was on a good path.
I can’t say that I totally regret this period of my life. I feel that I significantly developed this one aspect of my Mormon religious experience. But like a lot of things I did in my youth, it was pretentious, insular, and self-serving. I thought that everyone would have to come around to my way of thinking. So much so, that I was actually performing a religious ritual for them because they didn’t have the insight to do it for themselves. It would be like contributing money to Barack Obama on behalf of my Mom because she wasn’t thoughtful enough to do it for herself. And let’s face it, my mom is a good person and it is only those who send money to Obama who can truly call themselves good and decent people???
The futility of the LDS work for the dead may well be beyond my comprehension. Maybe that is my atheism screaming logic in my ear. Yet I have pleasant memories of performing the work. Memories that influenced much of the good in who I am.
Here is the youtube of Jana Riess talking about Jews and the issues of Baptism for the Dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d39prbAk3A
I like what Jana Riess says above about why Mormons just don’t “get it” when talking about Jewish holocaust survivor names. Riess talks about a way of describing baptism for the dead as a kind of Jewish Kadish. This would be a good first step in helping us bridge the gap. But I think Mormons in general have too much ignorance about others’ beliefs, so this would require not only reframing the debate but educating Mormons about another faith’s beliefs and rituals.
I worked at the baptistry in DC and then again in Provo for many years and found it to be a very moving experience. Some have criticized the way we move quickly through the names almost without a breath in between. I think the motivation comes from a very Mormon pragmatism: we’ve got a lot of work to do, so let’s get moving! Nevertheless, the bottom line for most members who came and those who worked there was a desire to save souls, to share what they see as a life-giving ordinance with others.
I always felt that the basements of temples are where love can be felt most profoundly in LDS temples. No one is trying to impress anyone, no one is given any real important titles or compensation, and the people who come to do baptisms were most often young people who seemed to be filled with awe from the experience.
My own conversion to Mormonism took place in the Provo temple baptistry when I was a young man of twelve. I felt a really strong manifestation of God touching my soul, a sense of homecoming.
Incidentally, today Jana Riess pulled out material from the above talk for her blog on Religion News Service: http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/jana-riess/mormons-just-dont-understand-jews
I found this news today:
“The Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced recent the recent posthumous “baptism” of the parents of Simon Wiesenthal in Mormon temples”
Amos, was this the inspiration for this thread?
Also this in the news today click here.
One more here.
I did not know about the Wiesenthal issue when I posted this. But I am going to change my name from Amos to Nostrodamus. I can’t think of a better example to illustrate my point. And while I appreciate Jana’s distinction linked to above, I tend to think everyone has a right to protect “their name” or have their wishes respected when they’re dead, Jewish or not.
Again, emotional response it may be, but plenty of people have made it clear they find this practice distasteful. At some point it seems condescending to say “Well they just don’t understand.” Perhaps they understand just fine and still don’t like it. Seems reasonable enough to me.
The story went big. Some 100 newspapers carried it including the likes of the Washington Post and the LA Times.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/53561480-180/church-lds-holocaust-proxy.html.csp
And now word comes that Anne Frank has been baptized…again. I actually feel sorry for the Church on this one. It’s clear they loathe the negative publicity and don’t want it to continue, but it’s tough to control rogue members. But can anyone be shocked that there are members willing to “take the more righteous course?” They’ve been taught their whole lives that this is essential for the salvation of these people, and now it appears that the Church is more concerned about public relations than following the Lord’s will. Is that an outlandish interpretation?
Does the Church have a moral obligation to be more direct with its members? This is starting to give off a “have our cake and eat it too” vibe. “We want good publicity and relations with other religious faiths, but we’re unwilling to lay down the law with our members because it might make us seem less divine” (see also, blacks and the priesthood recanting).
The Church COULD make a statement in General Conference (which is viewed as scripture by most believing members of the Church) that submitting names outside one’s direct lineage will result in the revocation of one’s Temple recommend. They COULD say that the submission of names of famous personalities, Holocaust victims, etc., is damaging to the Lord’s work, and that members who do so will face the condemnation of God for their acts. They could do a myriad things to stop this problem, but they don’t. Thus it very much is a “have their cake and eat it too” situation.
Sam Brown wades in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-brown/mormon-dead-baptism-explanation_b_1279739.html
Excellent piece by Sam. Thanks, H!