 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Baptism for the dead,vicarious baptism orproxy baptism today commonly refers to the religious practice ofbaptizing a person on behalf of one who is dead—a living person receiving therite on behalf of a deceased person.
Baptism for the dead is best known as a doctrine of theLatter Day Saint movement, which has practiced it since 1840. It is currently practiced bythe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), where it is performed only in dedicatedtemples, as well as in several other currentfactions of the movement. Those who practice this rite view baptism as an essential requirement to enter theKingdom of God, and therefore practice baptism for the dead to offer it by proxy to those who died without the opportunity to receive it. The LDS Church teaches that those who have died may choose to accept or reject the baptisms done on their behalf.
Baptism for the dead is mentioned in1 Corinthians 15:29 as proof of a physicalresurrection, though the exact meaning of the phrase is an open question among scholars. The plainest reading of the Greek text suggests vicarious baptisms performed by the living on behalf of the deceased, but some scholars dispute whether Paul approved of the practice or whether the verse truly refers to an actual physical practice among early Christians.[1] EarlyheresiologistsEpiphanius of Salamis (Panarion 28) andChrysostom (Homilies 40) attributed the practice respectively to theCerinthians and to theMarcionites, whom they identified as heretical "Gnostic" groups, whileAmbrosiaster andTertullian affirmed that the practice was legitimate and found among the New Testament Christians (though Tertullian later recanted his original beliefs in his later life as he became associated withMontanism).[2]
Latter-day Saint scholarJohn A. Tvedtnes says: "Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of theCouncil of Carthage (397). Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice."[3] He does not give the text of that canon, which, if it is included in Canon 18 ofThe Code of Canons of the African Church, reads: "It also seemed good that the Eucharist should not be given to the bodies of the dead. For it is written: 'Take, Eat', but the bodies of the dead can neither 'take' nor 'eat'. Nor let the ignorance of the presbyters baptize those who are dead."[4]
Epiphanius of Salamis (between 310 and 320 – 403) reported that he had heard it said that, among followers ofCerinthus, if one of them died before baptism, another was baptized in that person's name:
For their school reached its height in this country, I mean Asia, and in Galatia as well. And in these countries I also heard of a tradition which said that when some of their people died too soon, without baptism, others would be baptized for them in their names, so that they would not be punished for rising unbaptized at the resurrection and become the subjects of the authority that made the world. And the tradition I heard of says that this is why the same holy apostle said, 'If the dead rise not at all, why are they baptized for them?' But others explain the text satisfactorily by saying that, as long as they are catechumens, the dying are allowed baptism before they die because of this hope, showing that the person who has died will also rise, and therefore needs the forgiveness of his sins through baptism.[5]
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) mockingly attributes to theMarcionites of the late 4th century a similar practice: if one of their followers who wasbeing prepared for baptism died before receiving baptism, the dead person's corpse was addressed with the question whether he wished to be baptized, whereupon another answered affirmatively and was baptized for the dead person.[6]
In1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul writes: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" This passage appears in the midst of Paul's argument for the resurrection of the dead, a central theme of the chapter. The verse has generated substantial debate among theologians, historians, and biblical scholars.[7][8] Its meaning and the nature of the practice it describes remain uncertain, and no consensus exists as to whether Paul endorsed, merely reported, or criticized the practice.[9]Interpretations of the verse range from literal readings involving vicarious baptisms, to metaphorical, ritual, and rhetorical understandings. The passage has also been linked by some scholars to Jewish purity laws and Second Temple traditions, while others have proposed connections to early Christian or even Gnostic practices.[10][11][12][13]
Early Christian writers offered differing views on the meaning of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Some acknowledged the existence of vicarious baptism practices, while others provided more symbolic or theological explanations.
Tertullian (c. 155–220) is one of the earliest Christian authors to comment on the passage. In his workOn the Resurrection of the Flesh, he appears to accept that some Christians practiced vicarious baptism for the dead, stating: "Now it is certain that they adopted this [practice] with such a presumption that made them suppose that the vicarious baptism would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection."[14]
Later in life, however, Tertullian changed his interpretation. InAgainst Marcion, he downplays the literal practice and argues instead that the phrase "baptized for the dead" should be understood as being "baptized for the body," since the human body is destined to die and rise again. He maintains that Paul's reference to the practice served only to reinforce the doctrine of bodily resurrection.[15]
Ambrosiaster, an anonymous Christian author writing between 366 and 384, also acknowledges the existence of the practice, noting that "some people were at that time [New Testament period] being baptized for the dead because they were afraid that someone who was not baptized would either not rise at all or else rise merely in order to be condemned."[16]
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), in his homilies on 1 Corinthians, rejects a literal interpretation and offers a metaphorical reading. He suggests that Paul was referring to individuals who were baptized in hope of their own future resurrection. In this view, "for the dead" refers not to other people, but to the baptized person’s own mortality and hope for eternal life.[17]
Modern and historical scholars have proposed a variety of interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15:29, ranging from literal understandings of vicarious baptism to metaphorical, ritualistic, and rhetorical readings. These interpretations often reflect broader theological commitments regarding resurrection, ritual purity, and early Christian identity.
Some scholars and early Christian writers interpret the passage as describing a literal practice in which living individuals were baptized on behalf of the dead. TheHarperCollins Study Bible notes that Paul appears to refer to an actual practice among the Corinthians, though the origins and scope of the practice remain uncertain: "Why the Corinthians practiced baptism on behalf of the dead is unknown; see also 2 Macc 12:44–45."[18] In2 Maccabees 12:44–45, Judas Maccabeus takes up a collection for a sin offering on behalf of fallen soldiers who had died wearing idolatrous amulets. The text commends this action as noble and motivated by belief in the resurrection, stating that "it was a holy and pious thought" to make atonement for the dead, "that they might be delivered from their sin." This has been interpreted by some as evidence of intercessory practices for the dead within certain Jewish traditions of the Second Temple period.
Several Church Fathers and Reformation-era theologians interpreted the phrase symbolically. John Chrysostom, for instance, believed Paul was referring to individuals who were baptized in view of their own eventual death, thus expressing hope in resurrection.[17]
Some modern commentators understand "baptism for the dead" as a metaphor for martyrdom, pointing to New Testament passages such asMark 10:38 andLuke 12:50, where baptism symbolizes suffering or death. According to this view, Paul refers to people who undergo baptism (or martyrdom) with the expectation of a future resurrection.[19]
Reformers offered their own symbolic interpretations.Martin Luther suggested the phrase may refer to being baptized "above" the graves of the dead, based on one possible meaning of the Greek preposition ὑπέρ.John Calvin proposed it referred to baptism received by those near death, as a final profession of hope in the resurrection.[19]
Another interpretation focuses on the linguistic context of the Greek verbbaptizein, which in Jewish Greek can refer to ritual washings (baptismos) rather than Christian baptism (baptisma).[20] These ritual washings, especially those associated with corpse impurity under the Mosaic law (e.g., Numbers 19), were common in theSecond Temple period. ScholarPeter Leithart suggests Paul may have been referring to Jewish purification rites for those who had come into contact with the dead.[21] On this view, the phrase may allude to ritual acts intended to restore purity in anticipation of resurrection.
New Testament scholar Joel R. White proposes that Paul was referring to baptisms performed in response to the death of Christian leaders, such as the apostles, especially Apollos or Paul himself. In this view, "the dead" refers not to anonymous deceased persons, but to prominent Christian figures whose deaths inspired renewed commitment through baptism.[22]
Eastern Orthodox theologian Stephen De Young proposes that the phrase refers to early Christian converts being baptized "for" or "in the name of" deceased Christian saints. This interpretation sees baptism as establishing a relationship of spiritual patronage, in which the baptized is united with a specific saint whose name or memory they take on. De Young argues that the Greek preposition ὑπέρ ("for") can imply representation or honor, and that the definite article ("the dead") likely refers to specific deceased Christians already mentioned earlier in the chapter (e.g., the apostles and other witnesses to Christ's resurrection).[23]
ScholarElaine Pagels has argued that the passage reflects sacramental theology found in Gnostic or semi-Gnostic groups, such as theValentinians. According to Pagels, Paul’s mention of baptism for the dead may have been adopted by later groups who performed baptismal rites for "psychic" believers through the spiritual elect.[24]
A key question in interpreting1 Corinthians 15:29 is whether Paul himself approved of the practice he mentions. Scholars remain divided on this issue.[weasel words]
Some[who?] argue that Paul refers to the practice rhetorically, as part of his broader argument for the resurrection of the dead. He writes, “what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead are not raised at all?”—implying that even those who undergo the practice believe in resurrection, and thus reinforcing his central theological point. According to this view, Paul does not necessarily endorse or promote the practice but uses it to appeal to the logic of those who did.
The wording of the verse also contributes to ambiguity. Paul uses the third person plural ("they") rather than directly addressing the Corinthian believers as "you," leading some scholars to infer that he may be referencing a practice that was not his own or not universally accepted. The Tyndale Bible Dictionary, for instance, concludes that Paul likely did not approve of the practice.[19]
Other scholars are more cautious. The note in the Catholic New American Bible states: "This practice is not further explained here, nor is it necessarily mentioned with approval, but Paul cites it as something in their experience that attests in one more way to belief in the resurrection."[25]
The HarperCollins Study Bible takes a more neutral view, acknowledging the literal sense of the text while noting the lack of clarity about its context or theological endorsement: “Why the Corinthians practiced baptism on behalf of the dead is unknown.”[26]
Even early Christian writers recognized this ambiguity. In his later writings,Tertullian remarked that Paul’s mention of the practice, “whatever it may have been,” was used merely to underscore the importance of the resurrection of the body—not to validate the practice itself.[15]
In the practice of the LDS Church, a living person, acting as proxy, isbaptized by immersion on behalf of a deceased person of the same sex. Baptism for the dead is an LDS Churchordinance, performed only in temples, and is based on the belief that baptism is required for entry into the Kingdom of God.[27]
Church members believe that baptism is a prerequisite for entry into the kingdom of God as stated byJesus inJohn 3:5: "Except that a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (KJV).
The LDS Church teaches that performing baptisms for the dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered on behalf of those who have died without accepting or knowing Jesus Christ or his teachings during their mortal lives. It is taught that this is the method by which all who have lived upon the earth will have the opportunity to receive baptism and to thereby enter the Kingdom of God.
Among other Biblical references, Latter-day Saints cite Peter's statements that Jesus preached to the spirits of the dead (KJV 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6) as evidence that God in his justice provides an opportunity for the deceased to hear and accept the gospel, if they don't receive that chance in mortality. As Peter affirmed in Acts 2:37–38, the next step after acceptance of the gospel is baptism for the remission of sins, which "doth also now save us" (KJV 1 Peter 3:21).
The LDS Church teaches that those in the afterlife who have been baptized by proxy are free to accept or reject the ordinance done on their behalf. Baptism on behalf of a deceased individual is not binding if that individual chooses to not accept it in the afterlife.[27][28]
Any member of the LDS Church, male or female, beginning in the year they turn 12 years old, who holds a currenttemple recommend may act as a proxy in this ordinance. Men must also hold theAaronic priesthood prior to entering the temple. Men act as proxies for deceased men, and women as proxies for deceased women. The concept of a spiritual proxy is compared by some in the LDS Church to the belief that Jesus acted as a proxy for every human when he atoned for the sins of the world.[29]
Historically, only adult male holders of theMelchizedek priesthood who had undergone theendowment ordinance were permitted to baptize others as proxies for the dead. In 2018, this policy was changed to allow boys who hold the Aaronic priesthood office ofpriest, generally between 15 and 18 years old, to also officiate in baptisms for the dead.[30]
According to the Latter-day Saint doctrine, the practice of baptism for the dead is based on a revelation received by the prophetJoseph Smith. Smith first taught the doctrine at the funeral sermon of a deceased church member,Seymour Brunson.[31] In a letter written on October 19, 1840, to the church'sQuorum of the Twelve Apostles (who were on a mission in the United Kingdom at the time), Smith refers to the passage in1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV):
I presume the doctrine of 'baptism for the dead' has ere this reached your ears, and may have raised some inquiries in your minds respecting the same. I cannot in this letter give you all the information you may desire on the subject; but aside from knowledge independent of the Bible, I would say that it was certainly practiced by the ancient churches; and Saint Paul endeavors to prove the doctrine of the resurrection from the same, and says, 'Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?'[32]
LDS Churchscripture expands further upon this doctrine and states that such baptisms are to be performed in temples.[33] Vicarious baptism is performed in connection with other vicarious ordinances in temples of the Church, such as theendowment andcelestial marriage.
Initially, women could be baptized for dead men, and vice versa; this, however, was changed in order to ensure that the person being baptized for a dead man could also be ordained on their behalf to the priesthood.[34]
The LDS Church teaches that deceased persons who have not accepted, or had the opportunity to accept, the gospel of Christ in this life will have such opportunity in the afterlife. The belief is that as all must follow Jesus Christ, they must also receive all the ordinances that a living person is expected to receive, including baptism. For this reason, members of the LDS Church are encouraged to research theirgenealogy. This research is then used as the basis for church members performing temple ordinances for as many deceased persons as possible. As a part of these efforts, Latter-day Saints have performed temple ordinances on behalf of a number of high-profile people, including theFounding Fathers of the United States,[35][36][37]U.S. Presidents,[35] mostCatholic popes,[38][39]John Wesley,[35]Christopher Columbus,[35]Adolf Hitler,[38]Joan of Arc,[38]Genghis Khan,[38]Joseph Stalin,[38] andGautama Buddha.[38] However, as of 2024, submitting the names of famous individuals, Jewish Holocaust victims, and the names of deceased individuals from unauthorized extraction projects to the LDS Church (generally through FamilySearch) for them to receive proxy ordinances is generally against Church policy.[40]
While members of the LDS Church consider vicarious ordinances for the deceased an act of compassionate service, some non-members have taken offense.[weasel words] Sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-members not related to church members, the LDS Church in recent years has published a general policy of performing temple ordinances only for relatives.[41] For example, the LDS Church is in the process of removing sensitive names (such as Jewish Holocaust victims) from itsInternational Genealogical Index (IGI).D. Todd Christofferson of the church'sPresidency of the Seventy stated that removing the names is an "ongoing, labor intensive process requiring name-by-name research .... When the Church is made aware of documented concerns, action is taken .... Plans are underway to refine this process."[42] The LDS Church keeps records of the temple ordinances performed for deceased persons; however,FamilySearch, a web application for accessing its genealogical databases, shows information on temple ordinances only to registered church members and not to non-members.[43]
In 2008, a directive from the VaticanCongregation for the Clergy directed Catholic dioceses to prevent the LDS Church from "microfilming and digitizing information" contained in Catholic sacramental registers so that those whose names were contained therein would not be subjected to vicarious baptism.[44][45] Earlier, the Vatican had declared that baptisms performed by Latter-day Saints were invalid.[46]
Some groups of people were historically or are currently ineligible for performing and/or participating in the ordinance of baptisms for the dead. Priesthood ordination to at least the office of a priest is required before performing any baptisms for the dead, and all women continue to not be ordained to thepriesthood.[47] For about 130 years (between 1847 and 1978) priesthood ordinations were also denied to allBlack men in a controversialpriesthood racial restriction.[48][49]: 164 [50]: 261 From the mid-1960s until the early 1970s under church presidentDavid O. McKay,Black members of all genders were barred from participating in any baptisms for the dead.[51]: 119
As of 2023, all priesthood ordinations, and participating in baptisms for the dead continue to be denied for any person in asame-sex marriage orhomosexual sexual relationship, andtransgender individuals including trans men continue to be ineligible for all priesthood ordinations.[52][53][54] Ordinances such as receiving the priesthood necessary to perform baptisms or participating in baptisms for the dead are only done according to birth sex.[54][55]: 64 Transgender individuals who are "attempting to transition to the opposite gender" cannot maintain atemple recommends necessary for baptisms for the dead.[56][57][58] These restrictions have also garnered criticism from both outside,[59][60][61] and inside the LDS Church.[62][63][64]
The LDS Church performs vicarious baptisms for individuals regardless of their race, sex, creed, religion, or morality.[citation needed] Some[who?] church members have been baptized for both victims and perpetrators ofThe Holocaust, includingAnne Frank andAdolf Hitler, contrary to modern church policy.[65] SomeJewish Holocaust survivors and some Jewish organizations have objected to this practice.[weasel words]
Since the early 1990s, the LDS Church has urged members to submit the names of only their own ancestors for ordinances, and to request permission of surviving family members of people who have died within the past 95 years.[66] Hundreds of thousands of improperly submitted names not adhering to this policy have been removed from the records of the church.[67] ChurchapostleBoyd K. Packer has stated the church has been open about its practice of using public records to further temple ordinance work.[68]
Despite the guidelines, some members of the church have submitted names without adequate permission.[who?] In December 2002, independent researcher Helen Radkey published a report showing that, following a 1995 promise from the church to remove Jewish Holocaust victims from its International Genealogical Index, the church's database included the names of about 19,000 who had a 40 to 50 percent chance "to be Holocaust victims ... in Russia, Poland, France, and Austria."[69][70] Genealogist Bernard Kouchel searched the International Genealogical Index, and discovered that many well known Jews had been vicariously baptized, includingMaimonides,Albert Einstein, andIrving Berlin, without family permission.[71][72]
LDS Church official D. Todd Christofferson toldThe New York Times that the church expends massive amounts of resources attempting to purge improperly submitted names, but that it is not feasible to expect the church to find each and every last one, and that the agreement in 1995 did not place this type of responsibility on the centralized church leadership.[73]
Jewish groups, including theSimon Wiesenthal Center, spoke out against the vicarious baptism of Holocaust perpetrators and victims in the mid-1990s and again in the 2000s when they discovered the practice, which they consider insensitive to the living and the dead, was continuing.[74][75] The associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abraham Cooper, complained that infamous figures such as Adolf Hitler andEva Braun appeared on genealogical records: "Whether official or not, the fact remains that this is exactly the kind of activity that enraged and hurt, really, so many victims of the Holocaust and caused alarm in the Jewish community."[38][76]
In 2008, theAmerican Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors announced that, since church members had repeatedly violated previous agreements, it would no longer negotiate with the church to try to prevent vicarious baptism. Speaking on the anniversary ofKristallnacht, Ernest Michel, a Holocaust survivor who reported on theNuremberg Trials, speaking as the honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors, called on the LDS Church to "implement a mechanism to undo what [they] have done", and declared that the Church had repeatedly violated their agreements, and that talks with Latter-day Saint leaders were now ended. Jewish groups, he said, would now turn to the court of public opinion for justice.[77] Michel called the practice a revision of history that plays into the hands ofHolocaust deniers, stating: "They tell me, that my parents' Jewishness has not been altered but ... 100 years from now, how will they be able to guarantee that my mother and father of blessed memory who lived as Jews and were slaughtered by Hitler for no other reason than they were Jews, will someday not be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust?"[77]
LDS Church officials, in response, stated that the church does not teach that vicarious baptisms coerce deceased persons to become members of the church, nor does the church add those names to its list of church members.[78][79] Church officials have also stated that, in accordance with the 1995 agreement, it has removed more than 300,000 names of Jewish Holocaust victims from its databases, as well as subsequently removing names later identified by Jewish groups. Church officials stated in 2008 that a new version of theFamilySearch application had been developed and was being implemented in an effort to prevent the submission of Holocaust victim names for temple ordinances.[80]
In February 2012, the issue re-emerged after it was found that the parents of Holocaust survivor and Jewish rights advocateSimon Wiesenthal were added to the genealogical database.[81] Shortly afterward, news stories announced that Anne Frank had been baptized by proxy for the ninth time, at theSanto Domingo Dominican Republic Temple.[82]
Some members of the earlyReorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (nowCommunity of Christ) also believed in baptism for the dead,[83] but it was never officially sanctioned by that organization and was considered highly controversial.[83][84]
At a 1970church world conference, arevelation and two letters written by Joseph Smith appertaining to baptism for the dead were removed as sections and placed in the appendix of theirDoctrine and Covenants;[85] at a 1990 world conference, the three documents were removed entirely from their scriptural canon.[86]
In theRestoration Branches movement, which broke from the Reorganized Church in the 1980s, the question of baptism for the dead is at best unsettled. Many adherents reject the validity of the ordinance completely.[87]
Other Latter Day Saint denominations that accept baptism for the dead include theChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite),The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), andthe Righteous Branch (Christ's Church). The Strangite Church performed baptisms for the dead during the 1840s inVoree, Wisconsin, and later during the 1850s onBeaver Island, Michigan. In each case, the practice was authorized on the basis of whatJames J. Strang reported as a revelation. The question of whether the Strangite Church still practices proxy baptism is an open one, but belief is considered orthodox.[88]
As part of their sacraments, theNew Apostolic Church and theOld Apostolic Church also practice baptism for the dead, as well asCommunion and Sealing to the Departed. In this practice a proxy or substitute is baptized in the place of an unknown number of deceased persons. According to NAC and OAC doctrine the deceased do not enter the body of the substitute.
No one will be coerced into accepting ordinances performed on his or her behalf by another. Baptism for the dead offers an opportunity, but it does not override a person's agency. But if this ordinance is not performed for them, deceased persons are robbed of the choice to accept or reject baptism.
In the sanctity of their appointments we commune with him and reflect on his Son, our Savior and Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who served as proxy for each of us in a vicarious sacrifice in our behalf.
… two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, "You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God." These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. The thought never entered my heart, from the fact, I suppose, that heretofore our minds were reaching after our more immediate friends and relatives. I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others; I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them.
Those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men. General Washington and all the men that labored for the purpose were inspired of the Lord...Everyone of those men that signed the Declaration of Independence, with General Washington, called upon me, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Temple at St. George, two consecutive nights, and demanded at my hands that I should go forth and attend to the ordinances of the House of God for them.
The temple work for the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was president of the St. George Temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time. You will also be interested to know that, according to Wilford Woodruff's journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time. When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it. Yes, with Lincoln I say: "To add brightness to the sun or glory to the name of Washington is. . . impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name and in its deathless splendor, leave it shining on."
Pope John Paul II was baptized not once but four times in April 2006, in line with Mormon practice of waiting a year before starting these rites. He died on April 2, 2005. His name was purged from the online IGI, so a normal search will not find them. But his four now-anonymous files are still in the database and three still show his parents' names.
To see ordinance information in the IGI, members must be registered in FamilySearch.org as a Church member.[permanent dead link]
'Celestial' or 'temple' marriage is a necessary condition for 'exaltation' ... Without the priesthood, Black men and women ... were denied complete exaltation, the ultimate goal of Mormonism.
Presidents of the Church, with their counselors, consistently gave permission for this level of temple service to be extended to members of African descent, while also forbidding their participation in the endowment ritual. By the mid-1960s, it appears that ... President McKay seems to have agreed that vicarious ordinances should only be done by white proxies, a practice that seems to have been instigated earlier. By the early 1970s, records indicate that black members, once again, had free access to temple fonts in Utah.
[A] current temple recommend [allows one] to participate in temple ordinances. In order to hold a current temple recommend, a person must attest to their ecclesiastical leaders that they maintain faith in the LDS Church, and live according to the standards (including no sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage and abstaining from coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs).
For a number of years the LDS Church had negotiated with the government of Israel for permission to microfilm the archives of that nation. These records, including many carefully kept genealogies, are priceless records of the human family and have a tie to great events in the history of the world. The officials had learned all they wanted to know about the Church storage procedures and were impressed. They insisted however that someone be sent to talk to them about the doctrine relating to our desire for their records. They wanted to know why we wanted their records. In 1977 I received the assignment to go to Israel and meet with their official archivists and scholars on the matter .... I explained to them our great interest in the Old Testament and our kinship with Israel. We talked of family, of patriarchal lineage and blessings. We talked of the doctrine of agency. But all of these things were not central to the point. It might seem that in order to obtain a favorable decision we would have to be 'diplomatic' and not mention ordinances—especially baptism. But we were on the Lord's errand, and so I told them—plainly, bluntly—that we desired their records in order to provide baptism, Christian baptism, for their forebears and for ours. The reaction was immediate and intense. The meeting thereafter was most interesting! We came away uncertain as to the outcome. But we were on the Lord's errand. We were serving the work of redemption for the dead. We had told the truth without any shade of misrepresentation. In due time the answer came. We received approval to microfilm and preserve those records which were sanctified by the suffering of our brethren of the house of Israel.
Vicarious baptism had even been performed for Simon Wiesenthal himself after his death. The Center found the practice insulting and an affront to Jews who died because of their religion. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the center said: 'If these people did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don't call me, I'll call you. With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.'
Aaron Breitbart, a researcher with the Center believes the church was showing insensitivity to the living and their dead ancestors. 'They did not get baptized when they were alive and they had a choice, and doing so after they are dead is beyond the ethical bounds.'
