Why does baptism for the dead bother you?

[jonny]

While I personally do not believe that baptism has any effect whatsoever on an individual---living or otherwise---I nevertheless find baptism by proxy to be an unethical practice in principle. Those performing the baptism believe that the individual they are baptizing still exists in some form and is still in possession of free will. Thus, the practice screams to me of forced conversion.

The fact that you admit that this is a question of ethics means that there is no right or wrong answer to the question.

You are completely avoiding the possibility that this is the individual who is being baptised WANTS the baptism to occur.

 

[madhatter85]

In the bible (if you believe in christianity) all the apostles were killed and the gospel was removed from the earth right after christ died. giving nobody on the earth the power or authority to baptise people properly.
We believe we are the restoration of the gospel and priesthood bestowed, in person by the same Peter, James, and John mention in the new testament, to Joseph Smith on the banks of the Sesquehanna River with Oliver Cowdry.
With that in mind as our beliefs, we do it for all those who have not had a chance to accept the truth (for the lack of it being here while they lived) in this life because we beleive that all the souls who have passed on have a chance to accept the truth and for all those who were not baptised in accordance to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
we believe that baptising infants is a mockery to the sancitiy of baptism.
-Segway-(nowhere in the bible does it say to baptise infants, nor does it say to "sprinkle" them. Christ was baptised by immersion in the bible. So if you believe in this ordinance and that god is the same and not a "changeable god" why would jesus be baptised one way, and everyoen else another?)
Because, we believe that men are punished for thier own sins, and not for anything in the past (adam's transgression), we believe that people are not "born into sin." and only when they are at an age where they can be accountable for thier own actions do we agree to baptise them.

We do this out of love for our ancestors because we know they never even had a chance to understand the full scope of the gospel fo jesus christ. that is our beliefs.

as a church we never say "Take our word for it", same with baptisms done by proxy (which are also mentioned in The bible. 1st Corinthians 15:29) we are just offering it to our ancestors as a gift for them to either accept or reject.

We always encourage everyone to find out for themselves.

 

[rocka21]

-Segway-(nowhere in the bible does it say to baptise infants, nor does it say to "sprinkle" them. Christ was baptised by immersion in the bible. So if you believe in this ordinance and that god is the same and not a "changeable god" why would jesus be baptised one way, and everyoen else another?)

segway- nowhere in the bible does it say to proxy baptise.

if Smith could get the revelation from God ( to do what has not been done), why can't some pope get it for infant baptism? both are not in the bible.

 

[Katzpur]

segway- nowhere in the bible does it say to proxy baptise.

if Smith could get the revelation from God ( to do what has not been done), why can't some pope get it for infant baptism? both are not in the bible.

Actually, Paul mentions proxy baptism as an argument for the resurrection. People who believe in infant baptism will likely point out that "entire families" were baptized (which, to them, implies that babies and small children were included).

 

[Quiddity]

Actually, Paul mentions proxy baptism as an argument for the resurrection. People who believe in infant baptism will likely point out that "entire families" were baptized (which, to them, implies that babies and small children were included).

I'm curious where Paul mentions proxy baptism as an argument?

 

[Booko]

segway- nowhere in the bible does it say to proxy baptise.

if Smith could get the revelation from God ( to do what has not been done), why can't some pope get it for infant baptism? both are not in the bible.

What do you think it means to have one's "whole house" baptized, rocka? Cultures in this part of the world were, and to some extent still are, very different than ours. We think nothing of the idea that a head of household might join a religion and the spouse and children not do so. We see it as purely an individual decision.

No so in much of the world. If the head of the household conversts, everyone in the family does, even the children.

Heck, even now in some parts of the world, if the village elders convert, the entire village does.

Anyway, you asked for Biblical references. There are other historical sources that talk about the culture of the time that would clarify this. To read the Bible yanked out of the culture it addressed can result in some pretty strange errors, that no one at the time would've made.

1 Cor 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

Acts 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Here's the usual text offered for baptism for the dead:

1 Cor 15:29 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?

 

[madhatter85]

Exactly Bokoo, as for the corinthian's text it he's asking why should we proxy baptise unless they are going to be resurrected?

you may ask why not just be baptised AFTER the ressurection then?

because it will be too late by then.

Granted i understand that you would have to believe that everyone will be resurrected and gain a "perfect body" to follow this. which is what we as mormons believe, that everyone wether you did good in your life or not will be resurrected then promptly judged according to thier knowledge and works.

 

[athanasius]

Actually, Paul mentions proxy baptism as an argument for the resurrection. People who believe in infant baptism will likely point out that "entire families" were baptized (which, to them, implies that babies and small children were included).

Actually the understanding of Infant baptism goes far deeper into the Gospels(John and Luke) and the Epistles(Col and Acts) than just what you stated. And it also is found explicitly in oral Apostolic Tradition and lived faith of the early chrisitan community and practice as attested to by many of the Fathers such as St Augustine. So a baby was always seen in the apostolic age as being able to be baptized. My problem with a proxy baptism for the dead is twofold.

1) No where in the apostolic tradition of the Fathers do we find this teaching in the earliest liturgies like we do infant baptism. 2) The concept of proxy baptism for a person who has died seems to contradict scripture itself, which is why the Fathers probably never included it in their belief. What I mean is Scripture never contradicts itself. If you mean to baptize people to bring them to salvation after death or rescue them out of hell then that would seem unlikely. Because after death comes judgement(Heb 9:27). There is no second chance.

The other part would be that Scripture talks about God being a just judge and does not judge people on what they did not know. That tis why God will judge those invincible ignorant on what they did know and have in this life. for God will give them enough knowledge of himself for salvation and judge them according to their works (Rom 1:18-21, 2:5-10 Acts 10:34-35). So when Paul speaks of Baptism on behalf of the dead he must mean something else. Indeed the historical lived Tradition of the early chrisitians never interpreted Paul passage to mean anything like the Mormons teach. Several Christian biblical Scholars and apologist have suggested several possible interpretations of this but not proxy baptism for a already dead person to save the soul of that person.

 

[madhatter85]

segway- nowhere in the bible does it say to proxy baptise.

if Smith could get the revelation from God ( to do what has not been done), why can't some pope get it for infant baptism? both are not in the bible.

we believe as mormons that revelation is given to everyone who asks of god for wisdom, personal revelation especially. i have seen very few people from any denomination, who actually pray and ask god what to do when faced with a choice, or when they lack neccecary knowledge. they ask men and "take thier word."

not tryign to point fingers but when was the last time the pope came out and said "I have recieved a revelation from god, ect.. ect.." i could be wrong but i'm pretty sure he's only ever re-iterated what has been said for years. and when he adresses his mass, he talks politics.

The pope recently on 7/6/07 "reaffirmed" the primacy of the Roman catholic church by signing a document written up by a cardinal. boasting that they are the only church that can trace thier heritage to be the onyl with with authority to act in god's name. also stating that all other orthodox are defective, and other denominations are "not real churches" and that none have the credentials for "salvation." same was stated 7 years ago in 2000. it would be nice to see the claimed heritage of the catholic church's "priesthood" i can't find it anywhere no documentation or even beliefs of a passign down of the priesthood.

in the scriptures, it says there will be no end to God's words, or his works. if that is the case. where are the words going to come from? no need to answer the question, just rhetorical. something to think about.

Like i've always said, it's hard not to sound self-rightoeus about things liek this and it is not my intent to do so. i merely look at beliefs of history and history itself before i can actually understand and make connections.

 

[madhatter85]

Actually the understanding of Infant baptism goes far deeper into the Gospels(John and Luke) and the Epistles(Col and Acts) than just what you stated. And it also is found explicitly in oral Apostolic Tradition and lived faith of the early chrisitan community and practice as attested to by many of the Fathers such as St Augustine. So a baby was always seen in the apostolic age as being able to be baptized. My problem with a proxy baptism for the dead is twofold.

1) No where in the apostolic tradition of the Fathers do we find this teaching in the earliest liturgies like we do infant baptism. 2) The concept of proxy baptism for a person who has died seems to contradict scripture itself, which is why the Fathers probably never included it in their belief. What I mean is Scripture never contradicts itself. If you mean to baptize people to bring them to salvation after death or rescue them out of hell then that would seem unlikely. Because after death comes judgement(Heb 9:27). There is no second chance.

The other part would be that Scripture talks about God being a just judge and does not judge people on what they did not know. That tis why God will judge those invincible ignorant on what they did know and have in this life. for God will give them enough knowledge of himself for salvation and judge them according to their works (Rom 1:18-21, 2:5-10 Acts 10:34-35). So when Paul speaks of Baptism on behalf of the dead he must mean something else. Indeed the historical lived Tradition of the early chrisitians never interpreted Paul passage to mean anything like the Mormons teach. Several Christian biblical Scholars and apologist have suggested several possible interpretations of this but not proxy baptism for a already dead person to save the soul of that person.

1st Peter 3:18-19 For Christ Also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.
1st Peter 3:21 the like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us (not putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer if a good conscience toward god) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Right there states that souls do not immediately go to hell after death, theya re put into a spirit prison, where even baptism can save them, couple that with the corinthian's scripture, and you have out of the bible the reason why mormons perform baptisms for the dead.

Matthew 18:3 "Except ye become as little children.... ye cannto enter into the kingdom of god"

That right there states that little children are perfectly clean because of the lack of accountability for thier actions. hence, no need to baptise what is already clean. nowhere does it ever state that little children, nor infants were baptised in the bible. yet it states numerous times that little children are perfect in the eyes of god.

 

[athanasius]

1st Peter 3:18-19 For Christ Also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.
1st Peter 3:21 the like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us (not putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer if a good conscience toward god) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Right there states that souls do not immediately go to hell after death, theya re put into a spirit prison, where even baptism can save them, couple that with the corinthian's scripture, and you have out of the bible the reason why mormons perform baptisms for the dead.

Matthew 18:3 "Except ye become as little children.... ye cannto enter into the kingdom of god"

That right there states that little children are perfectly clean because of the lack of accountability for thier actions. hence, no need to baptise what is already clean. nowhere does it ever state that little children, nor infants were baptised in the bible. yet it states numerous times that little children are perfect in the eyes of god.

Again Christian practice and teaching in the first centuries does not teach what your teaching here about those passages. So the early Christian community(the fathers and the church as a whole in the first 19 centuries) did not interpret those passages to mean what the Mormons mean about proxy baptism for the dead. This is a big black hole on your part. and is highly suspect. Why should we believe some novel interpretation of those passages that is just under 200 years old? That seems dubious! What Peter is talking about is the commonly called the "Limbo of the fathers" as the early Christians would say. Sheol is also a possibility. You must remember that Christ had to descend before he was raised. No more Sheol. Now he is raised and the judgment comes immediately after death as the scripture and the oral apostolic tradition of the apostles also states . There is no and never was historically for the early Christian a baptism for the dead in the sense Mormons believe.

As far as your quote from Matthew I would suggest you look at the Lukan parallel to this teaching which actually hints to Infant baptism as the early Christian Church and her lived practice of the first few centuries clearly demonstrated. Infants do not have personal sin but we all ihherit original sin as Paul taught in Romans 5:12. Baptism is what washes away this sin(Rom 6:3-12. Acts 22:16. Acts 2;38-39, 1 Cor 6:11) Not to mention the Apostolic tradition of the Church which speaks alot of this.

 

[rocka21]

What do you think it means to have one's "whole house" baptized, rocka?

exactly what it says.

Anyway, you asked for Biblical references.

and all the references you quoted says that there household was also baptised. and?

Here's the usual text offered for baptism for the dead:

1 Cor 15:29 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?

actually, he was correcting the chruch , read the chapter. even the pagan practices that many in corinth practiced would not make sence if there were no resurection.

 

[Booko]

exactly what it says.

You mean someone baptized a building? Because that's "exactly" what is says.

and all the references you quoted says that there household was also baptised. and?

Hey, you asked for the refs and I put 'em out there.

I don't have a dog in this fight, rocka.

 

[rocka21]

You mean someone baptized a building? Because that's "exactly" what is says.

i think we can say that it could mean different things. i think it means the whole house ( family) was saved because the head has influence.

I don't have a dog in this fight, rocka.

if you did you would be Michael Vick! LOL

i think i comes down do "how" you read the scriptures. its obvious there are many different interps. ( see all the different denominations!)

on a side note...


Not only does the Book of Mormon never mention baptism for the dead, it also never mentions temple marriage or any of the other necessary requirements of gaining exaltation or Godhood. There is a good reason for this; they were developed and added as new revelation after the book was finished.
Since this is what occurred, it seems strange that the Doctrine and Covenants would claim that the Book of Mormon is “the fullness of the gospel” when such an important element is missing.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th prophet of the Mormon Church explains what this term means, “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation in the celestial kingdom” ( Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p. 160).
Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. There are three levels of heaven according the Mormons revelation. Telestial, terrestrial, and celestial ( Mormon Doctrine, p. 348) They believe that the “ baptized” person will help the dead to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven in the afterlife .
“Baptism is…the very gateway into the kingdom of heaven, an indispensable step in our salvation and exaltation” (Bennet Why I am a Mormon p.124)

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, he was correcting the chruch , read the chapter. even the pagan practices that many in corinth practiced would not make sence if there were no resurection.

Rocka, that's absurd! How can you possibly say he was "correcting the Church"? There is not one shred of evidence to that effect. On the contrary, he was doing precisely the opposite. He was relying on a well-established fact (that the Corinthian saints were performing baptisms on behalf of those who had died without being baptised) as evidence that there really was a resurrection. He wouldn't have referred to a practice that He objected to in support of a thesis he was arguing in favor of. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

 

[Katzpur]

on a side note...

Side notes aren't allowed. If you want to address this topic...

Not only does the Book of Mormon never mention baptism for the dead, it also never mentions temple marriage or any of the other necessary requirements of gaining exaltation or Godhood. There is a good reason for this; they were developed and added as new revelation after the book was finished.
Since this is what occurred, it seems strange that the Doctrine and Covenants would claim that the Book of Mormon is “the fullness of the gospel” when such an important element is missing.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th prophet of the Mormon Church explains what this term means, “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation in the celestial kingdom” ( Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p. 160).
Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. There are three levels of heaven according the Mormons revelation. Telestial, terrestrial, and celestial ( Mormon Doctrine, p. 348) They believe that the “ baptized” person will help the dead to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven in the afterlife .
“Baptism is…the very gateway into the kingdom of heaven, an indispensable step in our salvation and exaltation” (Bennet Why I am a Mormon p.124)

... please start a new thread.

 

[Bishka]

Not only does the Book of Mormon never mention baptism for the dead, it also never mentions temple marriage or any of the other necessary requirements of gaining exaltation or Godhood. There is a good reason for this; they were developed and added as new revelation after the book was finished.
Since this is what occurred, it seems strange that the Doctrine and Covenants would claim that the Book of Mormon is “the fullness of the gospel” when such an important element is missing.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th prophet of the Mormon Church explains what this term means, “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation in the celestial kingdom” ( Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p. 160).
Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. There are three levels of heaven according the Mormons revelation. Telestial, terrestrial, and celestial ( Mormon Doctrine, p. 348) They believe that the “ baptized” person will help the dead to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven in the afterlife .
“Baptism is…the very gateway into the kingdom of heaven, an indispensable step in our salvation and exaltation” (Bennet Why I am a Mormon p.124)

:areyoucra Please stick to your own beliefs. Thank you.

 

[madhatter85]

Again Christian practice and teaching in the first centuries does not teach what your teaching here about those passages. So the early Christian community(the fathers and the church as a whole in the first 19 centuries) did not interpret those passages to mean what the Mormons mean about proxy baptism for the dead. This is a big black hole on your part. and is highly suspect. Why should we believe some novel interpretation of those passages that is just under 200 years old? That seems dubious! What Peter is talking about is the commonly called the "Limbo of the fathers" as the early Christians would say. Sheol is also a possibility. You must remember that Christ had to descend before he was raised. No more Sheol. Now he is raised and the judgment comes immediately after death as the scripture and the oral apostolic tradition of the apostles also states . There is no and never was historically for the early Christian a baptism for the dead in the sense Mormons believe.

As far as your quote from Matthew I would suggest you look at the Lukan parallel to this teaching which actually hints to Infant baptism as the early Christian Church and her lived practice of the first few centuries clearly demonstrated. Infants do not have personal sin but we all ihherit original sin as Paul taught in Romans 5:12. Baptism is what washes away this sin(Rom 6:3-12. Acts 22:16. Acts 2;38-39, 1 Cor 6:11) Not to mention the Apostolic tradition of the Church which speaks alot of this.

Apostolic tradition? you mean someone made up a ritual with no actual scriptural background and told people it needed to be done this way? ok.. and if you reread your "rebuttle biblical refrences" you'll see that they actually prove my point.

We do not pull our doctrine exclusively from the Book of mormon, We utilize it in conjunction with the bible, it helps to understand the bible better. we also utilize the "Doctrine and Covenants" which were revelations given to joseph smith and other prophets by God and Christ, regarding church orginization and religious parctices.

"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth."

each refrence in the D&C can be cross refrenced with passages from the bible and/or BoM.

Also, we believe the most precious and simple parts of the bible were taken out during the course of 2 millenia being translated and re-translated and translated again and again. (i'm refrencing the Book of mormon in first nephi here) the oldest version of the bible that we know of that was kept mostly to it's original form (or as close as you can get this day in age) is the king james version.

Another way to deduce that the scriptures have been perverted is the confusive nature and ambiguity of many many many of the texts. the truth is always simple, confusion and ambiguity is not of god. it is of other non-benevolent powers.

in regards to the infants, you totally sidestepped the matter instead of rebuking it properly. when paul is talkign about "inheriting sin" he is stating that every person is capable of sinning and will sin in thier lifetime.

another point in fact is that if you believe christianity, God gave all his children "free-agency" the right to choose one's own actions. implying that god would force one to "inherit" sin would go against the whole nature of free-agency.

"We believe that man will be punished for thier own sins and not for Adam's transgression." - Article of Faith (LDS Church)

 

[madhatter85]

i think we can say that it could mean different things. i think it means the whole house ( family) was saved because the head has influence.



if you did you would be Michael Vick! LOL

i think i comes down do "how" you read the scriptures. its obvious there are many different interps. ( see all the different denominations!)

on a side note...


Not only does the Book of Mormon never mention baptism for the dead, it also never mentions temple marriage or any of the other necessary requirements of gaining exaltation or Godhood. There is a good reason for this; they were developed and added as new revelation after the book was finished.
Since this is what occurred, it seems strange that the Doctrine and Covenants would claim that the Book of Mormon is “the fullness of the gospel” when such an important element is missing.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th prophet of the Mormon Church explains what this term means, “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation in the celestial kingdom” ( Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p. 160).
Baptism for the dead, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141. This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. There are three levels of heaven according the Mormons revelation. Telestial, terrestrial, and celestial ( Mormon Doctrine, p. 348) They believe that the “ baptized” person will help the dead to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven in the afterlife .
“Baptism is…the very gateway into the kingdom of heaven, an indispensable step in our salvation and exaltation” (Bennet Why I am a Mormon p.124)

Here we go again, We utilize the bible as well as the book of mormon to learn about the gospel, and together they provide a clear understanding as to the fulness of the gospel. Reading from just one or the other would be the equivalent of hearing half of a conversation and basing an opinion on what you heard.

 

[rocka21]

We do not pull our doctrine exclusively from the Book of mormon, We utilize it in conjunction with the bible, it helps to understand the bible better. we also utilize the "Doctrine and

Covenants" which were revelations given to joseph smith and other prophets by God and Christ, regarding church orginization and religious parctices.

just like you have the " doctrine and covenants" the cathloics have the Catechism. smith and other " profits" got revelations, so why could not the popes and other "profits"? they also use the Catechism in conjunction with the bible.