LDS and becoming gods

[Thomas_Ruin]

That’s quite the leap to go from rejection of the doctrine of original sin to the Adam-God theory. I’m curious as to what leap you make regarding the Eastern Orthodox who also reject the doctrine of original sin? Perhaps these issues ought to be addressed in a new thread.

Sure, we are WAY off the topic of LDS becoming gods

Which trying to return to…

The nature of women as gods was never addressed. Want to take a stab at what it is like for a woman in the LDS church to become whatever they become in the Celestial kingdom? What is required, and why and how that was developed and where the scriptural basis for it is?

 

[onenow1]

In the bible it says no signs will be given save the sign of Jonah.

Opinion: Following the Catholic Church we already are near to God,but certainly not gods; we have the power to refuse Satin as Jesus and Mary did, not as Adam And Eve failed to do.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

Reading Joseph Smith and other LDS writings, it would follow, I guess, that the LDS believe that Mary is a goddess and she and “god the father” (the god who assembled this world, not the god of the universe) begot Jesus after cardinal intercourse. Which is the way all of us were begotten who now and who ever lived on Earth. That is to say, god the father had cardinal intercourse with one of his wives, aka goddesses. None of them, obviously, are virgin after the intercourse.

Since there is no difference between Mary, Jesus, Adam, Satan or any of us when we were ‘spiritual children’, original sin, doesn’t enter into the picture. Adam wasn’t the original man that begot other men. Adam was simply one of many children of god the father who begot everyone who ever lived on earth as well as some (e.g., Satan and his followers) who never lived on earth.

Am I correct here?

 

[KEP1983]

Sounds like a lot of speculation going on here. It doesn’t even claim they were doing baptism for the dead.

Is this what Paul was teaching???

Otherwise, what will people accomplish (by the pagans) by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are (the pagans) having themselves baptized for them? (1 Cor 15:29)

In other words you think Paul was saying, "You may not believe what the Christian apostles teach, but if the pagans do it, it has to be true!!!

So you don’t think Paul looked to Pagan practices and tried to show how they pointed towards Christian truth?

Then why did Paul say this to the pagans in Acts 17?:
“As I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: ‘To an Unknown God.’ This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I’m telling you about.”

Weird… he talked about a pagan practice and used it to point to christ… the very thing you’re objecting to Paul doing in 1 Cor 15:29.

That’s why Paul said in 1 cor 9 (just a few pages before 1 cor 15, btw):
“To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews… To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law… I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

So yes, Paul appealed to Pagan practices to point towards Jesus. He did it explicitly in Acts 17 and talks about it in 1 Cor 9. I see no reason why Paul wouldn’t point to this for recent pagan converts, living among pagans, in 1 Cor 15.

Thank you for sharing this. Isn’t it wonderful that the knowledge has now been restored how all of God’s children who have ever lived on the earth may be saved through the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Nothing needed to be restored because nothing was lost. Go back and reread the verses about the Great Apostasy from Paul. It’s talking about the period just before the Second Coming when the anti-Christ is revealed. You claim the Great Apostasy happened in the 2nd or 3rd century, wayyyyy before the Second Coming and waaaaaayyyyy before the revealing of the Antichrist. Read that whole chapter in context.

Jude says that the faith was delivered ONCE… Not twice… not one and a half times… Once. No need for a reformation to restore some long lost beliefs that God couldn’t protect from corruption, no need for a new prophet named Muhammed, Bahaullah, or Joseph Smith to restore something that God couldnt protect. Isaiah said that the Messiah would be called Mighty God and would establish His Kingdom and it would NEVER DISAPPEAR. Jesus established that exact Kingdom in Matt 16, said the gates of hades would never overcome it, that he would be with it ALWAYS and guide it into all truth.

 

[lax16]

How about the major teachings of original sin and immaculate conception? It’s well know that Jerome mistranslated Romans 5:12 incorrectly into Latin.

You will have to give a source for the mistranslation by St. Jerome. I am not finding, nor have I have ever heard of, your position.

I found this:
catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=50095

 

[lax16]

I’m curious as to what leap you make regarding the Eastern Orthodox who also reject the doctrine of original sin? Perhaps these issues ought to be addressed in a new thread.

Here’s what the EO have to say about original sin and Augustine. They do not reject the doctrine as you have stated.

oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin

St. Augustine & Original Sin

Question:

Is it true, as I have been told, that the Orthodox Church does not celebrate Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and has no doctrine of original sin.

Surely human sufficience is at the root of secularism.

Answer:

While the Orthodox Church does accord Augustine of Hippo the title “saint” and recognizes the vast number of theological works he produced, Augustine was not as well known in the Christian East. His works were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; as such, he had little or no influence on mainstream Orthodox thought until 17th century Ukraine and 18th century Russia, primarily through the influence of western clergy and the establishment of theological schools which relied on Latin models with respect to curricula, text books, etc.

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:

*In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first.” Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in much the same way as “original chair” refers to the “first chair.”

In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.*

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

 

[lax16]

Augustine then used the misinterpreted Latin verse to formulate the doctrine of original sin. Later it was determined that Mary, being the mother of Christ, shouldn’t have been tainted with original sin and that her conception was not impacted by original sin. Original Sin and Immaculate Conception are clearly NOT well documented.

And again, no.

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, “The International Critical Commentary: Romans”, 134, 137; Hastings, “A Dictionary of the Bible”, I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

 

[gazelam]

Reading Joseph Smith and other LDS writings, it would follow, I guess, that the LDS believe that Mary is a goddess and she and “god the father” (the god who assembled this world, not the god of the universe) begot Jesus after cardinal intercourse. Which is the way all of us were begotten who now and who ever lived on Earth. That is to say, god the father had cardinal intercourse with one of his wives, aka goddesses. None of them, obviously, are virgin after the intercourse.

LDS doctrine is that Jesus was born of Mary and that she conceived as a virgin. Mary was then a mortal being. There is no LDS belief that God the Father has sexual intercourse with a divine spouse to beget Jesus.

Since there is no difference between Mary, Jesus, Adam, Satan or any of us when we were ‘spiritual children’, original sin, doesn’t enter into the picture. Adam wasn’t the original man that begot other men. Adam was simply one of many children of god the father who begot everyone who ever lived on earth as well as some (e.g., Satan and his followers) who never lived on earth.

Am I correct here?

I don’t quite follow the second paragraph.

LDS belief is that Adam is the first mortal on the Earth. Adam is the first mortal man which is the Earthly father of humanity on Earth. LDS believe that our spirits were begotten prior to our mortal existence and our spirits come to inhabit our bodies during mortality. LDS believe that roughly 1/3 of those born spiritually chose not to come to Earth.

Regarding original sin, LDS believe that we will be held accountable for our own actions and not the actions of others. See Ezekiel 18:20; 2 Kings 14:6

 

[gazelam]

Here’s what the EO have to say about original sin and Augustine. They do not reject the doctrine as you have stated.

oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin

St. Augustine & Original Sin

Question:

Is it true, as I have been told, that the Orthodox Church does not celebrate Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and has no doctrine of original sin.

Surely human sufficience is at the root of secularism.

Answer:

While the Orthodox Church does accord Augustine of Hippo the title “saint” and recognizes the vast number of theological works he produced, Augustine was not as well known in the Christian East. His works were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; as such, he had little or no influence on mainstream Orthodox thought until 17th century Ukraine and 18th century Russia, primarily through the influence of western clergy and the establishment of theological schools which relied on Latin models with respect to curricula, text books, etc.

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:

*In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first.” Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” in much the same way as “original chair” refers to the “first chair.”

In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.*

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

I appreciate you describing the nuance of Original Sin vs bearing the guilt associated with that sin. LDS also believe “as in Adam all die…”. So I may have earlier been using the term “original sin” to refer to everyone’s personal guilt associated with the first sin. LDS believe there was a first sin, but no personal guilt that taints everyone because of it.

 

[gazelam]

Sure, we are WAY off the topic of LDS becoming gods

Which trying to return to…

The nature of women as gods was never addressed. Want to take a stab at what it is like for a woman in the LDS church to become whatever they become in the Celestial kingdom? What is required, and why and how that was developed and where the scriptural basis for it is?

Here is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on “Mother in Heaven”: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mother_in_Heaven

 

[lax16]

I appreciate you describing the nuance of Original Sin vs bearing the guilt associated with that sin. LDS also believe “as in Adam all die…”. So I may have earlier been using the term “original sin” to refer to everyone’s personal guilt associated with the first sin. LDS believe there was a first sin, but no personal guilt that taints everyone because of it.

I hope you are acknowledging that the EO do not reject the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin.

As I am sure you would agree, it is not good to misrepresent the teachings of another’s religion.

***"Not 100 people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen

---

 

[mtolympus]

So you don’t think Paul looked to Pagan practices and tried to show how they pointed towards Christian truth?
Then why did Paul say this to the pagans in Acts 17?:
“As I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: ‘To an Unknown God.’ This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I’m telling you about.”
Weird… he talked about a pagan practice and used it to point to christ… the very thing you’re objecting to Paul doing in 1 Cor 15:29.

Yes, Paul was very wise to use the statue of the unknown god to preach about Jesus to the pagans of Athens. However, Acts 17 also tells us that the doctrine of the Resurrection was unknown to the pagans at this time. The Athenians said of Paul:
“He sounds like a promoter of foreign deities because he was preaching about Jesus and the Resurrection…May we learn what this new teaching is that you speak of? For you bring some strange notions to our ears.” (Acts 17:18-20)

It is extremely wild speculation to say that Paul would use the pagans who knew nothing about the resurrection at this time to demonstrate the reality of the resurrection
.

So yes, Paul appealed to Pagan practices to point towards Jesus. He did it explicitly in Acts 17 and talks about it in 1 Cor 9. I see no reason why Paul wouldn’t point to this for recent pagan converts, living among pagans, in 1 Cor 15.

The context of 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 is not about the pagans, it is how the apostles were witness of the resurrection of Christ. That he appeared to them. And that he also appeared to Paul who considered himself the least of the apostles. Paul wrote: “Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:11). In the very next verse Paul wrote, “how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” It is very clear Paul was talking about the teachings of the apostles, not the pagans.

Nothing needed to be restored because nothing was lost. Go back and reread the verses about the Great Apostasy from Paul. It’s talking about the period just before the Second Coming when the anti-Christ is revealed. You claim the Great Apostasy happened in the 2nd or 3rd century, wayyyyy before the Second Coming and waaaaaayyyyy before the revealing of the Antichrist. Read that whole chapter in context.

I would like read this. Can you give me a scripture reference?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, Paul was very wise to use the statue of the unknown god to preach about Jesus to the pagans of Athens. However, Acts 17 also tells us that the doctrine of the Resurrection was unknown to the pagans at this time. The Athenians said of Paul:
“He sounds like a promoter of foreign deities because he was preaching about Jesus and the Resurrection…May we learn what this new teaching is that you speak of? For you bring some strange notions to our ears.” (Acts 17:18-20)

It is extremely wild speculation to say that Paul would use the pagans who knew nothing about the resurrection at this time to demonstrate the reality of the resurrection

From the notes in the RNAB:

“Epicurean and Stoic philosophers: for the followers of Epicurus (342–271 B.C.), the goal of life was happiness attained through sober reasoning and the searching out of motives for all choice and avoidance. The Stoics were followers of Zeno, a younger contemporary of Alexander the Great. Zeno and his followers believed in a type of pantheism that held that the spark of divinity was present in all reality and that, in order to be free, each person must live “according to nature.” This scavenger: literally, “seed-picker,” as of a bird that picks up grain. The word is later used of scrap collectors and of people who take other people’s ideas and propagate them as if they were their own. Promoter of foreign deities: according to Xenophon, Socrates was accused of promoting new deities. The accusation against Paul echoes the charge against Socrates. ‘Jesus’ and ‘Resurrection’: the Athenians are presented as misunderstanding Paul from the outset; they think he is preaching about Jesus and a goddess named Anastasis, i.e., Resurrection.”

There is no goddess Anastasis in Greco-Roman mythology, which is where the accusation of “new gods” comes from.

The context of 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 is not about the pagans, it is how the apostles were witness of the resurrection of Christ. That he appeared to them. And that he also appeared to Paul who considered himself the least of the apostles. Paul wrote: “Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:11). In the very next verse Paul wrote, “how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” It is very clear Paul was talking about the teachings of the apostles, not the pagans.

Paul said “we preach” and “they baptize”, he didn’t say “we baptize”.

We=himself and the Twelve
They=? …we only have speculations as to who “they” are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is extremely wild speculation to say that Paul would use the pagans who knew nothing about the resurrection at this time to demonstrate the reality of the resurrection

Greco-Roman mythology included humans who were resurrected to immortality by gods/goddesses. The concept was familiar. Asclepius, Achilles and Memnon are a few examples.

 

[mtolympus]

From the notes in the RNAB:

“Epicurean and Stoic philosophers: for the followers of Epicurus (342–271 B.C.), the goal of life was happiness attained through sober reasoning and the searching out of motives for all choice and avoidance. The Stoics were followers of Zeno, a younger contemporary of Alexander the Great. Zeno and his followers believed in a type of pantheism that held that the spark of divinity was present in all reality and that, in order to be free, each person must live “according to nature.” This scavenger: literally, “seed-picker,” as of a bird that picks up grain. The word is later used of scrap collectors and of people who take other people’s ideas and propagate them as if they were their own. Promoter of foreign deities: according to Xenophon, Socrates was accused of promoting new deities. The accusation against Paul echoes the charge against Socrates. ‘Jesus’ and ‘Resurrection’: the Athenians are presented as misunderstanding Paul from the outset; they think he is preaching about Jesus and a goddess named Anastasis, i.e., Resurrection.”

There is no goddess Anastasis in Greco-Roman mythology, which is where the accusation of “new gods” comes from.

The Athenians were confused by the meaning of Resurrection.

Paul said “we preach” and “they baptize”, he didn’t say “we baptize”.

We=himself and the Twelve
They=? …we only have speculations as to who “they” are.

“For I am the least of the Apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than** they** all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or**** they****, so, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some amoung you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor 15:9-12)

“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?” (1 Cor. 15:29)

 

[gilliam]

they

do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor. 15:29)

That isn’t proof that early Chrisians practiced baptism for the dead. Can you point to ANY scripture or in Christian history that specifically states that Christians during Paul’s time practiced baptism for the dead? If not, we are simply going around in circles with you saying that the definition of ‘they’ is Christians and every other Christian historian saying that is not the case. When you are in a situation where you are alone in your historical interpretation, the chances are you are wrong. Remember Christians in Paul’s day thought Christ’s second coming was imminent and they were not wasting their time trying to baptize over a billion people that came before themselves.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Athenians were confused by the meaning of Resurrection.

They applied their understanding of gods, goddesses and their interactions with humans to what Paul was teaching. A hero of great repute and virtue, being raised from the dead by gods/goddesses, was very familiar to the Greeks. I already gave you examples.

“For I am the least of the Apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than** they** all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or**** they****, so, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some amoung you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor 15:9-12)

“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?” (1 Cor. 15:29)

Your point? “They” is not defined. Could be Christians who were influenced by Greco-Roman ideas of an afterlife, or pagans influenced by Christians ideas. Such as, providing a smooth transition of the soul into the Underworld.

Could be non-Christians, such as a local mystery cult, which is likely considering the proximity to the Isthmian games, the associated cult of Palaemon, and Paul’s allusion to the games in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.

LDS say it is absolutely their own practice, but maybe you are hoping to emulate a localized practice in Corinth, which had major issues with pagan influence and wandering here and there after various religious claims. Add in the additional difficulty of LDS inserting anachronisms into history and religious theology, and you really don’t have a leg to stand on.

I think it would help you to understand, that when Catholics talk of Apostolic teaching and the Universal church, this is understood in more than one way. One of which is, that we can test various religious claims by looking to a) was it taught by the Apostles (the Twelve) and b) was it universally taught and practiced.

The practice of baptizing for the dead in Corinth, if practiced by Christians, was isolated, and therefore, not Apostolic or Catholic. Since it is isolated to Corinth, it is logical to conclude that “they” are not practicing a universally held belief by all Christians, but a localized practice that expresses faith in the resurrection, only.

 

[TOmNossor]

Your point? “They” is not defined. Could be Christians who were influenced by Greco-Roman ideas of an afterlife, or pagans influenced by Christians ideas. Such as, providing a smooth transition of the soul into the Underworld.

Could be non-Christians, such as a local mystery cult, which is likely considering the proximity to the Isthmian games, the associated cult of Palaemon, and Paul’s allusion to the games in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.

LDS say it is absolutely their own practice, but maybe you are hoping to emulate a localized practice in Corinth, which had major issues with pagan influence and wandering here and there after various religious claims. Add in the additional difficulty of LDS inserting anachronisms into history and religious theology, and you really don’t have a leg to stand on.

I think it would help you to understand, that when Catholics talk of Apostolic teaching and the Universal church, this is understood in more than one way. One of which is, that we can test various religious claims by looking to a) was it taught by the Apostles (the Twelve) and b) was it universally taught and practiced.

The practice of baptizing for the dead in Corinth, if practiced by Christians, was isolated, and therefore, not Apostolic or Catholic. Since it is isolated to Corinth, it is logical to conclude that “they” are not practicing a universally held belief by all Christians, but a localized practice that expresses faith in the resurrection, only.

I will offer a few things.
First, LDS do not practice Baptism for the Dead because someone Paul refers favorably to practiced it in the early church. LDS practice Baptism for the Dead because Joseph Smith taught that this was part of God’s church. Others would have to comment on when this practice was linked to the practice in Paul’s day AND there may be a VERY close connection, but the CoJCoLDS is based on the same thing the Bible is based on, “God’s revelation to His Church.” This means that as a LDS we often find great support for our teachings in the Bible, but believing in ongoing PUBLIC Revelation (like the early church did) is more important than trying to derive ancient practices from the ancient records.

Second, Catholic scholars have written a great deal on BftD. There have been upwards of 30 different ideas on what it is Paul was referring to. The bulk of these do not follow Rebecca’s “it is THEY not the Christians” (what I might call “do not trust the corrupted Bible record.”) interpretation. Francis De Salas spoke approvingly of this ancient practice in his anti-Protestant apologetic. His point was that it was an ancient Christian practice, but we should view “baptism” in this text as any act done for the salvation of those who have died. Thus the Protestant anti-Purgatory position is non-Biblical. So, Francis De Salas would absolutely disagree with you when you say, “it is logical to conclude that ‘they’ are not practicing a universally held belief by all Christians.”

Third, while there is little (none to my knowledge) record to suggest that the ancient church had Temples with baptismal fonts were proxy baptism for the dead occurred, the idea that this was some non-Christian local Corinthian practice is IMO almost impossible to right with the limited history we have. In the 5th century at the Council of Carthage, the prevailing church authorities (who claim they cannot receive public revelation and are thus not a representation of God’s most full church structure) declared that, “And that neither the Eucharist nor Baptism should be given to the bodies of the dead.” It seems clear to me that they were not devoting their time to speak against a practice that never occurred outside of Corinth greater than 3 centuries ago.

Finally, the practice of baptizing dead bodies if that is what was happening in the 5th century MIGHT need to be stopped. LDS have never baptized dead bodies and I hope we do not start anytime soon. There is plenty in the Bible and the early church that suggests a more rarified worship and teaching within the inner circles of Christ’s church. It is the Catholics who have nothing of this left and cry “gnostic” whenever something like this is present in the history, but it was present in the early church and discussion of such things is present in the Bible (again present and spoken of approvingly in the Bible).

Anyway, I think the “it was a very localized and non-Christian practice” because Paul said, “they” apologetic is not a strong Biblical argument. Many Catholics have agreed. The idea that Paul would use the practice of a non-sanctioned group to argue for the validity of the resurrection is truly strange. Kind of like Athanasius arguing that Christ must be God because if He was not, He could not make us gods while Athanasius NEVER believes that men can become gods. Of course Paul and Athanasius do not use such silly arguments IMO. Paul spoke approvingly of Baptism for the Dead (and Athanasius spoke approvingly of deification).
Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

Here are a couple of quotes from scholars sympathetic to the LDS position regarding baptism for the dead. I learned of them here: publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/19/2/S00004-5018489f69cae3BapDead.pdf

William F. Orr and James A. Walther wrote:

The allusion to the idea and/or practice of baptism on behalf of the dead is unique in the New Testament in this passage. . . . Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are “dead in sin” does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead relatives or friends some people in the church were undergoing baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation. Paul remarks about the practice without specifying who or how many are involved and without identifying himself with them. He attaches neither praise nor blame to the custom. He does take it as an illustration of faith in a future destiny of the dead. William F. Orr and James A. Walther, 1 Corinthians: A New Translation (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 337.

New Testament scholar Leon L. Morris wrote:

This reference to baptism for (hyper) the dead is a notorious difficulty. The most natural meaning of the expression is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament. Thus Parry says: “The plain and necessary sense of the words implies the existence of a practice of vicarious baptism at Corinth, presumably on behalf of believers who died before they were baptized.” He stigmatizes all other interpretations as “evasions . . . wholly due to the unwillingness to admit such a practice, and still more to a reference to it by S. Paul without condemnation.” *Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 218. *

 

[veilofveronica]

This, from the Catholic Answers website, explains how there is not really a Biblical or Christian foundation regarding baptism for the dead, with scriptural references:

catholic.com/tracts/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead