The Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) takes a strong stand against infant baptism saying that it is anti-biblical and denies the free agency of the infant being baptised. They teach, along with Pentecostals and Baptists, that baptism is an ordinance for those who can make an informed and intelligent decision. The Book of Mormon comes out strongly against infant baptism.
New Covenant Christians are in complete agreement with Mormons, Baptists, Pentecostals and others who teach adult baptism by immersion (though admittedly Mormons baptise for slightly different reasons, but I do not wish to treat that issue here).
Those churches who administer infant baptism (such as the Lutheran Church) have many explanations as to why they practice it and it is not my purpose here to go into a debate on that either, suffice to say that the ordinance of CONFIRMATION is regarded by them as a kind of "completion" of the ordinance of child baptism. What that means is essentially this: according to their teaching a child cannot, of course, make a decision for Christ and so that decision is deferred until they are adult and can be confirmed. Infant baptism is regarded by them as a sort of "limited protection" insurance policy for the growing child. They believe that infant baptism "saves" a child until it can make its own choice as an adult and that without this baptism an infant will go to hell. By contrast, believers in adult baptism believe that children are saved no matter what but it is not until they have reached the years of accountability that they can make a choice for themselves (assuming they make a choice at that age) and come under the judgment of God. In this respect, Mormons and Christians who believe in adult baptism by immersion are in complete agreement.
It is suprising, therefore, that the Mormons - who are completely correct in insisting that infants cannot make a proper decision and are therefore invalid candidates for baptism - do much the same as the Lutherans, Catholics and others in their child baptisms - by baptising their DEAD in exactly the same way (I do not propose to discuss the validity or otherwise of the doctrine of baptism for the dead which can be read elsewhere on this site). What I mean is this: Mormons baptise EVERYONE who is dead that they can without ever consulting those concerned (assuming it could be done - Joseph Smith actually taught in Nauvoo that such an ordinance could only ever be performed by revelation, in other words, by one who was dead making a decision in the positive in the spirit world with the Holy Spirit thereafter communicating this decision to those on earth responsible for carrying out this ordinance). The teaching is that the ordinance of baptism for the dead only becomes "activated" if the one on the other side of the veil (in the spirit world) "accepts" it. For those who reject it, the baptism is of no value.
If baptism of infants is not "valid" until they make a decision when they are older by being "confirmed" (I will not discuss the doctrine of confirmation or chrism here), then what is the difference between the Catholic/Lutheran teaching and the Mormon one concerning baptism for the dead? Why don't Mormons follow the original pattern taught by Joseph Smith, viz. that revelation was necessary for the one being thus baptised following a decision in the affirmative in the spirit world?
The Bible supports neither the concept of infant baptism nor Mormon baptism for the dead. They fall under the category of "dead works". Both are absurd when seriously considered. What would people think if a government enrolled every citizen in a state to the police force, saying that the enrollment was only valid for those few who actually accepted the call? Or if an employer placed a salary in everyone's bank account but only those who subsequently became employed by him could draw it out?
And yet Mormons spend vast sums of money and consume an inordinate amount of time doing geneology for every human being that has ever lived who was not a member of their Church, and then baptising them en masse in their temples in the hope the some on the other side of their veil might accept their gospel. At the same time they condemn infant baptism which is based on a not too dissimilar principle. Every Lutheran, Anglican, and Catholic (and those of some other denominations) are expected to have their infants baptised in the hope that when they are adult they will fully enroll in their churches.
This is quite simply anti-biblical. Baptism is only for BELIEVERS who are to be baptised as soon after they believe as is practical. Baptism is an ordinance reflecting a decision to live the Christian life, something neither infants nor those who are dead can do. The Book of Mormon, along with the Bible, teaches that once a person is dead it is too late, and that therefore men and women should not procrastinate their decision to follow Christ in this life (Alma 34:33-35). (The issue of those who never had the opportunity to repond to the Gospel I shall not address here):
"For after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, we we do not improve our time while in this earth, then cometh the night of darkness WHEREIN THERE CAN BE NO LABOR PERFORMED" (LDS Alma 34:33b; RLDS 16:230).
The Bible and Book of Mormon therefore contradict the LDS teaching on baptism for the dead in the same way that the Bible (and Book of Mormon - Moroni 8:9-16) contradicts the doctrine of baptism of infants.
The Mormon Church therefore teaches a double standard - a contradictory set of doctrines.
