To anyone else (like me) wondering why the Mormons maintain a genealogy database:
Mormons trace their family trees to find the names of ancestors who died without learning about the restored Mormon Gospel so that these relatives from past generations can be baptized by proxy in the temple. For Latter-day Saints, genealogy is a way to save more souls and strengthen the eternal family unit.
A little more detail: for Christians, baptism is considered to be a requirement to enter the kingdom of God (per John 3:5), but obviously most people throughout the history of the world never get that opportunity. This creates a problem because Christians also believe that God is a god of justice. Proxy baptisms resolve the issue by performing the ordinance for each individual who didn't receive it while alive, and then it's left to them to reject it or accept it.
Interestingly, proxy baptisms for the dead were part of early Christian theology, but a few hundred years after Christ's time, some committees or councils or whatever decided to remove it, so for most branches of Christianity the theology was changed to forbid it, though it's still present in a couple of branches.
Proxy baptism the way Mormons practice it does not solve the issue at all. The overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived are now lost to history. Are they not worthy of salvation?
Christians believe in baptism by desire for those who were never formally baptized, not proxy baptism. For example, in A.D. 256, Cyprian of Carthage wrote about baptism by desire. You can also read about it in certain catacomb encryptions. So it is clear from the beginning they believed in baptism by desire.
There were a few sects that believed in literally baptizing a dead body. But from the evidence we have today, proxy baptism was never mainstream or widely practiced. The idea salvation can only occur if you were lucky enough to have your genealogy recorded is far removed from mainstream Christianity.
The idea salvation can only occur if you were lucky enough to have your genealogy recorded is far removed from mainstream Christianity.
As a practicing member of the religion in question, this phrasing misrepresents what we believe will happen if records are missing. I don't have a reference to material on hand (am on mobile), but our belief is that during the millennium after Christ's second coming, much work will be dedicated towards recovering records of individuals who were "lost", even by miraculous means if necessary. This is possible in part because such individuals themselves will have been resurrected.
Thanks for the clarification. If they are resurrected, couldn’t they be baptized themselves? No proxy necessary and no records need to be recovered. Just stand in line. Will there be millions of temples built to accommodate? Or is a temple not necessary for Baptiam?
If they are resurrected, couldn’t they be baptized themselves?
Intellectual honesty here: I don't know the answer for certain. An interesting question! I don't see an obstacle to it, since baptism and resurrection are, I my understanding, independent events. More than happy to learn more myself to get you an answer, if you'll accept the raincheck. :)
...no records need to be recovered. ...
Records will still be necessary. Joseph Smith is very explicit in Doctrine and Covenants 128:6-9 about this, in that we interpret the power to "bind in heaven" as the power to present records of ordinances/rites like baptism that will be ratified by Christ as final. If there are no records of an ordinance like baptism having happened, then they'll need to be done again.
Will there be millions of temples built to accommodate? Or is a temple not necessary for Baptiam [sic]?
I'm not sure on this either! I think both will be necessary. Baptisms for self need not a temple, though proxy baptisms have recently only been authorized in temples. I can see a world where the temple requirement gets relaxed, since there's historical precedent. Raincheck also, if you're interested.
Do you also do proxy marriages?
We do indeed! There are four types of ordinances currently done in temples:
1. Proxy baptisms
2. Initiatories: washing and anointing as prep. for 3 (proxy and living)
3. Endowment (proxy and living)
4. Sealing (proxy and living); this encompasses marriages (sealing of a couple) and sealing between children and parents.
Church policies and administrative descriptions of these ordinances can be found at:
I’m really surprised the ordinance requires proof or it did not happen. You would assume it is doing something and that something can be checked. For example you don’t need proof of circumcision … just peek.
Is the Mormon God not all knowing and powerful? You would think God would know who has had what ordinance without the paperwork.
Not forbid, per se. Simply the theology of it was no longer considered to be grounded.
You can freely perform a proxy baptism - but the community around you is unlikely to believe that it has any effect whatsoever. Often because their theology does not have baptism as a requirement to enter into the kingdom.
Ah, thank you. I read an English translation [1] of the proceedings of the Council of Carthage (397AD) and it seemed to forbid it, but looking at it again, it seemed to forbid trying to give the eucharist to corpses (I'm not really sure what was going on there), and then adds a bit about baptisms for the dead, but maybe it's not forbidding them?
It's not "forbidding" something, really. "Shall not" could just as equally be translated to "it is inadvisable to", in most of these cases. The reason that is followed by reasoning of why such a thing is pointless, is because it is saying that something should not be common practice. It's setting a policy, not a regulation or law. A guideline for clergy to follow:
The reason for the act of communion and the dead? It was common at the time for someone purporting to be a Medium or related spiritualist or magician of some kind, to say that they could act as an intercessor. Sometimes with quite the hefty fee. They'd claim to distressed families that the Eucharist was required to save the family's deceased, and that through themselves the lost one could be saved.
In short, conmen are conmen. The church had plenty of con artists that they tried to work around. The church was telling their leaders not to engage with them, by making this particular policy. If the fees for Medium services had been less, then the policy probably still would have eventually been created, but it wouldn't have been part of such an important meeting.
It plays into the greater context of that particular Council - there were many people making claims to be bishops, or deacons, who were bringing with them a religion that was more syncretic in nature (combining existing religious beliefs), and the church was attempting to stamp that out and establish a structure to prevent it continuing. (Which they ultimately failed to do, as seen by the African diaspora religions).
Comments
To anyone else (like me) wondering why the Mormons maintain a genealogy database:
https://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/genealogy.html
A little more detail: for Christians, baptism is considered to be a requirement to enter the kingdom of God (per John 3:5), but obviously most people throughout the history of the world never get that opportunity. This creates a problem because Christians also believe that God is a god of justice. Proxy baptisms resolve the issue by performing the ordinance for each individual who didn't receive it while alive, and then it's left to them to reject it or accept it.
Interestingly, proxy baptisms for the dead were part of early Christian theology, but a few hundred years after Christ's time, some committees or councils or whatever decided to remove it, so for most branches of Christianity the theology was changed to forbid it, though it's still present in a couple of branches.
Proxy baptism the way Mormons practice it does not solve the issue at all. The overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived are now lost to history. Are they not worthy of salvation?
Christians believe in baptism by desire for those who were never formally baptized, not proxy baptism. For example, in A.D. 256, Cyprian of Carthage wrote about baptism by desire. You can also read about it in certain catacomb encryptions. So it is clear from the beginning they believed in baptism by desire.
There were a few sects that believed in literally baptizing a dead body. But from the evidence we have today, proxy baptism was never mainstream or widely practiced. The idea salvation can only occur if you were lucky enough to have your genealogy recorded is far removed from mainstream Christianity.
As a practicing member of the religion in question, this phrasing misrepresents what we believe will happen if records are missing. I don't have a reference to material on hand (am on mobile), but our belief is that during the millennium after Christ's second coming, much work will be dedicated towards recovering records of individuals who were "lost", even by miraculous means if necessary. This is possible in part because such individuals themselves will have been resurrected.
Thanks for the clarification. If they are resurrected, couldn’t they be baptized themselves? No proxy necessary and no records need to be recovered. Just stand in line. Will there be millions of temples built to accommodate? Or is a temple not necessary for Baptiam?
Do you also do proxy marriages?
Intellectual honesty here: I don't know the answer for certain. An interesting question! I don't see an obstacle to it, since baptism and resurrection are, I my understanding, independent events. More than happy to learn more myself to get you an answer, if you'll accept the raincheck. :)
Records will still be necessary. Joseph Smith is very explicit in Doctrine and Covenants 128:6-9 about this, in that we interpret the power to "bind in heaven" as the power to present records of ordinances/rites like baptism that will be ratified by Christ as final. If there are no records of an ordinance like baptism having happened, then they'll need to be done again.
[0]: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-test...
I'm not sure on this either! I think both will be necessary. Baptisms for self need not a temple, though proxy baptisms have recently only been authorized in temples. I can see a world where the temple requirement gets relaxed, since there's historical precedent. Raincheck also, if you're interested.
We do indeed! There are four types of ordinances currently done in temples:
1. Proxy baptisms 2. Initiatories: washing and anointing as prep. for 3 (proxy and living) 3. Endowment (proxy and living) 4. Sealing (proxy and living); this encompasses marriages (sealing of a couple) and sealing between children and parents.
Church policies and administrative descriptions of these ordinances can be found at:
- General Handbook, ch. 27: living ordinances: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-han... - General Handbook, ch. 28: proxy ordinances: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-han...
Thanks for the reply. Very interesting.
I’m really surprised the ordinance requires proof or it did not happen. You would assume it is doing something and that something can be checked. For example you don’t need proof of circumcision … just peek.
Is the Mormon God not all knowing and powerful? You would think God would know who has had what ordinance without the paperwork.
Of course! But twice in your comment you seem to be pushing back against points I didn't make. :)
Slight correction to the above: it's true that many branches of Christianity believe this, but definitely not all.
Of course! I don't know of anyone - including those that believe in proxy baptisms for the dead - that would agree with this idea, do you?
Your points are fair. The last item was addressed by an LDS member who said they are Baptized during the resurrection.
Not forbid, per se. Simply the theology of it was no longer considered to be grounded.
You can freely perform a proxy baptism - but the community around you is unlikely to believe that it has any effect whatsoever. Often because their theology does not have baptism as a requirement to enter into the kingdom.
Ah, thank you. I read an English translation [1] of the proceedings of the Council of Carthage (397AD) and it seemed to forbid it, but looking at it again, it seemed to forbid trying to give the eucharist to corpses (I'm not really sure what was going on there), and then adds a bit about baptisms for the dead, but maybe it's not forbidding them?
[1] https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2022/...
It's not "forbidding" something, really. "Shall not" could just as equally be translated to "it is inadvisable to", in most of these cases. The reason that is followed by reasoning of why such a thing is pointless, is because it is saying that something should not be common practice. It's setting a policy, not a regulation or law. A guideline for clergy to follow:
The reason for the act of communion and the dead? It was common at the time for someone purporting to be a Medium or related spiritualist or magician of some kind, to say that they could act as an intercessor. Sometimes with quite the hefty fee. They'd claim to distressed families that the Eucharist was required to save the family's deceased, and that through themselves the lost one could be saved.
In short, conmen are conmen. The church had plenty of con artists that they tried to work around. The church was telling their leaders not to engage with them, by making this particular policy. If the fees for Medium services had been less, then the policy probably still would have eventually been created, but it wouldn't have been part of such an important meeting.
It plays into the greater context of that particular Council - there were many people making claims to be bishops, or deacons, who were bringing with them a religion that was more syncretic in nature (combining existing religious beliefs), and the church was attempting to stamp that out and establish a structure to prevent it continuing. (Which they ultimately failed to do, as seen by the African diaspora religions).