Mormons, Bible reference for the baptism of the dead

[Esdra]

Hi my dear LDS friends,

one of your brethren has written that baptism for the dead clearaly comes out of the Holy Bible.

For me it is an esoteric practice, as the RLDS writes: “Concerning such esoteric practices the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints declared as early as April 9, 1886, that “we know of no temple building, except as edifices wherein to worship God, and no endowment except the endowment of the Holy Spirit of the kind experienced by the early saints on Pentecost Day.” And also, “that baptism for the dead' belongs to those local questions of which the body has said by resolution: That the commandments of a local character, given to the first organization of the church, are binding on the Reorganization only so far as they are either reiterated or referred to as binding by commandments to this church.’ And that principle has neither been reiterated nor referred to as a commandment” (Conference Resolution 308, paragraphs 2, 3).” (RLDS D&C 107:Рreface) that is not Christian at all.
And this is only one of the practices in the LDS Church that are definetly not Christian…

So, please show me the bible reference for the Baptism of the Dead.

Esdra

 

[DesertSister62]

**Hi Esdra,

Actually, Baptism for the dead IS in the Bible. Now I am NOT Mormon, but the verse is there. It’s the meaning that comes into question!

Here is the verse:**

**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? ****

In Paul’s first epistle to the church in Corinth, he treats a number of subjects. This letter was written to counteract problems he saw developing in Corinth after he had established the church there. Corinth had its share of pagan religions, but there were also quasi-Christian groups that practiced variations of orthodox Christian doctrines. Enter baptism for the dead.

**Mormons cite a single biblical passage to support baptizing members on behalf of dead persons, **“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).

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. **

First Corinthians 15 is a key chapter for Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body. He makes no statement on baptism for dead persons except to note that some unnamed “they” practice it. While the rest of his teaching in chapter fifteen refers to “we,” his Christian followers, “they” are not further identified. Who this group was may not be known with certitude today, but there are some reasonable interpretations:

1. Some commentators assume this verse refers to the practice of giving newly baptized children the names of deceased non-Christian relatives, with the hope that the dead might somehow share in the Lord’s mercy.

1. Another interpretation envisions the baptism of catechumens who have witnessed the persecution and martyrdom of their Christian predecessors. With their belief that the dead do rise, the Christian candidates come forward boldly and accept both the faith and its consequences.

3. A related view holds that the group consists of those baptized in connection with a dead Christian loved one. In the first century, many families were split religiously, as only one or two members may have converted to Christianity. When it came time for these new Christians to die, they no doubt exhorted their non-Christian family members to consider the Christian faith and to embrace it so that they could be together in the next world. After the deaths of their Christian loved ones, many family members no doubt did investigate the Christian faith and were baptized so that they could be reunited with their loved ones in the afterlife. At the time, many pagans had at best an unclear idea of what the afterlife was like, and there were a large number of sects promising immortality to those who were willing to undergo their initiation rituals. A pagan husband mourning the death of his Christian wife might thus have an unclear idea of what her religion was all about, but still have it fixed in his mind: “If I want to be with her again, I need to become a Christian, like she was, so I can go where Christians go in the afterlife.” This, then, could prompt him to investigate Christianity, learn its teachings about the afterlife and the resurrection, and embrace faith in Christ, receiving Christian baptism for the sake of being united with his dead loved one. The same is true, by extension, for other family relations as well, such as parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren. **Even today deathbed exhortations to live the Christian life are not uncommon. People still resolve to live as Christians in order to please dead loved ones, to honor their memories, and to be united with them in the next life. The difference is that, today, most of those being exhorted have already been baptized. **

4. Others advance the possibility that Paul was referring to the practice of a heretical cult that existed in Corinth. On this theory, Paul was not endorsing the practice of the group, but merely citing it to emphasize the importance of the resurrection. Rather, his point was: If even heterodox Christians have a practice that makes no sense if there is no resurrection of the dead, how much more, then, should we orthodox Catholics believe in and hope for the resurrection of the dead.

catholic.com/library/Morm…r_the_Dead.asp

---

 

[flyonthewall]

I see this verse, as used by Paul, as justification, or further proof of the resurrection. The whole chapter he is teaching of the resurrection, so why would he throw in a referece to the practice of a group, if the practice was not valid?
Do you think he would use a heretical practice as evidence of a divine truth?
I say he was using a true practice as evidence of a divine truth.

 

[stormy99]

My only concern with the LDS practice of baptising the dead is that many of the dead don’t want this baptism. They have been baptised. The Catholic Church recognizes one baptism. I didn’t need to be baptised again since I was baptised a Presbyterian. But to be a Mormon, I had to rebaptised by them.

The practice is fine within their community…Mormons…but when they expand it to other groups who don’t want it or leave specific instructions not to have it done after their death, then I believe it’s wrong.

Freedom of religion says they can do what they want and believe what they wish…but it’s not a good idea to force baptism on people who can’t say no since they are dead.

stormy

 

[JeanMichel]

My only concern with the LDS practice of baptising the dead is that many of the dead don’t want this baptism. They have been baptised. The Catholic Church recognizes one baptism. I didn’t need to be baptised again since I was baptised a Presbyterian. But to be a Mormon, I had to rebaptised by them.

The practice is fine within their community…Mormons…but when they expand it to other groups who don’t want it or leave specific instructions not to have it done after their death, then I believe it’s wrong.

Freedom of religion says they can do what they want and believe what they wish…but it’s not a good idea to force baptism on people who can’t say no since they are dead.

stormy

The way I have thought about this may be unusual, but it works for me:

1. 
   *]Mormons teach that the baptism must be accepted by each individual. If it is not accepted by the dead person, then it was as if the baptism was never done.
   *]When a false religion curses me or blesses me, is there any affect? I would say there is none. This work is more easily seen as a gigantic waste of time, but if they want to do it, knock yourself out.
   *]It is amazing that such a small number of people (maybe 13 million Mormons in the world) are trying to “save” the world as they know it. I tip my hat to them for trying so hard.
   
   Do you really know of someone that has stated in their will that they do not want to have any of their work done in a Mormon church? Why waste their time; see #2 above?
   
   The best answer I ever heard was from a wise older priest: the most we know is that it was a Christian practice in the very early time of the Church, but we know nothing about it. It worked for me to put it to rest.

 

[stormy99]

I agree with you in all your points. But the Catholic Church has specifically said…not to allow Mormons access to their records…is there a good reason for this?

I know you have to accept the baptism…and I won’t of course, but it’s a little discerning when your ex Mormon husband says I’ll be waiting for you…

Well I think he’ll have a long wait.

Thanks for your great insights.

stormy

 

[flyonthewall]

The way I have thought about this may be unusual, but it works for me:

1. 
   *]Mormons teach that the baptism must be accepted by each individual. If it is not accepted by the dead person, then it was as if the baptism was never done.
   *]When a false religion curses me or blesses me, is there any affect? I would say there is none. This work is more easily seen as a gigantic waste of time, but if they want to do it, knock yourself out.
   *]It is amazing that such a small number of people (maybe 13 million Mormons in the world) are trying to “save” the world as they know it. I tip my hat to them for trying so hard.
   
   Do you really know of someone that has stated in their will that they do not want to have any of their work done in a Mormon church? Why waste their time; see #2 above?

1. 
   This is correct, the proxy baptism is not effective unless the individual it was done for accepts it, which, I would imaging they will not if they do not belive it is valid.
   

   The best answer I ever heard was from a wise older priest: the most we know is that it was a Christian practice in the very early time of the Church, but we know nothing about it. It worked for me to put it to rest.

   Wouldn’t it be nice if there were more information about it? There was a purpose for it, but it seems not to have survived.
   Of course we claim to have more information on it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were more information about it? There was a purpose for it, but it seems not to have survived.
Of course we claim to have more information on it.

Something to back this up besides a conspiracy theory?

 

[flyonthewall]

Something to back this up besides a conspiracy theory?

Well, first of all, do you believe baptism for the dead was a valid practice? If not, then there is no point really going any further.
If you do believe it was a valid practice, then what was if for? What does your faith have to say about it?(this isn’t a gotcha, I really don’t know what other faiths have to say about it).
If, as the previous poster had cited, it was a practice in the earlydays of the church but we know nothing about it now, why is nothing known?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, first of all, do you believe baptism for the dead was a valid practice? If not, then there is no point really going any further.

I do believe that St. Paul’s comment on it was to show the faith that the followers of Jesus had.

But no, nowhere is it taught or practiced as something that is required. It is a comment, made in passing.

Also, I don’t believe Mormons have understood the practice. From what I have read, and in places where the practice survived for a time, people were actually baptizing a corpse. There is never any recording of proxy baptism being done as Mormons are doing now.

 

[flyonthewall]

I do believe that St. Paul’s comment on it was to show the faith that the followers of Jesus had.

But no, nowhere is it taught or practiced as something that is required. It is a comment, made in passing.

Also, I don’t believe Mormons have understood the practice. From what I have read, and in places where the practice survived for a time, people were actually baptizing a corpse. There is never any recording of proxy baptism being done as Mormons are doing now.

I think you misunderstand baptism for the dead. The ordinance involved is baptism. We believe baptism is required of all people as a salvic ordinance, and that it must be performed by one in authority. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t your faith believe that baptism is a required ordinance?
We baptize, by proxy(sans corpse), all those who have not already received baptism by the proper authority. It is the opportunity for those who have not had the opportunity to be baptized, to accept baptism.
I don’t know what sources you have read, but I would venture to say that practice of baptizing a corpse was not from the time of Paul.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think you misunderstand baptism for the dead. The ordinance involved is baptism. We believe baptism is required of all people as a salvic ordinance, and that it must be performed by one in authority. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t your faith believe that baptism is a required ordinance?
We baptize, by proxy(sans corpse), all those who have not already received baptism by the proper authority. It is the opportunity for those who have not had the opportunity to be baptized, to accept baptism.
I don’t know what sources you have read, but I would venture to say that practice of baptizing a corpse was not from the time of Paul.

First, please top using my posts as a spring board for proselyting.

Second, I know what the mormon “ordinance” is.

Third, baptism is required IN THIS LIFE for those who believe. Once a person dies, they are judged for the life they lead. There is not a second chance.

 

[Third_Day]

Well, first of all, do you believe baptism for the dead was a valid practice? If not, then there is no point really going any further.
If you do believe it was a valid practice, then what was if for? What does your faith have to say about it?(this isn’t a gotcha, I really don’t know what other faiths have to say about it).
If, as the previous poster had cited, it was a practice in the earlydays of the church but we know nothing about it now, why is nothing known?

I believe this verse is a reference to the belief in purgatory. The early Christians, just like the Jews, believed in praying for the dead so they could be freed from their sins. These Christians in Corinth thought that in addition to praying for the dead they could also baptize for the dead. Whatever the meaning it proves that the early Christians did not believe in only heaven and hell but a place in between which over time became called purgatory.

This practice of praying for the dead continued into the following centuries but the practice of baptizing the dead was obviously not practiced in the early Church.

 

[Stephen168]

I see this verse, as used by Paul, as justification, or further proof of the resurrection.

I do, too.

The whole chapter he is teaching of the resurrection, so why would he throw in a referece to the practice of a group, if the practice was not valid?

To show that even this other group believes in the resurrection.

Do you think he would use a heretical practice as evidence of a divine truth?

yes

I say he was using a true practice as evidence of a divine truth.

I say he was using a practice of another group as evidence of a divine truth.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, first of all, do you believe baptism for the dead was a valid practice?

Not by Christians. Paul said ‘they’ did it.

 

[Chris-WA]

I see this verse, as used by Paul, as justification, or further proof of the resurrection. The whole chapter he is teaching of the resurrection, so why would he throw in a referece to the practice of a group, if the practice was not valid?
Do you think he would use a heretical practice as evidence of a divine truth?
I say he was using a true practice as evidence of a divine truth.

You’re right about one thing–this scripture is primarily about the resurrection, not baptism for the dead. Why would he throw in a side reference about baptism for the dead? For exactly the reason already posed in an earlier post. He is, after all, writing a letter to the Christians in Corinth who have allowed heresy to creep in. Why not include an example of heretical practice to make a point? The passage is about the truth of the resurrection, which apparently some Christians in Corinth were denying. By the way, notice Paul says “they” not “we.”

If baptism for the dead was an accepted Christian doctrine and practice, there would be a heck of a lot more information about it than one single side note. We would have historical information about it as well as more biblical references.

The LDS have definitely mastered forming entire doctrines out of the most obscure scriptures, while denying the ones that are so clearly spelled out in detail (i.e., the Eucharist).

 

[dianaiad]

My only concern with the LDS practice of baptising the dead is that many of the dead don’t want this baptism. They have been baptised. The Catholic Church recognizes one baptism. I didn’t need to be baptised again since I was baptised a Presbyterian. But to be a Mormon, I had to rebaptised by them.

Yes, because we beleive that one must be baptised by ‘one who is in authority,’ and we don’t beleive anybody else has that authority.

As for whether the dead ‘want it,’ or not, Stormy…if they don’t want it, then they don’t need to accept it. It is entirely their choice. Unlike the Catholic baptism, which is done to infants will they, nil they and entirely without their (name removed by moderator)ut, and which is considered effective, leaving a ‘permanent mark’ upon the soul no matter what else happens, or what their subsequent life choices might be, LDS proxy baptism for the dead is utterly dependent upon the will and wishes of the person for whom it is done. Unless that proxy work is willingly and actively accepted, it means absolutely nothing…as if it had not been done. That is what WE believe about it.

OF course, non-Mormons don’t beleive that the dead would even know about it in the first place to make such a choice, so…

The practice is fine within their community…Mormons…but when they expand it to other groups who don’t want it or leave specific instructions not to have it done after their death, then I believe it’s wrong.

Nobody but the person involved has a right to say whether he wants it or not, Stormy. You don’t get to decide for YOUR ancestors that they don’t want it. THEY do. WE, at least, believe in giving them the courtesy of that choice.

Freedom of religion says they can do what they want and believe what they wish…but it’s not a good idea to force baptism on people who can’t say no since they are dead.

stormy

STormy, you might have a point if WE believed that what we do forces them in any way. However, I find it incredibly…ironic…that a group of people who practice infant baptism that is permanent and absolute (that permanent mark) has the chutspa to object to LDS proxy baptism, when our beliefs are so firm about this: the dead most certainly CAN say ‘no.’

More importantly,it’s not a case of them saying ‘no.’ It’s a case of whether or not they say ‘yes.’

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with you in all your points. But the Catholic Church has specifically said…not to allow Mormons access to their records…is there a good reason for this?

I know you have to accept the baptism

That is not what you wrote, Stormy.

You WROTE that ‘the dead can’t say no.’

I think you need to be more clear about this.

…and I won’t of course, but it’s a little discerning when your ex Mormon husband says I’ll be waiting for you…

Well I think he’ll have a long wait.

Thanks for your great insights.

stormy

You have absolutely nothing to worry about in regard to your ex. Stormy. He can’t do anything you don’t want him to; your choice, your will. This is our absolute and firm belief, no matter how stupid HE is about it.

 

[flyonthewall]

First, please top using my posts as a spring board for proselyting.

Rebecca, I am mystified by you thinking I am proselyting. Please clarify what part of my post you think it is.

Second, I know what the mormon “ordinance” is.

It sounded like you thought Baptism for the dead was required for everyone, so I was only clarifying.

Third, baptism is required IN THIS LIFE for those who believe. Once a person dies, they are judged for the life they lead. There is not a second chance.

And what of all the people that have never heard the gospel of Christ? They did not get a chance in this life to beleive or be baptized so tough luck for them? No second chances, but what about first chances?

 

[flyonthewall]

I believe this verse is a reference to the belief in purgatory. The early Christians, just like the Jews, believed in praying for the dead so they could be freed from their sins. These Christians in Corinth thought that in addition to praying for the dead they could also baptize for the dead. Whatever the meaning it proves that the early Christians did not believe in only heaven and hell but a place in between which over time became called purgatory.

This practice of praying for the dead continued into the following centuries but the practice of baptizing the dead was obviously not practiced in the early Church.

Interesting. There is a temporary or 'in between" place, we call it Spirit Prison/Paradise. Which it is depends on the life one lead. It is there that they get get a chance to hear the gospel and accept or reject it and the baptism performed for them by proxy.

I still am not seeing how the early church did not practice it as there is very clearly a reference in the scriptures that it was.