LDS and becoming gods

  • Thread starter Thread starter hs_hopeful
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomas_Ruin said:
Joseph Smith was a genius in story telling, public speaking, group organization, and a lot of other ways. But, it is pretty obvious, that he was a bad historian and biblical historian. He really didn’t know what was going in around Corinth and what Paul was referring to. That isn’t his fault; he wasn’t exposed to books that would give him that history.
Click to expand...
Biblical Historians:

“Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives”

“Another interpretation envisions the baptism of catechumens who have witnessed the persecution and martyrdom of their Christian predecessors”

“A related view holds that the group consists of those baptized in connection with a dead Christian loved one”

“Others advance the possibility that Paul was referring to the practice of a heretical cult that existed in Corinth”

“We have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice”🤷

Joseph Smith:

“In January 1836… Joseph Smith received a vision…”

“The Prophet began by testifying that the “gospel of Jesus Christ brought glad tidings of great joy.” He read most of 1 Corinthians 15 and explained that the Apostle was talking to a people who understood baptism for the dead, for it was practiced among them.”

Ain’t revelation grand?🙂
 
Paul was a die-hard apocalypticist, he believed and preached that the second coming of Christ was imminent. Paul was a highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora; he would know how impossible it would be to try to baptize everyone who lived prior to Christ’s coming in the short time he thought was left before Christ’s second coming.
Frankly, there is no way he would advocate the need for baptism of the dead.

I guess it is best for everyone to remember who Paul was, what he believed, what he was trying to preach, who the Corinthians were, who lived around them, and what Paul was referring to… or alternately prove that Paul was advocating the baptism of the dead if you really believe that (no matter how incongruous it might be.)
 
Revelation was so grand that an angel had to threaten to kill Joseph Smith with a drawn sword to get women to agree to polygamous marriage with him.
 
mtolympus said:
1 Corinthians 15:29 says otherwise.
Click to expand...
If early Christians were doing this, when did it stop?

What other proof do you have? Are there any other sources to corroborate your claim?

Why would you want to connect with a group of Christians other than those connected with Saint Paul? Do you think Paul was endorsing it?

Is there proof of this from the OT?
 
mtolympus said:
Biblical Historians:

“Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives”

“Another interpretation envisions the baptism of catechumens who have witnessed the persecution and martyrdom of their Christian predecessors”

“A related view holds that the group consists of those baptized in connection with a dead Christian loved one”

“Others advance the possibility that Paul was referring to the practice of a heretical cult that existed in Corinth”

“We have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice”🤷

Joseph Smith:

“In January 1836… Joseph Smith received a vision…”

“The Prophet began by testifying that the “gospel of Jesus Christ brought glad tidings of great joy.” He read most of 1 Corinthians 15 and explained that the Apostle was talking to a people who understood baptism for the dead, for it was practiced among them.”

Ain’t revelation grand?🙂
Click to expand...
from Catholic.com:

Mormons infer that in 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks approvingly of living Christians receiving baptism on behalf of dead non-Christians; however, the context and construction of the verse indicate otherwise. The Greek phrase rendered by the King James Version as “for the dead” is huper ton nekron. This phrase is as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. The preposition huper has a wide semantic range and can indicate “for the sake of,” “on behalf of,” “over,” “beyond,” or “more than.” Like the English preposition “for,” it does not have a single meaning and does not require the Mormon idea of being baptized in place of the dead. Such a reading would be unlikely given the more plausible interpretations available, and even if huper were taken to mean “in the place of,” it doesn’t mean Paul endorses the practice.
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
Paul was a die-hard apocalypticist, he believed and preached that the second coming of Christ was imminent. Paul was a highly educated, literate, Greek-speaking Jew from the Diaspora; he would know how impossible it would be to try to baptize everyone who lived prior to Christ’s coming in the short time he thought was left before Christ’s second coming.
Click to expand...
I am sure Paul is all that you said. However, his understanding for what was needed or what was possible did not come from the wisdom of man:

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (1 Cor. 2:4-5)
Thomas_Ruin said:
Frankly, there is no way he would advocate the need for baptism of the dead.
Click to expand...
He received this kind of information in the same way Joseph Smith did, through revelation:

“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery” (Eph. 3:3)
Thomas_Ruin said:
I guess it is best for everyone to remember who Paul was, what he believed, what he was trying to preach, who the Corinthians were, who lived around them, and what Paul was referring to… or alternately prove that Paul was advocating the baptism of the dead if you really believe that (no matter how incongruous it might be.)
Click to expand...
I would never try to prove anything in the Bible, only produce evidence where it can be found. As you said, Paul was well educated and therefore knew how to write. In his epistle to the Corinthians he said “why are they having themselves baptized for them?(the dead)”

If he were speaking about an outside group of pagans he would have mentioned them previously so readers would know who “they” were. However, “they” were spoken of a few verses earlier and clearly identified. “Therefore, whether it be I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”(1 Cor 15:11)

They were the other apostles!
 
mtolympus said:
If he were speaking about an outside group of pagans he would have mentioned them previously so readers would know who “they” were.
Click to expand...
Paul was writing the letter to the Corinthians and they knew exactly who Paul was talking about.
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
Paul was writing the letter to the Corinthians and they knew exactly who Paul was talking about.
Click to expand...
I agree!😉 They did know who “they” was and who Paul was talking about. Just read 1 Corinthians 15:9-11.
 
lax16 said:
from Catholic.com:

Mormons infer that in 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks approvingly of living Christians receiving baptism on behalf of dead non-Christians; however, the context and construction of the verse indicate otherwise. The Greek phrase rendered by the King James Version as “for the dead” is huper ton nekron. This phrase is as ambiguous in Greek as it is in English. The preposition huper has a wide semantic range and can indicate “for the sake of,” “on behalf of,” “over,” “beyond,” or “more than.” Like the English preposition “for,” it does not have a single meaning and does not require the Mormon idea of being baptized in place of the dead. Such a reading would be unlikely given the more plausible interpretations available, and even if huper were taken to mean “in the place of,” it doesn’t mean Paul endorses the practice.
Click to expand...
So you believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. Hey, I thought that was our line!😃
 
lax16 said:
So you agree that there is more than one translation? 😉
Click to expand...
It is in our eighth article of faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly…” However, I don’t play that card.🙂
 
mtolympus said:
It is in our eighth article of faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly…” However, I don’t play that card.🙂
Click to expand...
Yes I know that Mormons believe that. 🙂

Now that we know there are several translations, how do you know what you are taught regarding baptism of the dead is a proper translation?
 
lax16 said:
Yes I know that Mormons believe that. 🙂

Now that we know there are several translations, how do you know what you are taught regarding baptism of the dead is a proper translation?
Click to expand...
One could ask that question about any scripture that does not agree with ones personal view. I use the KJV, the New American Bible (Catholic) and NIV. There are slight differences in some verses. Some are more or less clear but I haven’t found any I can’t live with. I am fine with 1 Cor. 15:29 the way it is. Some may want to strike that verse out if it makes them feel better.😃
 
mtolympus said:
One could ask that question about any scripture that does not agree with ones personal view. I use the KJV, the New American Bible (Catholic) and NIV. There are slight differences in some verses. Some are more or less clear but I haven’t found any I can’t live with. I am fine with 1 Cor. 15:29 the way it is. Some may want to strike that verse out if it makes them feel better.😃
Click to expand...
Give me an example of another scripture that a major teaching is based on that could be translated differently.

Don’t you think major ancient Christian beliefs and practices would be well documented?

Also, can a person be a Mormon and not do baptisms for the dead?
 
lax16 said:
Give me an example of another scripture that a major teaching is based on that could be translated differently.

Don’t you think major ancient Christian beliefs and practices would be well documented?
Click to expand...
How about the major teachings of original sin and immaculate conception? It’s well know that Jerome mistranslated Romans 5:12 incorrectly into Latin. 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.
 
Yes, we know the LDS reject the belief of original sin. Which could be why Joseph Smith taught Brigham Young that Adam was “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do” (statement given in the general conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852).

Even though it kind of twists the book of Genesis on its head 🤷
 
gazelam said:
How about the major teachings of original sin and immaculate conception? It’s well know that Jerome mistranslated Romans 5:12 incorrectly into Latin. 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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it answers the original question though. How can you prove that the early Christians actually practiced baptism for the dead? As we showed you can’t simply point to a phrase in 1 Cor that refers to some people called ‘they’ as practicing it and jump to the assumption that ‘they’ are Christians when the Corinthians had pagan neighbors who practiced baptism for the dead.

I realize that Joseph Smith did not know this and that he also didn’t know that much about who the Corinthians were and for that matter much about Paul. I already showed that since Paul thought the second coming was imminent it is very unlikely he would teach people to take time trying to baptize everyone who came before them… and we have absolutely no evidence that he did.

If you are postulating such a doctrine in the early church it is up to you to PROVE that it was indeed a doctrine of the early church. Which, of course, I think you cannot.
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
Yes, we know the LDS reject the belief of original sin. Which could be why Joseph Smith taught Brigham Young that Adam was “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do” (statement given in the general conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top