Baptism for the dead,?

[sunrise]

You are right. The baptism of the dead is is done on behalf of the deceased, and they are free to accept or reject it. From their website:

Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.

.

Full Article (not very long)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng

 

[mtolympus]

You are right. The baptism of the dead is is done on behalf of the deceased, and they are free to accept or reject it. From their website:

Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.

.

Yes, that is correct, Thank you and others for the many kind and Christian comments.

 

[gazelam]

I’m surprised that no one has brought forward Bible verses pertinent to this thread.

1 Cor 15:29 (GNT) Now, what about those people who are baptized for the dead? What do they hope to accomplish? If it is true, as some claim, that the dead are not raised to life, why are those people being baptized for the dead?

Here is a link to quotes of several non-Latter-day Saint authors affirming that ancient Christian practice.

Regarding preaching in the afterlife Peter wrote:

1 Peter 3:19, 20 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.

1 Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God.

I’m glad that someone pointed out how this is an empty ritual and that looking at this matter logically, there is no reason to fear it or be upset.

If it is indeed an empty ritual, why is the practice explicitly mentioned approvingly in the Bible?

He [Joseph Smith] taught that subjective experiences determine the truth of claims, which is how he got a lot of people to believe in his wild claims.

What “subjective experiences” are you referring to here?

They are very insular as their belief system is fragile if they are not continually reminded of it, and they are free to believe whatever they want as long as they keep their temple activities and tithing going.

Please describe the “fragility” of the Latter-day Saint belief system.

Thanks in advance!

 

[puer.dei]

If it is indeed an empty ritual, why is the practice explicitly mentioned approvingly in the Bible?

How can baptizing a Catholic nun, for example, into another religion be anything but empty?

 

[Legend]

Joseph’s possible reason for including this: A brother of his died without being baptized. Their mother was very upset when a minister said her son would not go to heaven. She tried to insist that the whole family be baptized.

Joseph loved his mom, I guess.

 

[Glowacki]

I’m surprised that no one has brought forward Bible verses pertinent to this thread.

Thank you for raising these interesting points and verses because they address both the current heresy and an old heresy. All my questions are sincerely asked out of curiosity. If you prefer to do so, we can address the questions separately. Before you reply, please look for sources from viewpoints other than yours to understand those viewpoints as I did the same with Mormon viewpoints, which obviously I don’t hold.

You raised some very interesting questions that require context, so my reply has to be separated into different sections because the forum has a fixed word limit per reply.

Do you believe that the entire Bible, especially the New Testament, which you helpfully quoted portions of, is divinely inspired, true and inerrant?

Do you believe in using Scripture alone to settle the questions that you raised and that others have raised?

Where in the Bible does it say that using the Bible alone to determine doctrine is the best and only way? Also, using Scripture alone without the context of the full faith and practice of the Early Christian Church was only introduced in the early 1500s.

People who seek to tear down a belief or build up a belief usually use Scripture passages to justify an unorthodox belief and interpretation. That error has been recognized and written about since before 200 AD or so.

I’m surprised that you didn’t quote the entire chapter 15 of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians by Paul if you want to use Scripture. You seem to write in defense of the baptism for the dead without clearly, explicitly doing so. Let’s look at the context and the interpretation of these Chapters and Books of Scriptures with faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father from before the beginning of the world.

 

[Glowacki]

1 Cor 15:29 (GNT) Now, what about those people who are baptized for the dead? What do they hope to accomplish? If it is true, as some claim, that the dead are not raised to life, why are those people being baptized for the dead?

I agree with you that the verse you quoted is unclear in isolation and out of context. Only with the full context of chapter 15, which needs to be read in the context of the entire letter, does the meaning of the line you quote become clearer. Paul is a very linear thinker in his writings, as you will agree if you read each letter he wrote from start to finish. He does use complex rhetorical techniques sometimes, which can lead to confusion. You can see that Acts Chapter 20 describes how someone fell asleep during a long, perhaps boring sermon by Paul and fell from the third story to his death only to be raised from the dead immediately by Paul, showing one of the many miracles Paul worked.

Paul is addressing the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world after bringing up the Universal Church teaching and doctrines about Jesus Christ in chapter 15. Some groups doubted the resurrection from the dead as even Jesus himself addressed in the Gospels. Skepticism about the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world was taught by some sects of Jews. The Sadducees who controlled the Temple in Jerusalem only believed the Torah, the first 5 books of the OT. The Torah doesn’t mention the resurrection from the dead.

The early Marcionites doubted the power of Our Lord to have mercy and to save the OT Patriarchs like Noah and Abraham who died before the arrival of Jesus Christ, which I will address further in reply to you quoting 1st Peter.

In verses 1 Corinthians 15:12-26 you can discover the key to having a better understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:27-58.

If it is indeed an empty ritual, why is the practice explicitly mentioned approvingly in the Bible?

Paul is using a persuasive method called ridicule instead of speaking favorably of baptizing the dead. He is addressing the doubt that people are not raised from the dead, which is a more serious heresy, by using another heretical practice to ridicule non-belief in the resurrection asking, “Else what should they do who are baptized for the dead? What do they hope to accomplish?”

It becomes clearer when you look at the entire 15th chapter because he does teach the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead, which is a more fundamental truth that he vigorously defends and risks his life daily to preach.

When you read the commentary and the interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15 by the Church fathers who dealt with the Marcionite you can see the errors if one desires the truth. The Marcionites, like the heresy that again arose almost 200 years ago, believed that those who died before Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead didn’t have the benefit of baptism and were condemned to hell.

Marcion came up with the idea that unless the living tried to have a baptism of the dead then those who were dead were dead forever or condemned to hell.

 

[Glowacki]

Regarding preaching in the afterlife Peter wrote:

1 Peter 3:19, 20 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.

1 Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God.

You also make me curious about how you cherry-pick verses from Holy Scripture when you get to the first letter of Peter, quoting just three verses as if it’s too much effort to read the entire letter of only 5 chapters.

If you read the entire 5 chapters of 1 Peter, you can see that Peter is explaining in Chapters 3 and 4 that Jesus Christ after his burial and before his resurrection went to the underworld to the righteous ones who died and preached the Good News of salvation to them and welcomed them to Heaven. This fits with the declaration of Our Lord from the cross on Golgotha that the Good Thief would see paradise the same day.

Our Lord, the Incarnation of God. in human flesh has the power to provide mercy to the Good Thief who expressed his faith while he was dying. It is taught by the Apostle what revealed to them after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead including these revelations written about in the New Testament as well as the teachings that were both written about and not written about but alluded to by John the Evangelist in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

If it is indeed an empty ritual, why is the practice explicitly mentioned approvingly in the Bible?

How can baptizing a Catholic nun, for example, into another religion be anything but empty?

Your question in response is a dodge. The real question is whether the practice is valid per the positive mention of vicarious baptism by Paul to justify the doctrine of the resurrection. Earlier in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul states that all will live because of Christ (Verse 22), and that death is the last enemy that is destroyed (Verse 26). Paul is adding context.

This comment does not help further understanding.

How about actually examining the context . . . ?

1. The Bible is Latter-day Saint scripture.
2. Were I to use Latter-day Saint scripture not accepted by others it would just be dismissed out of hand as being false. When the Bible is quoted in support, . .
   . CAFers need to take notice.

 

[puer.dei]

Your question in response is a dodge.

No, it’s not. The fact that you won’t answer it tells us that you don’t really have a justification for it.
I’m sure Mother Agnes was quite amused, and rightly so.

the positive mention of vicarious baptism by Paul

He clearly wasn’t speaking about “re-baptizing” people who were already baptized. Attempting such a thing is appallingly disrespectful.

 

[Legend]

Ok, so, if early Christians baptized for the dead, why, outside a few isolated Bible passages, is it never explained, approved, or even mentioned in early church documents?

One would think that, once it was found that baptism was necessary for exaltation, people would have been storming their churches and temples, in order to save their relatives and ancestors? Wouldn’t you have done this, if you lived in those times? Wouldn’t you be doing it NOW!!!

But they didn’t, nor are you…these passages seem, in Mormon thought, to exist solely to derail discussions on Mormon doctrine! I see it all over!

Can’t you do any better???

 

[gazelam]

Thank you for raising these interesting points and verses…

You’re welcome.

Do you believe that the entire Bible, especially the New Testament, which you helpfully quoted portions of, is divinely inspired, true and inerrant?

Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly”. (See the 8th Article of Faith)

Do you believe in using Scripture alone to settle the questions that you raised and that others have raised?

No, but scripture along with scholarly commentary is often the best one can do in a forum like this one.

Where in the Bible does it say that using the Bible alone to determine doctrine is the best and only way?

It doesn’t (and BTW Latter-day Saints are not sola scripture Protestants.)

I’m surprised that you didn’t quote the entire chapter 15 of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians by Paul if you want to use Scripture.

There are space limitations on CAF as you rightly noted earlier.

Let’s look at the context and the interpretation of these Chapters and Books of Scriptures with faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father from before the beginning of the world.

Nowhere does the Bible state that the Father and the Son are consubstantial with each other, in fact John 17:22 specifically states otherwise (“so that they [the disciples] may be one, as we [Father and Son] are one”)

Paul is using a persuasive method called ridicule instead of speaking favorably of baptizing the dead. He is addressing the doubt that people are not raised from the dead, which is a more serious heresy, by using another heretical practice to ridicule non-belief in the resurrection asking, “Else what should they do who are baptized for the dead? What do they hope to accomplish?”

I could not disagree more with your conclusion. Nowhere does Paul speak disapprovingly of vicarious baptism. On the question of whether Paul affirms the propriety of “baptism for the dead” in 1 Cor 15:29, Protestant G.G. Findlay, in the Expositor’s Greek Testament commentary, wrote:

In following up 1Co 15:29 with the words of 1Co 15:30 (τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν P[aul] associates himself with the action of “those baptised for the dead,” indicating that they and he are engaged on the same behalf (for καὶ ἡμεῖς) associating “we” with persons aforementioned, cf. 2Co 4:13, Gal 2:16; Gal 4:3, Eph 2:3, etc.). (G. G. Findlay, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume II [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], 930, italics in original)

 

[gazelam]

Marcion came up with the idea that unless the living tried to have a baptism of the dead then those who were dead were dead forever or condemned to hell.

Just because a group is incorrect about some practices and beliefs, it does not mean that they are incorrect in all beliefs. The Arians believed that God the Father was composed of an immaterial essence as do Trinitarians. Do you believe that Trinitarians in error since they believe the same as the Arians on that doctrinal point?

If you read the entire 5 chapters of 1 Peter, you can see that Peter is explaining in Chapters 3 and 4 that Jesus Christ after his burial and before his resurrection went to the underworld to the righteous ones who died and preached the Good News of salvation to them and welcomed them to Heaven. This fits with the declaration of Our Lord from the cross on Golgotha that the Good Thief would see paradise the same day.

Those from the time of Noah were clearly wicked. Christ wouldn’t have been welcoming anybody to Heaven since He Himself had not been there yet. John 20:17 clearly states that Jesus has not yet ascended to the Father when He met Mary Magdalene. “Jesus said to her, “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.” Isn’t Heaven where the Father is?

Tertullian actually argued in favor of vicarious baptism once and against it once.

Tertullian earlier wrote:

But inasmuch as some are also baptized for the dead, we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection , there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 48, in Ante-Nicene Fathers,3:581.) See CHURCH FATHERS: On the Resurrection of the Flesh (Tertullian)

Tertullian later changed his tune and wrote:

“To be baptized for the dead therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body; for, as we have shown, it is the body which becomes dead . What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.10, in Ante-Nicene Fathers,3:449–50) See CHURCH FATHERS: Against Marcion, Book V (Tertullian)

Ambrosiaster approved of the practice:

“that some people were at that time (of 1st Corinthians construction) being baptized for the dead because they were afraid that someone who was not baptized would either not rise at all or else rise merely in order to be condemned.” (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum81.175)

Still hoping to see you justify your statements that Latter-day Saint doctrine is fragile and that we believe that subjective experiences are used to justify our truth claims. Take care and God bless.

 

[hope]

Good Question @gazelam that I am interested in an answer.

The real question is whether the practice is valid per the positive mention of vicarious baptism by Paul to justify the doctrine of the resurrection.

It is an interpretation that Paul was mentioning it positively which is not borne out.

The question is why did he mention it? It was to point out the logical inconsistencies with a listing of miscellaneous Christian practices that would be meaningless if the resurrection were not a fact. To believe that this was a positive mention is not supported by the scripture itself.

 

[Glowacki]

Also @gazelam I could not respond before to this other question that you posed by forum restrictions:

Glowacki:

He [Joseph Smith] taught that subjective experiences determine the truth of claims, which is how he got a lot of people to believe in his wild claims.

What “subjective experiences” are you referring to here?

Again, know that I’m genuinely curious by asking the following questions:

How would you explain the “burning in the bosom” to “know the truth of the restored gospel” as an objective experience rather than a subjective experience? How are they different and how can each be relied on to determine what’s true?

What do YOU mean by subjective experience and what do YOU mean by objective truth? Maybe we have different definitions. Please define those terms.

Glowacki:

They are very insular as their belief system is fragile if they are not continually reminded of it, and they are free to believe whatever they want as long as they keep their temple activities and tithing going.

Please describe the “fragility” of the Latter-day Saint belief system.

Thanks in advance!

If the LDS teachings are stable, what are the bedrock presuppositions that they are based on? What about the changing doctrines over the last 200 years and the various sects that split up with different headquarters?

You ask me about the “fragility” of LDS belief systems. If the true LDS Church has a set of beliefs that have changed in less than 200 years, then how can one know the other LDS sects are not true?

If you study the evidence that directly contradicts the prophesies, translations, and teachings of Joseph Smith, and the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham, how could an honest person continue to believe that he was a prophet when multiple prophecies have not come true, translations have been shown to be incorrect and the teachings have changed?

The evidence is available and in large enough quantities–both in Holy Scripture as well the historical, linguistic, and scientific evidence–that support the divine promises of Jesus Christ that he founded a Church before His death and confirmed before His Resurrection that it would not fall into apostasy. How then can the LDS Church doctrines, and the contradictions of them that have been admitted to and addressed both by Mormon believers and nonbelievers, surpass the direct revelations and promises of God?

You can pray that the Holy Spirit guide you as you research the Apostles who wrote the New Testament, as well as the guidance of the Apostolic Fathers who learned directly from the Apostles. This is the problem of that fragility of LDS doctrine that you ask about: only doctrines that came to light after the early 1820s are true even if those doctrines contradict the Apostles’ teachings. Without the social reinforcement of those novel doctrines, they often unravel.

 

[TomH1]

That is not another reason but an effect.

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

Your question in response is a dodge.

No, it’s not. The fact that you won’t answer it tells us that you don’t really have a justification for it.
I’m sure Mother Agnes was quite amused, and rightly so.

the positive mention of vicarious baptism by Paul

He clearly wasn’t speaking about “re-baptizing” people who were already baptized. Attempting such a thing is appallingly disrespectful.

The question you are dodging is whether the Catholic Church should be performing various baptisms for those deceased who never received a Christian baptism while alive.

I think we all understand that Latter-day Saint don’t hold Catholic baptisms to be valid in the same way that Catholics don’t hold Latter-day Saint baptisms to be valid. This is no intended slight to the Aunt Agnes’s of the world.

Ok, so, if early Christians baptized for the dead, why, outside a few isolated Bible passages, is it never explained, approved, or even mentioned in early church documents?

I already provided quotes from Tertullian and Ambrosiaster. Here’s something from the Shepherd of Hermas - which was considered scripture in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. (See The Shepherd of Hermas (Roberts-Donaldson translation))

“before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.”…“these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. [But these descended alive and rose up again alive; whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive. ] By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God…. For they slept in righteousness and in great purity, but only they had not this seal.” (Shepherd of Hermas, Chapter 16, Roberts-Donaldson translation)

One would think that, once it was found that baptism was necessary for exaltation, people would have been storming their churches and temples, in order to save their relatives and ancestors? Wouldn’t you have done this, if you lived in those times? Wouldn’t you be doing it NOW!!!

This precisely what the OP is complaining about!!

 

[puer.dei]

The question you are dodging is whether the Catholic Church should be performing various baptisms for those deceased who never received a Christian baptism while alive.

I haven’t dodged anything. The answer is clearly NO.

With my great-aunt, we’re not talking about someone who was never baptized. We’re talking about a lifelong Catholic, Mother Superior of her order for decades. And yet you have the arrogance to say it’s acceptable to attempt to “re-baptize” her into another religion.

I fully expect that she wasn’t offended. More likely she laughed at the nonsensical idea. But that does not make it acceptable.

 

[gazelam]

Again, know that I’m genuinely curious by asking the following questions:

How would you explain the “burning in the bosom” to “know the truth of the restored gospel” as an objective experience rather than a subjective experience? How are they different and how can each be relied on to determine what’s true?

What do YOU mean by subjective experience and what do YOU mean by objective truth? Maybe we have different definitions. Please define those terms.

I personally might describe “burning in the bosom” as a “subtle euphoria”. However, there is no “one size fits all” type of spiritual experience. Regarding how to know something is right through a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, I would refer you to a recent video of Bishop Robert Barron How to Discern the Spirits hosted by Brandon Vogt. Bishop Barron’s thoughts on this topic are very similar to those that devout Latter-day Saints experience attempting to take the Holy Spirit as their guide. (I rarely see material like this from Catholic sources, but maybe I just don’t know where to look.)

1. At the 13:00 mark Vogt makes the following observations that one’s encounters with the Holy Spirit will be different depending where one is spiritually.

Vogt: what Ignatius [of Loyola] describes, is that the discernment operates differently depending on where you are in the spiritual life. So if for example, you’re kind of just beginning to be drawn to God, but there is still mortal sin or serious sins blocking your life, the experiences that you encounter should be approached differently than if you’re further on in your spiritual life and you’re already committed to following the will of God. In fact, he [Ignatius of Loyola] says in the first case when you’re just sort of still stuck in mortal sin, the evil spirits will make sin appealingly and good and you’ll feel good feelings when you are participating in sinful behavior. While on the other hand good behavior might sting and bite, and feel difficult. It feels like you’re moving against the grain in a way. But then in the second scenario where you have a person that’s already moving on through purification from sin, it’s just the opposite. The evil spirit saddens you and puts obstacles in your way and makes you feel like you’re stuck in the spiritual life. You’re not moving. You might experience what he calls desolation. While on the other hand the good spirit often consoles you, and especially when you are doing the good, it inspires good feelings in you.

Bishop Robert Barron then confirms that the grace of God is received based on the mode of the recipient.

 

[gazelam]

1. Regarding the value of feelings to help discern spiritual truths, at the 19:20 mark the following exchange occurs:

Vogt: I mentioned at the outset this confusion between spiritual consolation and desolation and feelings, that alot of people just reduce the former to the latter. How do feelings fit into this whole thing? I know that colloquially we’ve been using the language of I feel this or I feel that or you feel God doing this. But how do your feelings relate all this?

Barron: They’re part of it. You know, God made us body and soul. He gave us minds, He gave us bodies. He gave us passions. He gave us feelings. Good. So they can become vehicles of His presence and His communication. As you suggest correctly, don’t reduce it to that, as though I’m just kind of reading it at the purely emotional level. At the same time don’t reject it or denigrate it. God can indeed speak through our feelings.

1. At the 21:46 mark the queston is asked about heart vs mind.

Vogt: It reminds me when you’ve often spoken about John Henry Newman‘s illative sense That this illative sense of coming to know something is not based merely on logic or merely on feelings, but it’s the converging synthesis of all of these factors. Is spiritual discernment kind of a similar thing?

Barron responds that the discerning person is assessing all of these converging arguments each tending in the same direction, but it takes time to do so.

Latter-day Saints believe that God speaks to us through a combination of heart and mind - it feels right and makes sense intellectually.

1. At the 25:28 mark Bishop Barron speaks of recognizing influence the Holy Spirit and how that is learned over time.

Barron: But I remember years ago, it was a Sunday and I had given a homily in this parish… and then I was driving a half hour north to another church where I had Mass, And fully intending to give the same homily, right? And I got there a little bit early, so I parked just a bit away from the church, just sort of musing and praying. And it just with this extraordinary sense of clarity and spiritual joy and excitement, what came to me was “Don’t give that sermon. Give the one from six years ago.”… it came to me “don’t do the one you planned, do this one.” All I could say is that it was accompanied buy a deep spiritual joy and excitement. So I did! I gave the other homily… I don’t know why the Holy Spirit gave me that inspiration, but I’m pretty convinced that He did, you know? That was a sort of “on the spot“ discernment. And I’ll stay with that little phrase - deep joy and spiritual excitement is some thing that I’ve learned to recognize as the mark of the Holy Spirit.