In response to some objections by a different denomination to LDS baptism for the dead, the Belfast Telegraph has a remarkably sensible article on the topic (hat tip to Stan Barker): "What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?" by columnist Eamonn McCann. Read the whole article, but here's an excerpt:

Why are the Catholic bishops so concerned about Mormons baptising dead parishioners? The Mormons didn’t invent baptism of the dead. The practice has a significant history within mainstream Christianity. The decision to order its abandonment was taken only after heated debate, and was a close-run thing.

What's the difference, anyway, between baptising the dead and baptising babies? A tiny infant will have as much understanding as a dead person - none at all - of the complex philosophical belief-system it's being inducted into when baptised, say, a Catholic. Transubstantiation? There's daily communicants go to their deaths without any clear understanding of the concept. So what chance the mewling tot?

Indeed, given that all Christian Churches believe that the soul lives on after death and retains understanding and consciousness of self, doesn't it make more sense to baptise dead adults than live babies?

Apart from which, if the Catholic bishops hold that the beliefs of the Mormons are pure baloney (as they must), and their rituals therefore perfectly meaningless, how can it matter to them what mumbo-jumbo Mormons might mutter over Catholic cadavers?

No cadavers are used, of course, just data. So if it is mumbo jumbo, who cares whether a Mormon computer lists Leonardo DaVinci as having been "baptized" vicariously as a result of some LDS guy getting baptized in an LDS Temple somewere? Even if it's not mumbo jumbo and even if DaVinci accepts the baptism we do for him, that doesn't make him "Mormon" as I see it - just a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. So what we do is merely intended to give someone an option to more fully follow Christ and doesn't make a person a "Mormon." The antis probably have some other nickname for the broader Church on the other side of the veil, and maybe even some shocking spirit literature to dissuade DaVinci et al. But mumbo jumbo or no, if DaVinci prefers being Catholic, he still is. No trauma inflicted!

Now maybe those who are overly concerned about Mormon temple practices can get back to worrying about real issues, like, say, why the mega-Enron-like leaders behind the current financial disaster aren't getting the same treatment as Enron executives? And you thought theology was puzzling!
Continue reading at the original source →