Which religion has love?

[Katzpur]

They practice a proxy baptism for those who have already died, so that in the afterlife they have a chance to convert to Mormonism in order to progress in the afterlife. This is why they have the most extensive genealogical archives in the world, scouring church records of the old country and creating vast trees so temple workers get baptized for the dead they find in those records. (This is of course a boon to us genealogical researchers who are reconstructing our personal family trees!).

Quick note: We have been specifically instructed to be baptized only on behalf of those we can identify as our own ancestors. Needless to say, this directive has not always been obeyed. But we don't just get baptized on behalf of anyone and everyone we find in old records.

The entire practice is based on a single, obscure verse of scripture in 1 Cor. 15:29, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?" There are many ways to understand this verse, such as he was referencing some errant practice of those in Corinth in a sort of ironic example that if there is no Resurrection than what is the point of them practicing it. He refers to them as "they", whereas in the rest of the passage he speaks of "we". Furthermore they were practicing many errant practices there which Paul sets out to correct. It is very unlikely if these people were literally performing a proxy-baptism, that he was sanctioning it. It is never referenced or taught anywhere else in his or anyone else's writings in the NT.

Actually, we don't base the practice on this verse at all. It merely gives credence to our doctrine. We base the practice on revelation, directions given by God to a man we believe to have been a living prophet whom He chose.

You say that it was highly unlikely that Paul was sanctioning the practice. Stop and consider what an illogical argument this really is. Imagine yourself trying to convince someone that Jesus Christ's resurrection really did take place and that, because He became "the firstfruits of them that slept," we too could look forward to being resurrected someday. Would you say, "What purpose do the Mormons have for practicing baptisms for the dead, if the dead are never going to be resurrected? Why do you think they are being baptized for the dead"? I really can't imagine anyone saying such a thing. No one would use a practice he doesn't personally believe in (i.e. baptism for the dead) as an argument to support a doctrine he does believe in (i.e. the resurrection). That's just not the way people debate their beliefs.

Regarding the use of the pronoun "they," most of the time, when we see a pronoun, it is immediately preceded by a noun which makes it clear who the "we" is referring to. In this case, we don't. Paul does not say, "the Saints at Corinth" or "the pagans in Eleusis." We are left to figure out for ourselves who he was talking about. (The Greek original of Corinthians 15:29 does not, incidentally, use the pronoun “they” at all. It says, “Otherwise, what will do the ones being baptized for the dead?”) Even many non-LDS scholars today, however, agree that the Christians in Corinth, at least, were engaging in proxy baptism for those who had not received baptism when they were alive. One such individual is Krister Stendahl (1921-2008) is among these. In the event that you are not familiar with him, he was a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar who served as professor and professor emeritus at Harvard Divinity School.

When the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being written, one of its editors, LDS scholar, Truman Madsen, approached Stendahl (a long-time acquaintance) and asked him to write an article on baptism for the dead in ancient Christianity. Stendahl refused. Madsen persisted, saying, "We'd really like to have you involved. Would it be possible, could I maybe write an article on the subject, just a brief little thing, and send it to you and you just make any changes you want to and you can put your name on it?" Stendahl relented and agreed to read Madsen’s article.

Madsen, however, was unprepared for what happened next. After reading Madsen’s article, Stendahl immediately responded, “This is a terrible article; it's not nearly strong enough; your case is much better than you are letting on; don't be so reticent." He ended up writing the article himself. It now appears in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Essentially he admitted, that “the consensus of all informed biblical exegetes is that early Christians did practice baptism for the dead and it was a rite essentially as the Mormons describe it." Paul meant what the text appears to be saying and there really aren’t as many other interpretations as most people insist on extrapolating.

Another interpretation might be referencing those who get baptized because of their dead loved ones who have passed on, in order to reunite with them in the afterlife because of the Christian teachings of an afterlife. "What is the point then for those who are baptized, who become Christians in order to be with their loved ones in the afterlife, if they won't rise in the Resurrection," and so forth.

That would be much closer to the truth of the matter.

To say the least, it's an obscure passage on which to construct such massive structure such as temple work and massive genealogical archives.

And if it were the basis for "massive structure such as temple work and massive genealogical archives," I would agree with you. Unlike the rest of the world's Christian denominations, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, we don't formulate any of our doctrines on a human -- even scholarly human -- interpretation of what any given verse means. We formulate our doctrines on what we believe the Lord has revealed.

 

[Windwalker]

Quick note: We have been specifically instructed to be baptized only on behalf of those we can identify as our own ancestors. Needless to say, this directive has not always been obeyed. But we don't just get baptized on behalf of anyone and everyone we find in old records.

Oh yes, I remember the controversy surrounding Mormons getting baptized for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. That caused quite a stir and an offense to them. In a sense of the word, isn't it just as offensive to get baptized for anyone who had a different way of expressing their faith in another tradition, including you own ancestors?

I can understand and appreciate someone extending the love of their heart to their own forebears of their own ancestral lineage, and that is good and fine. We all share love. But to perform a ritual for them to convert to your religion in the afterlife? I don't know, that seems a bit presumptuous. Perform the ritual for yourself as an offering of your own love, but to presume they are lost or otherwise stuck in their spiritual journey because they weren't your religion seems a bit off, on a number of levels IMHO. If they shared in your religion, that's another matter.

Actually, we don't base the practice on this verse at all. It merely gives credence to our doctrine. We base the practice on revelation, directions given by God to a man we believe to have been a living prophet whom He chose.

I don't have such faith in those who claim to be prophets that they didn't pick something up and filter it through their channels. We all filter these things. This is not like some divine universal that the mystic can access that all other mystics in all times and all religions and all cultures do. This is instead a very specific ritual, and I'm certain JS did not just grab that out of thin air. It was seen, and then expounded up in his understanding.

Revelation doesn't work like that, in the sense of Holy Dictation. Of course, I know many do understand it in a very literalistic sense, and that sense becomes part of their faith's tradition. In my experience, revelation is not about specifics, like matters of science or proper religious rites that God prescribes. It's about truths of the human heart and spirit.

When the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being written, one of its editors, LDS scholar, Truman Madsen, approached Stendahl (a long-time acquaintance) and asked him to write an article on baptism for the dead in ancient Christianity. Stendahl refused. Madsen persisted, saying, "We'd really like to have you involved. Would it be possible, could I maybe write an article on the subject, just a brief little thing, and send it to you and you just make any changes you want to and you can put your name on it?" Stendahl relented and agreed to read Madsen’s article. [/SIZE][/COLOR]

Madsen, however, was unprepared for what happened next. After reading Madsen’s article, Stendahl immediately responded, “This is a terrible article; it's not nearly strong enough; your case is much better than you are letting on; don't be so reticent." He ended up writing the article himself. It now appears in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Essentially he admitted, that “the consensus of all informed biblical exegetes is that early Christians did practice baptism for the dead and it was a rite essentially as the Mormons describe it." Paul meant what the text appears to be saying and there really aren’t as many other interpretations as most people insist on extrapolating.

As for Stendhal, that is one scholar. Plus what he took from what he was reading was to express what he saw as part of his interfaith dialog criteria, to express "Holy Envy". He said every group should practice that towards one another, and I agree with his sentiment. He "envied" the practice because it honored our passed loved one. I agree. It is wonder to honor our dead, to create shrines for them, to remember them in our hearts, and to pass them on in our legacies. I do a lot of genealogical research on my own, and through this I have felt myself connect to them and they to me. It is a wonderful practice, and something lost in most of our religions and cultures. This was his way to honor the Mormons and humans on their spiritual journey. It doesn't mean his scholarship was solid. But that wasn't really his point either.

My point is I think its great someone for whatever reason wants to incoporate and practice into their religious rituals that brings them something. Just do it then. I just don't see the purpose in trying to justifying it saying God told me to do it, and pull all sorts of rationalizations out to justify it. If that act rewards the soul, than that's the justification. I simply do not see God needing water baptism as a requirement to know him. That's our thinking on the matter, and there's no need to sugarcoat that as a "revelation".

 

[Katzpur]

Oh yes, I remember the controversy surrounding Mormons getting baptized for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. That caused quite a stir and an offense to them. In a sense of the word, isn't it just as offensive to get baptized for anyone who had a different way of expressing their faith in another tradition, including you own ancestors?

Not the way we see it. We just believe it's a required ordinance and that it must be performed in a prescribed way and by an individual holding the proper authority -- from God, not from a theological seminary or divinity college. None of our ancestors who lived prior to the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could have conceivably had a baptism that met these requirements. Furthermore, Mormonism was an unavailable option to them. We're working on the premise that if they had been exposed to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ (which we claim to have), they may have wished to become a part of it.

I can understand and appreciate someone extending the love of their heart to their own forebears of their own ancestral lineage, and that is good and fine. We all share love. But to perform a ritual for them to convert to your religion in the afterlife? I don't know, that seems a bit presumptuous. Perform the ritual for yourself as an offering of your own love, but to presume they are lost or otherwise stuck in their spiritual journey because they weren't your religion seems a bit off, on a number of levels IMHO. If they shared in your religion, that's another matter.

First off, rituals don't convert people. It would be impossible for any living Mormon to "convert" a deceased ancestor by performing a post-humous baptism on his/her behalf. We believe baptising is a saving ordinance (aka "sacrament"). It counts for nothing if it is not accompanied by faith in Jesus Christ, acceptance of His atoning sacrifice and repentence for one's sins. Otherwise, it's nothing more than getting wet. Since we believe that everyone who has died will be given the opportunity to hear and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ before their resurrection, the conversion comes if and when they choose to accept what they've heard. Baptism just fills the necessary requirement as laid out in the scriptures. If my great, great, great grandma (who would have lived in the 1700s) still wants nothing to do with Mormonism after having heard the gospel in the Spirit World as she awaits the resurrection, the baptism performed on her behalf will have absolutely zero affect on her eternal destiny.

So, the bottom line is that this posthumous ordinance is performed 100% out of love. Period.

I don't have such faith in those who claim to be prophets that they didn't pick something up and filter it through their channels. We all filter these things. This is not like some divine universal that the mystic can access that all other mystics in all times and all religions and all cultures do. This is instead a very specific ritual, and I'm certain JS did not just grab that out of thin air. It was seen, and then expounded up in his understanding.

That's fine. I respect your opinion on the subject.

Revelation doesn't work like that, in the sense of Holy Dictation. Of course, I know many do understand it in a very literalistic sense, and that sense becomes part of their faith's tradition. In my experience, revelation is not about specifics, like matters of science or proper religious rites that God prescribes. It's about truths of the human heart and spirit.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Revelation doesn't work like what? Like it worked in Old Testament times?

As for Stendhal, that is one scholar. Plus what he took from what he was reading was to express what he saw as part of his interfaith dialog criteria, to express "Holy Envy". He said every group should practice that towards one another, and I agree with his sentiment. He "envied" the practice because it honored our passed loved one. I agree.

True, Stendhal was "just one scholar," but quite a renowned one, and one who, despite his interest in building bridges between religions, would not likely have put his reputation on the line by being so outspoken in his support for this doctrine, just for the sake of "being a nice guy." But you'd have to read his article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to realize that he genuinely believed that the earliest Christians did practice posthumous baptisms and that they did so for the same reason Latter-day Saints do today.

I do a lot of genealogical research on my own, and through this I have felt myself connect to them and they to me.

Well now, that's a truly Mormon concept. By the way, have you every actually been to the Church's Genealogical Library in Salt Lake City? If you haven't, you'd throroughly enjoy yourself there.

I simply do not see God needing water baptism as a requirement to know him.

I can see where you're coming from. In all honesty, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, either. The only thing is that in the Bible we are told by Jesus Christ himself that this is something God requires of us.

That's our thinking on the matter, and there's no need to sugarcoat that as a "revelation".

Unless it really was one. And if you don't believe it was, there's nothing I can say to change your mind. And actually, I don't even really have any desire to try to. I'm not much of a proselytizer by nature.

 

[savagewind]

I have a question please. A person who wishes to worship God the Later Day Saints way is baptized. Yes? Is it for dead ones then? Or is there another baptism later for dead ones? How many times may a Later Day Saint be baptized?

 

[Ingledsva]

They practice a proxy baptism for those who have already died, so that in the afterlife they have a chance to convert to Mormonism in order to progress in the afterlife. This is why they have the most extensive genealogical archives in the world, scouring church records of the old country and creating vast trees so temple workers get baptized for the dead they find in those records. (This is of course a boon to us genealogical researchers who are reconstructing our personal family trees!).

The entire practice is based on a single, obscure verse of scripture in 1 Cor. 15:29, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?" There are many ways to understand this verse, such as he was referencing some errant practice of those in Corinth in a sort of ironic example that if there is no Resurrection than what is the point of them practicing it. He refers to them as "they", whereas in the rest of the passage he speaks of "we". Furthermore they were practicing many errant practices there which Paul sets out to correct. It is very unlikely if these people were literally performing a proxy-baptism, that he was sanctioning it. It is never referenced or taught anywhere else in his or anyone else's writings in the NT.

Another interpretation might be referencing those who get baptized because of their dead loved ones who have passed on, in order to reunite with them in the afterlife because of the Christian teachings of an afterlife. "What is the point then for those who are baptized, who become Christians in order to be with their loved ones in the afterlife, if they won't rise in the Resurrection," and so forth.

To say the least, it's an obscure passage on which to construct such massive structure such as temple work and massive genealogical archives. But, then again Protestant churches have always been about differentiating themselves from one another with their particular flavor of interpretation on equally obscure passages. That's never stopped anyone before. Add them to the long list of churches born in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries following the Great Disappointment. JW's are in that list as well, as well as the church I used to be part of, not to cause offense. It's really all part of the same movement of what was going on in America during this period, everyone differentiated themselves from each other with their various passages they seized upon.

I agree with you.

It is definitely talking about the baptism of LIVE people so they can rise after death, - not baptizing dead people.

I think it should be translated more like –

1Co 15:29 Otherwise, why shall/should they continue the Baptism OVER death? If by no means the dead therefore rise up; why then Baptize them over this death?



*

 

[Katzpur]

I have a question please. A person who wishes to worship God the Later Day Saints way is baptized. Yes?

Yes, we baptize children at the age of eight, because we believe that by this age, a child can understand the difference between right and wrong, can willingly choose to accept Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice and capable of entering into a covenant relationship with Him. Converts to the Church (who are over the age of eight) are baptised when they join the Church. Let's assume my name was Susan Jones. The words of the baptismal prayer that was said when I was baptized would be as follows:

"Susan Jones, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

Is it for dead ones then?

No, it's for the person himself or herself.

Or is there another baptism later for dead ones? How many times may a Later Day Saint be baptized?

A person can be baptized for as many deceased ancestors as can be identified, one at a time (this would likely be done over a period of time, as new ancestral records are discovered). Again, let's assume my name was Susan Jones and I was being baptized on behalf of my great, great, great grandmother, whose name was Abigail Evans. The words of the baptismal prayer would be as follows:

"Susan Smith, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you for and in behalf of Abigail Evans, who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

 

[savagewind]

Thank you. I think understand what baptized for someone means. What does being baptized in behave of someone mean please?

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you. I think understand what baptized for someone means. What does being baptized in behave of someone mean please?

It's basically redundant, to tell you the truth. To be baptized for someone really means exactly the same thing as to be baptized on behalf of someone. I have no idea why both phrases are used.

 

[Astravalon]

The verses you cited have nothing to do with the making of a vow or oath per se, but doing so loosely and with no intention of really keeping it.

When Jesus said "do not swear at all" he was saying 'if you have no intention of keeping your word, don't swear by God to do something when you don't mean it'. He said, "Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no" or in other words, when you make an agreement with someone, mean what you say.

I disagree; Jesus clearly says make no vows whatsoever. There's no way around that, though I'm sure it's easy enough for bible commentary authors to take things out of context and put their own slant on them.

Even without a bible or commentaries to lean upon, common sense will tell us that we humans cannot see the future clearly enough to make concrete promises to do anything. However, since common-sense isn't always enough for some, here's more scripture to confirm that humans simply have no grounds to be making such brazen predictions:

Proverbs 27:1 ~ Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth.

James 4:13-16 ~ Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil.
​

We don't want to be like.... :ignore:

Of course not; I don't blame you.

-