Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
One thing maybe the Mormons got right that Christians criticize them for:
https://news.yahoo.com/does-bible-loophole-passage-getting-011738344.html
(I am not defending Mormonism!)
https://news.yahoo.com/does-bible-loophole-passage-getting-011738344.html
(I am not defending Mormonism!)
Most Bible translations have Paul applying the reference to others. "What will they do..." or as the NIV puts it "What will those do who...". Either way he is arguing for the resurrection rather than providing a clarification on baptism. Clearly there were people who baptized for the dead but Paul's language does not suggest that he was one of them. Perhaps someone who knows Greek can clarify the verse and especially "they" or "those".
kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most Bible translations have Paul applying the
> reference to others. "What will they do..." or as
> the NIV puts it "What will those do who...".
> Either way he is arguing for the resurrection
> rather than providing a clarification on baptism.
> Clearly there were people who baptized for the
> dead but Paul's language does not suggest that he
> was one of them. Perhaps someone who knows Greek
> can clarify the verse and especially "they" or
> "those".
Kentish is correct. That there were people baptizing for the dead is not proof that the practice was/is Biblical. Indeed, Paul argues for the resurrection here; that is the context of the passage. He was not defending the practice. On another note, the Bible does not teach one is saved upon being baptized. Baptism is rather an outward sign of an inward condition. Baptism does not save.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most Bible translations have Paul applying the
> reference to others. "What will they do..." or as
> the NIV puts it "What will those do who...".
> Either way he is arguing for the resurrection
> rather than providing a clarification on baptism.
> Clearly there were people who baptized for the
> dead but Paul's language does not suggest that he
> was one of them. Perhaps someone who knows Greek
> can clarify the verse and especially "they" or
> "those".
Kentish is correct. That there were people baptizing for the dead is not proof that the practice was/is Biblical. Indeed, Paul argues for the resurrection here; that is the context of the passage. He was not defending the practice. On another note, the Bible does not teach one is saved upon being baptized. Baptism is rather an outward sign of an inward condition. Baptism does not save.
The Christian position would be that baptism does not confer forgiveness of sin but that it is the outward demonstration of what has already taken place in the heart through the HS. As I have heard it compared: A medal awarded "for valor" does not confer valor but recognizes the valor that has taken place.
Interesting article thanks but to me the argument that early Christianity endorsed proxy baptism seems about as strong as one for polygamy, another of Joe's restorative power. Also, we don't know if Joe even endorsed it the way Brigham implemented it so if it were a thing it was probably not the twisted dead sifting Mormons do.
Interesting article, Richard. Thanks!
As an aside, I noted this statement in the article - "Church authorities blocked attempts to baptize mass murderers Charles Manson and Stephen Paddock."
I'm surprised because don't Christians teach that redemption is open to anyone, even mass murderers? Indeed, this teaching is a cause for contention as it contradicts the sense of justice most of us instinctively feel. Such as how do the worst of humans get to go to heaven. But that would seem to be the Christian interpretation of the teaching that forgiveness is available to anyone who repents. And which of us can know who repents, or doesn't? So if Manson et al repent upon their deathbed/execution they'll be dancing and singing in heaven that very day, right alongside lifelong Christian believers. It would seem.
Not that that is a thrilling proposition.
Because. Justice.
As for baptism for the dead, here is one Christian-source commentary on that practice (1 Corinthians 15-29):
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/15-29.htm
Ellicott’s Commentary re baptism for the dead:
“There have been numerous and ingenious conjectures as to the meaning of this passage. The only tenable interpretation is that there existed amongst some of the Christians at Corinth a practice of baptising a living person in the stead of some convert who had died before that sacrament had been administered to him. Such a practice existed amongst the Marcionites in the second century, and still earlier amongst a sect called the Corinthians."
"The idea evidently was that whatever benefit flowed from baptism might be thus vicariously secured for the deceased Christian. St. Chrysostom gives the following description of it:—“After a catechumen (i.e., one prepared for baptism, but not actually baptised) was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the bed of the dead man they spake to him, and asked whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the ‘living for the dead.’”
“Does St. Paul then, by what he here says, sanction the superstitious practice? Certainly not. He carefully separates himself and the Corinthians, to whom he immediately addresses himself, from those who adopted this custom. He no longer uses the first or second person; it is “they” throughout this passage. It is no proof to others; it is simply the argumentum ad hominem. Those who do that, and disbelieve a resurrection, refute themselves. This custom possibly sprang up amongst the Jewish converts, who had been accustomed to something similar in their own faith. If a Jew died without having been purified from some ceremonial uncleanness, some living person had the necessary ablution performed on them, and the dead were so accounted clean.”
-----
I note that Ellicott refers to baptism for the dead as a "superstition". I also note that he describes the dead person as being a "convert" - a person who had converted to Christianity but had died before they were able to be baptized.
That doesn't fit with the Mormon belief and practice of baptizing every dead person whose name they can get hold of.
However, the article cited by Richard states the following about Mormon beliefs:
“The dead person residing in spirit prison must consent to their baptism for it to be efficacious.”
This I did not know, as a mere convert. That makes the dead baptisms slightly less offensive, perhaps, especially if the person being dead-baptized and/or their family don't even know about it. (I do deeply regret giving them my grandparents' names and yet, in the grand scheme of the universe, does it matter two hoots?).
From the article as well:
“The practice [of baptisms for the dead] has not been without controversy as posthumous baptism is not limited to immediate family members. The practice of baptizing Holocaust victims drew wide ranging criticism in the 1990s and in 2012 the Church had to apologize when it was revealed that it had baptized Anne Frank.”
“Safeguards to prevent the posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims have been put in place.”
-----
So the Mormon Church recognizes (even if under pressure) that the practice is offensive to the memories and survivors of Jewish Holocaust victims. Yet, they continue to dead-dunk Jewish people who, by definition, would not likely join the offshoot-Christian faith of Mormonism (although there are Jewish Christians, I know, but that is by their own direct choice). Examples of Jewish people dead-dunked by Mormons are the parents of Steven Spielberg. His family is described as being Orthodox Jewish.
I don't think the Christian imperative to proselytize the world extends into the afterlife. Please God JW and Mormon missionaries won't be banging on people's doors in heaven still trying to persuade them to switch teams. Surely by then the roster is set.
As an aside, I noted this statement in the article - "Church authorities blocked attempts to baptize mass murderers Charles Manson and Stephen Paddock."
I'm surprised because don't Christians teach that redemption is open to anyone, even mass murderers? Indeed, this teaching is a cause for contention as it contradicts the sense of justice most of us instinctively feel. Such as how do the worst of humans get to go to heaven. But that would seem to be the Christian interpretation of the teaching that forgiveness is available to anyone who repents. And which of us can know who repents, or doesn't? So if Manson et al repent upon their deathbed/execution they'll be dancing and singing in heaven that very day, right alongside lifelong Christian believers. It would seem.
Not that that is a thrilling proposition.
Because. Justice.
As for baptism for the dead, here is one Christian-source commentary on that practice (1 Corinthians 15-29):
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/15-29.htm
Ellicott’s Commentary re baptism for the dead:
“There have been numerous and ingenious conjectures as to the meaning of this passage. The only tenable interpretation is that there existed amongst some of the Christians at Corinth a practice of baptising a living person in the stead of some convert who had died before that sacrament had been administered to him. Such a practice existed amongst the Marcionites in the second century, and still earlier amongst a sect called the Corinthians."
"The idea evidently was that whatever benefit flowed from baptism might be thus vicariously secured for the deceased Christian. St. Chrysostom gives the following description of it:—“After a catechumen (i.e., one prepared for baptism, but not actually baptised) was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the bed of the dead man they spake to him, and asked whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the ‘living for the dead.’”
“Does St. Paul then, by what he here says, sanction the superstitious practice? Certainly not. He carefully separates himself and the Corinthians, to whom he immediately addresses himself, from those who adopted this custom. He no longer uses the first or second person; it is “they” throughout this passage. It is no proof to others; it is simply the argumentum ad hominem. Those who do that, and disbelieve a resurrection, refute themselves. This custom possibly sprang up amongst the Jewish converts, who had been accustomed to something similar in their own faith. If a Jew died without having been purified from some ceremonial uncleanness, some living person had the necessary ablution performed on them, and the dead were so accounted clean.”
-----
I note that Ellicott refers to baptism for the dead as a "superstition". I also note that he describes the dead person as being a "convert" - a person who had converted to Christianity but had died before they were able to be baptized.
That doesn't fit with the Mormon belief and practice of baptizing every dead person whose name they can get hold of.
However, the article cited by Richard states the following about Mormon beliefs:
“The dead person residing in spirit prison must consent to their baptism for it to be efficacious.”
This I did not know, as a mere convert. That makes the dead baptisms slightly less offensive, perhaps, especially if the person being dead-baptized and/or their family don't even know about it. (I do deeply regret giving them my grandparents' names and yet, in the grand scheme of the universe, does it matter two hoots?).
From the article as well:
“The practice [of baptisms for the dead] has not been without controversy as posthumous baptism is not limited to immediate family members. The practice of baptizing Holocaust victims drew wide ranging criticism in the 1990s and in 2012 the Church had to apologize when it was revealed that it had baptized Anne Frank.”
“Safeguards to prevent the posthumous baptism of Holocaust victims have been put in place.”
-----
So the Mormon Church recognizes (even if under pressure) that the practice is offensive to the memories and survivors of Jewish Holocaust victims. Yet, they continue to dead-dunk Jewish people who, by definition, would not likely join the offshoot-Christian faith of Mormonism (although there are Jewish Christians, I know, but that is by their own direct choice). Examples of Jewish people dead-dunked by Mormons are the parents of Steven Spielberg. His family is described as being Orthodox Jewish.
I don't think the Christian imperative to proselytize the world extends into the afterlife. Please God JW and Mormon missionaries won't be banging on people's doors in heaven still trying to persuade them to switch teams. Surely by then the roster is set.
BAPTISED OR NOT WHEN YOU ARE DEAD YOU ARE DEAD
Baptized or not
WHEN YOU ARE DEAD YOU ARE DEAD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2022 07:40PM by thedesertrat1.
WHEN YOU ARE DEAD YOU ARE DEAD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2022 07:40PM by thedesertrat1.
Could you repeat that?
And say it LOUDER?
:)
And say it LOUDER?
:)
It is interesting to note, too, that the BOM, supposedly claiming the fulness of Gospel, has no mention of the practice.
Of note, the BoM was written in 1830. JS stated that he received his revelation about dead-dunking after this and apparently first revealed it in 1840.
LDS Living article (August 2019) about JS’ revelation re dead-dunking:
https://www.ldsliving.com/how-the-revelation-of-baptisms-for-the-dead-was-received-and-revealed-to-the-church/s/91384
Excerpts:
“Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom (D&C 137), received on 21 January 1836, may well have been the initial revelation of the doctrine of salvation for the dead. Later, on the afternoon of Tuesday, 8 May 1838, the Prophet Joseph answered a series of questions about the faith and practices of the Latter-day Saints. One of the questions was: “If the Mormon doctrine is true, what has become of all those who died since the days of the Apostles?” His response: “All those who have not had an opportunity of hearing the gospel, and being administered to by an inspired man in the flesh, must have it hereafter, before they can be finally judged.”7 We cannot help but conclude that the Prophet must have spoken of this doctrinal matter since the time of his vision of Alvin more than two years earlier, but there is no record of such a conversation.
“The first public discourse on the subject by the Prophet was delivered on 15 August 1840 at the funeral of Seymour Brunson, a member of the Nauvoo High Council.8 Simon Baker described the occasion:
“I was present at a discourse that the prophet Joseph delivered on baptism for the dead 15 August 1840. He read the greater part of the 15th chapter of Corinthians and remarked that the Gospel of Jesus Christ brought glad tidings of great joy, and then remarked that he saw a widow in that congregation that had a son who died without being baptized, and this widow in reading the sayings of Jesus 'except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,' and that not one jot nor tittle of the Savior’s words should pass away, but all should be fulfilled. He then said that this widow should have glad tidings in that thing. He also said the apostle [Paul] was talking to a people who understood baptism for the dead, for it was practiced among them. He went on to say that people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and that the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God. He went on and made a very beautiful discourse.”
“After the meeting, the widow, Jane Nyman, was baptized vicariously for her son by Harvey Olmstead in the Mississippi River. Just one month later, on 14 September 1840, on his deathbed the Patriarch Joseph Smith Sr. made a final request of his family—that someone be baptized in behalf of his eldest son, Alvin. Hyrum complied with that wish and was baptized in 1840 and again in 1841.”
-----
You would think such an important ‘revelation’ would have been included in the BoM, especially as it now forms a crucial part of LDS doctrine and practice.
Christian apologists who address the doctrine of baptisms for the dead state that the LDS belief is a misinterpretation of scripture or failure of ‘exegesis’ (explanation/interpretation of scripture). There are principles to follow in interpreting scripture. I’m going to guess that JS may not (likely not) have been familiar with or educated in the methods used to examine and interpret biblical scripture. One of the bedrock principles is that you take the verses you know to be interpreted correctly (due to methods of interpretation used and comparison of other texts and their interpretation) and you consider the texts you are trying to interpret in that light. Interpretation of the text under examination must agree with the text already studied and interpreted, not the other way around. Otherwise, it’s considered a “failure of exegesis”; i.e. an interpretation has been concluded without reference to the interpretations of texts which are considered to be proven (by agreement of the body of learned biblical scholars). Or something like that.
It’s not a stretch for me to conclude that Joseph Smith’s relative lack of education would preclude him from interpreting biblical doctrine consistently and accurately. (I know, I’m biased, yet there is evidence to back this up. It’s not an accepted method to just make stuff up).
LDS Living article (August 2019) about JS’ revelation re dead-dunking:
https://www.ldsliving.com/how-the-revelation-of-baptisms-for-the-dead-was-received-and-revealed-to-the-church/s/91384
Excerpts:
“Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom (D&C 137), received on 21 January 1836, may well have been the initial revelation of the doctrine of salvation for the dead. Later, on the afternoon of Tuesday, 8 May 1838, the Prophet Joseph answered a series of questions about the faith and practices of the Latter-day Saints. One of the questions was: “If the Mormon doctrine is true, what has become of all those who died since the days of the Apostles?” His response: “All those who have not had an opportunity of hearing the gospel, and being administered to by an inspired man in the flesh, must have it hereafter, before they can be finally judged.”7 We cannot help but conclude that the Prophet must have spoken of this doctrinal matter since the time of his vision of Alvin more than two years earlier, but there is no record of such a conversation.
“The first public discourse on the subject by the Prophet was delivered on 15 August 1840 at the funeral of Seymour Brunson, a member of the Nauvoo High Council.8 Simon Baker described the occasion:
“I was present at a discourse that the prophet Joseph delivered on baptism for the dead 15 August 1840. He read the greater part of the 15th chapter of Corinthians and remarked that the Gospel of Jesus Christ brought glad tidings of great joy, and then remarked that he saw a widow in that congregation that had a son who died without being baptized, and this widow in reading the sayings of Jesus 'except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,' and that not one jot nor tittle of the Savior’s words should pass away, but all should be fulfilled. He then said that this widow should have glad tidings in that thing. He also said the apostle [Paul] was talking to a people who understood baptism for the dead, for it was practiced among them. He went on to say that people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and that the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God. He went on and made a very beautiful discourse.”
“After the meeting, the widow, Jane Nyman, was baptized vicariously for her son by Harvey Olmstead in the Mississippi River. Just one month later, on 14 September 1840, on his deathbed the Patriarch Joseph Smith Sr. made a final request of his family—that someone be baptized in behalf of his eldest son, Alvin. Hyrum complied with that wish and was baptized in 1840 and again in 1841.”
-----
You would think such an important ‘revelation’ would have been included in the BoM, especially as it now forms a crucial part of LDS doctrine and practice.
Christian apologists who address the doctrine of baptisms for the dead state that the LDS belief is a misinterpretation of scripture or failure of ‘exegesis’ (explanation/interpretation of scripture). There are principles to follow in interpreting scripture. I’m going to guess that JS may not (likely not) have been familiar with or educated in the methods used to examine and interpret biblical scripture. One of the bedrock principles is that you take the verses you know to be interpreted correctly (due to methods of interpretation used and comparison of other texts and their interpretation) and you consider the texts you are trying to interpret in that light. Interpretation of the text under examination must agree with the text already studied and interpreted, not the other way around. Otherwise, it’s considered a “failure of exegesis”; i.e. an interpretation has been concluded without reference to the interpretations of texts which are considered to be proven (by agreement of the body of learned biblical scholars). Or something like that.
It’s not a stretch for me to conclude that Joseph Smith’s relative lack of education would preclude him from interpreting biblical doctrine consistently and accurately. (I know, I’m biased, yet there is evidence to back this up. It’s not an accepted method to just make stuff up).
"He went on to say that people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and that the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God."
Obviously, Smith didn't officially endorse sifting through census records to claim the dead.
Obviously, Smith didn't officially endorse sifting through census records to claim the dead.
I've always thought it odd that Christian apologists try to argue that Paul merely mentioned the practice, but did not endorse it. But then why did he use it as proof that the dead live again? He thought the practice had value as proof of an afterlife.
I would not, for instance, want to live in an Amazon tribe but if I was arguing the validity of family groups and family relationships I might argue that even "uncivilized" Amazon is tribes embrace the practice. Perhaps we will never know for sure what his stance was.
Nightingale the BOM was produced in 1830 but it is purported to be of ancient origin and touted as having the "fullness of the gospel". Along with many fundamental beliefs of Mormonism those claimed ancients made no mention of it in their preserved narrative.
Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the BOM was produced in 1830 but it is purported to be of ancient origin and touted as
> having the "fullness of the gospel". Along with many fundamental beliefs of Mormonism those claimed ancients made no mention of it in their preserved narrative.
For a listing of some of those, see "The Book of Mormon vs. Mormonism"
http://packham.n4m.org/bomvslds.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> the BOM was produced in 1830 but it is purported to be of ancient origin and touted as
> having the "fullness of the gospel". Along with many fundamental beliefs of Mormonism those claimed ancients made no mention of it in their preserved narrative.
For a listing of some of those, see "The Book of Mormon vs. Mormonism"
http://packham.n4m.org/bomvslds.htm
Yes, kentish, that's what I meant about JS - that the BoM came out in 1830 but dead-dunking wasn't a thing with him until 1840. Why wasn't it in the BoM if, as you say, it's part of the fullness of the gospel?
Obviously, to me, because he made it up as he went along.