I Baptize Dead People

Controversy about a unique Mormon temple ordinance is an example of a subject that could pose something of a barrier to Mitt Romney being elected president. It’s the kind of controversy that under normal circumstances gets a little media attention in a sidebar article on page 10, but in a presidential election it could work its way to the front page.

Mormons baptize dead people. One of the primary purposes of the 130+ Mormon temples that have been built around the world is to conduct baptisms for the dead in a subterranean baptismal font. In large temples, these fonts rest on the back of 12 oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, standing in a circle pointing to all directions on the compass. The fonts are below ground level to represent a person being resurrected through the power of the priesthood and the atonement of Christ. These fonts are beautiful and the ceremony is short, dignified and respectful. It can also be an issue of debate.

First, a little background. Latter-day Saints are seriously dedicated to worldwide genealogical research. The church’s genealogical records are by far the primary source for such research for any genealogist in the world, Mormon or otherwise. Once deceased persons are sufficiently identified (i.e., name, birthplace, birth date, death date), often through old church or publicly available civic records, their names are “submitted to the temple”. Worthy Latter-day Saints then go to the temple and are baptized vicariously in behalf of the dead. Mormons perform this ordinance first for their own ancestors, then for countless others over their lifetime of temple attendance. Mormons, like some other religions, believe that every person must be baptized, among other things, in order to enter into the presence of God after death. Unlike other religions, Mormons believe that this saving ordinance can be performed after death through this vicarious process. There is some archeological evidence that certain ancient societies have had similar practices. It’s not as bizarre as it sounds at first blush; it’s a well-intended act of service.

The controversy arises when the dead people for whom Mormons are being baptized are not just unknown names on a computer printout. A number of years ago, for example, there was a concerted effort to baptize all the signers of the Declaration of Independence. One issue that just won’t go away involves Mormons baptizing the victims of the Holocaust, including Anne Frank and her family. The idea of Jews being baptized in a Mormon temple “in the name of Jesus Christ”, without any permission from their surviving relatives or descendants just doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. Mormons don’t require family permission for such ordinance work after a certain time has passed since the death of the person involved. The LDS Church agreed in 1995 to cease proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims unless living family members gave permission, which would be very rare. It even agreed to remove the names of the previously baptized victims from the rolls being called up yonder, so to speak. But the issue flared up again in 1999, 2002, 2004 and again recently when researchers found that Mormons are resubmitting these names.

How would a Latter-day Saint candidate for president handle this situation? It would almost certainly arise in press conferences in places like New York City or Los Angeles where large Jewish populations live. It could easily become fodder for debates. The candidate would surely point to the official 1995 agreement, but that won’t make the issue go away any more than the official 1978 decision to finally allow black men in the church to receive priesthood ordination made the questions about racism in Mormonism go away.

The “blacks and the priesthood” controversy is another example of an issue that would dog a Mormon presidential candidate. Had that discriminatory practice, which Mormons claim was both instituted and ended by direct revelation from God to the Mormon prophet, ended in 1938 or 1958 it would be less of a problem. Ending this blatant denial of equality in 1978 made the LDS Church rather late arrivers to the civil rights party.

Church beliefs and practices can be an issue for non-Mormon candidates, too. But in Mormonism the stakes get raised pretty high because they believe that their church is “the one and only true and living church” and that all other Christian churches are apostate to one degree or another. Add to that the belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, whom the Mormons regard as separate and distinct personages, are personally directing the affairs of the Mormon Church through direct revelation to 15 “prophets, seers and revelators” (a designation bestowed on the three-member First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles) and you have the seeds of political controversy in a high-profile election.

If a reporter asks Mitt Romney, “Do you believe that God sanctioned the denial of the priesthood to black men in 1977?”; or, “Do you believe that the vicarious baptism of Anne Frank in 1994 was appropriate?”, what does he say? I don’t know; but we may get a chance to find out.

A HOTS commenter yesterday said that if Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy can vote for Harry Reid, a Mormon, to lead the Senate Democrats, then I shouldn’t be concerned about Mitt Romney leading the free world. First, I have no idea who Clinton or Kennedy voted for; second, I’m not expressing concern about Romney, I’m saying there may be campaign issues about his religious affiliation; and, third, being elected Senate Minority Leader, an ironic title, in a party caucus and being elected president of the United States are vastly dissimilar undertakings. The “rules” in these two settings are written in entirely different languages.

By the way, I understand that Senator Reid’s wife is a Mormon convert from Judaism. Maybe she is one of the Latter-day Saints who were baptized “for and in behalf of Anne Frank, who is dead”.