Baptism for the Dead, Sealings, etc.

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Nope not Red Sox or Yankees fans, they were Cubs fans

That explains them welcoming martyrdom

God bless

 

[ParkerD]

I think the original questions that started this thread were good ones. I also think good responses have already been given, but I thought another attempt would not be detracting, so here goes:

“However, isn’t it enough to trust in the mercy and power of God to save those who may not have understood the fullness of Truth?”

That seems logical enough, since certainly God is all-powerful and all-loving, and merciful.

But the question boils down to asking what baptism is for anyway.

If baptism is strictly to provide evidence to God that someone has made a covenant with Him, then it could be reasoned that spirits in the spirit world could make a covenant that God would acknowledge without needing baptism to do it.

But if baptism is more than just “evidence of a covenant”–if it really does have a physical significance and a spiritual significance that both our physical body recognizes and our spirit person recognizes, then it makes sense that those spirits in the spirit world would desire that same opportunity for the resurrected body they are someday going to have, as they learn about baptism to wash them clean from the effects of their sins, through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Baptism is also only a first step. The New Testament talks repeatedly about the “baptism of fire” or the “baptism of the Spirit” or the Holy Ghost. See John 3. The two ordinances go together. Baptism by water is not complete without baptism by fire, or the sanctification process that those words mean. Spirits in the spirit world would want that sanctification process just as much as a person on earth who understands how it changes their soul through Christ.

The LDS practice in temples includes baptism for the dead and giving that person the gift of the Holy Ghost, which really unlocks a process of continuation of learning and growing just as in this life–for a person with the Holy Spirit in their life learns and grows in understanding.

The apostle John talks about being purified:

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

This purification process or sanctification process takes place in this life and can also take place in the spirit world. Those spirits there are alive. They think, they learn, they converse with each other. I know this to be true.

Peace to all, this blessed Easter day.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Nope not Red Sox or Yankees fans, they were Cubs fans

I stand corrected

 

[Dirk_Skene]

That explains them welcoming martyrdom

God bless

Woah … that was cold /…

 

[zaffiroborant]

That explains them welcoming martyrdom

God bless

Woah … that was cold /…

Cold to the first century Christians or current Cub fans or maybe both?

 

[Religio71]

another argument I have seen against 1 Cor 15 approving of baptism for the dead is the use of “they” in verse 29, and “we” used before and after, perhaps noting that Paul and other Christians did not practice this baptism for the dead, as it refers to some other group called “they”. And the verse does sound vague, as “baptism for the dead” does not necessarily have to refer to the LDS proxy baptism. Just some thoughts.

 

[Mapapa]

Baptism came in the New Testament and substitute circumcision in from the Old Testament.
So that means if the mormons want they can start circumcising the dead also?

 

[ParkerD]

Baptism came in the New Testament and substitute circumcision in from the Old Testament.
So that means if the mormons want they can start circumcising the dead also?

Mapapa,
I realize you were writing tongue in cheek, but perhaps you don’t realize that you brought up an important point.

Circumcision was the outward sign or evidence of the old covenant, the Jewish covenant. When Christ said He fulfilled the law and the prophets, and that old things had passed away, and when baptism was taught as the outward sign or evidence of the new covenant, then it is clear that this new covenant (prophesied by Jeremiah) was now the binding covenant for the Church. Re-read Acts 10. The Gentiles needed this evidence of the new covenant also, this baptism for the remission of sins.

Baptism was not in any way a “substitute” for circumcision. It was part of the new covenant, along with partaking of the broken bread and wine in remembrance of Him.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Cold to the first century Christians or current Cub fans or maybe both?

He, he, he I’ve just added you to my friends list Please do the same.