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
I said, we don’t know who “they” are. I have never insisted who “they” are or not. I’ve never said the Bible is in error. That statement comes from you insisting that “they” must be and only were Christians. Which the text does not support and neither does actual Christian practice.
I understand this, and no offense taken.
