Question for Mormons: Explain your practice of 'sealing' the departed?

[TexanKnight]

and still I wait for proof regarding infants. He said it was Biblical

 

[RebeccaJ]

But similar to your own ‘Age of Reason’ (which I believe is also set at age 8?) we believe that this is the age at which an individual becomes accountable to God for their own decisions; they have enough understanding of the world to make rational, reasoned decisions about right and wrong. Prior to that age, anything they do wrong is not on their head as they don’t have the understanding of right and wrong to decide for the one or the other.

What does that have to do with what I asked?

This sounds very much like you are suggesting that Baptism is not essential. If those who have not been baptised can enter into heaven, then it makes Jesus a liar:
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Jesus taught we are judged for what we know. So I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t call Him a liar.

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:22

 

[zaffiroborant]

However, that said I would argue that the fact that there is evidence for the early practise of Baptism for the Dead among the Christian saints, and the fact that LDS are the only group to practise this,* lends credence to the fact* that our other practises are equally restored to the original saints’ beliefs.

Yet you present nothing to support this “fact” you assert.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yet you present nothing to support this “fact” you assert.

The usual circular reasoning.

 

[pablope]

Very little, I’ve barely had time to come on and look. The problem only snowballs too, as the longer I have no time to look or reply, the more new posts there are to read and reply to.

However, that said I would argue that the fact that there is evidence for the early practise of Baptism for the Dead among the Christian saints, and the fact that LDS are the only group to practise this, lends credence to the fact that our other practises are equally restored to the original saints’ beliefs.

Where is the evidence? And do not cite any Biblical verse. A Biblical verse is not proof alone…you have to cite an early christian tradition, a historical writing, that supports your alledged practise among the early Christians.

Actually, someone did research about this…but it was not Christian practice…it was pagan practise…so you are actually restoring pagan beliefs…carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29

Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.1 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.

Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, “…if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?” Paul did not say we.2

This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

Paul’s point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

 

[Janderich]

Mormon_Cultist;8961522:

However, that said I would argue that the fact that there is evidence for the early practise of Baptism for the Dead among the Christian saints, and the fact that LDS are the only group to practise this, lends credence to the fact that our other practises are equally restored to the original saints’ beliefs.

Yet you present nothing to support this “fact” you assert.

zaffiroborant,
You may disagree with the evidence but there is definitly evidence to support Baptism for the Dead among early Christian saints. Please read this link: maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=2&id=530. If you chose not to read it then fine, but don’t assert there is nothing to back up Mormon_Cultist’s statement.

Here is the conclusion from the article…

As has been shown, vicarious work for the deceased was a relatively common practice across a broad swath of the ancient Roman Empire. Diverse religious groups practiced various forms of proxy rites intended to improve the eternal condition of their deceased loved ones in their postmortal advancement. Given this background, it was quite natural for some first-century Christians to practice baptisms for the dead, as they faced the quandary of reconciling the infinite mercy of a loving God with the clearly stated and universally accepted Christian requirement of baptism for entrance into heaven, in light of the fact that many of their loved ones had not met this requirement.

As historical evidence of the practice of baptism for the dead in the early Christian church, we submit the following, presented in detail throughout this article:

1. Both the New Testament and patristic literature apparently identify baptism as an absolute requisite of any soul desiring entrance into heaven. The Gospels, the book of Acts, and the Epistles all demonstrate that the Lord and his apostles actively extended baptism to every repentant soul and called upon every soul to repent and be baptized.

1. The most common reading of 1 Corinthians 15:29 among modern biblical scholars is that it, in fact, refers to vicarious baptism for the dead among the Corinthian saints circa AD 56/57.

1. Early Christian writers, including Tertullian and Ambrosiaster, acknowledge that 1 Corinthians 15:29 described vicarious baptism for the dead. Various Christian writers of the next few centuries thereafter also recognized this as fact, even though some of them denounced it as heresy.

1. Several New Testament passages and a plethora of apocryphal and gnostic writings support various themes related to vicarious baptism for the dead, including Christ’s descent into Sheol to preach to the dead, the need for baptism for the souls in Sheol, the efficacy of proxy work for the dead, and various forms of vicarious baptism for the dead, both by the living and by angels.

1. The Marcionites, a Christian sect that had a large following throughout much of the Roman Empire, practiced baptism for the dead from the late second or early third to the fourth century and possibly into the early fifth century AD. Some gnostic groups likewise practiced vicarious baptisms for the dead during the same period (but of shorter duration). They believed their practice continued a rite original to Christian belief.

1. These groups are labeled heretical today. While the victor writes the history book, which is true of both Christian and secular history, the victor is only the strongest combatant, not necessarily the most deserving. The modern methodology of historical research requires us to examine the historicity of the practices without the prejudice inherent in labels from one’s enemies.

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant,
You may disagree with the evidence but there is definitly evidence to support Baptism for the Dead among early Christian saints. Please read this link: maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=2&id=530. If you chose not to read it then fine, but don’t assert there is nothing to back up Mormon_Cultist’s statement.

Here is the conclusion from the article…

It might help if you read the OP. I started this thread about marrying deceased people by proxy as you are wont to do, because Mormon_Cultist said there was evidence that early Christians believed and practiced this. Mormon_Cultist has come out and said he has no evidence for his claim and yet still tries to present it as a “fact”. It is NOT a “fact” that early Christians practiced proxy marriage of the dead or other LDS rituals.

Mormon_Cultist;8961522:

However, that said I would argue that the fact that there is evidence for the early practise of Baptism for the Dead among the Christian saints, and the fact that LDS are the only group to practise this, **lends credence to the fact **

that our other practises are equally restored to the original saints’ beliefs.
Yet you present nothing to support this “fact” you assert.

 

[dchezik]

How in the world could that possibly count as a valid marriage? As far as I know, both parties must consent and be willing to get married. How could a dead person give their full consent?.. Hmmm…

I’m not sure I understand why you have a problem with this. Don’t we baptize babies without their consent? Why do we hold prayer vigils for dead people? In fact, why do we pray for dead people? What if they didn’t want to be prayed for?
Marriage is just a ceremony that is symbolized by saying a few words and performing a long established ritual.

What about this?: Don’t we award medals posthumously? Aren’t people given medals after they die? What if they didn’t want the awards? What’s the big deal?

 

[Janderich]

It might help if you read the OP. I started this thread about marrying deceased people by proxy as you are wont to do, because Mormon_Cultist said there was evidence that early Christians believed and practiced this. Mormon_Cultist has come out and said he has no evidence for his claim and yet still tries to present it as a “fact”. It is NOT a “fact” that early Christians practiced proxy marriage of the dead or other LDS rituals.

zaffiroborant, I saw the original post and I wasn’t aruging with it. But Mormon_Cultist was saying something a bit different from the original post and it seemed to me you were calling into question the evidence that proxy baptisms were practiced in the early church. If you were strictly commenting on sealings and the word “fact” then continue on with the this 13 page diatribe, if you must. As I have said a number of times on this site, ordinances we perform are based on revelation. We simply find it very interesting that a number of them also have historical roots.

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant, I saw the original post and I wasn’t aruging with it. But Mormon_Cultist was saying something a bit different from the original post and it seemed to me you were calling into question the evidence that proxy baptisms were practiced in the early church. If you were strictly commenting on sealings and the word “fact” then continue on with the this 13 page diatribe, if you must. As I have said a number of times on this site, ordinances we perform are based on revelation. We simply find it very interesting that a number of them also have historical roots.

Such as?

 

[TexanKnight]

and still I wait…

 

[KathleenGee]

I just read the link about ‘proof’ of Christian baptisms of the dead.

Gnosticism and all its form was not authentic because it did not have the Holy Spirit, but more philosophical reflections of men outside the communion of the Church and its proper disciplines.

Authentic teachers always submitted their theological reflections to the Church, not basing their movements on teachings of individual men.

God created us free; He created us to be creative…to think.

But we do not need Joseph Smith’s contrary teachings.

It is Jesus Christ Who was the means through which the universe was created. And at the Incarnation, God was now joined to human flesh.

Christ did not need to be baptized. He is the author of salvation, not the baptismal rite.

It is Jesus Christ Himself Who now sanctified the water to purify us and unite us to Him in the beginning walk with Christ.

The Book of Acts speak of entire households being baptized.

I had my children baptized as soon as I could…not because they could think and choose…but I wanted them to have Christ’s life of grace within them from the beginning of their lives here on earth.

You also have to think outside America.

There has always been alot of infant mortality, and it is returning to our country with the increasing breakdown of our country.

There is a great danger mixing affluence with theology, mixed with individualism.

 

[TexanKnight]

I just read the link about ‘proof’ of Christian baptisms of the dead.

Gnosticism and all its form was not authentic because it did not have the Holy Spirit, but more philosophical reflections of men outside the communion of the Church and its proper disciplines.

Authentic teachers always submitted their theological reflections to the Church, not basing their movements on teachings of individual men.

God created us free; He created us to be creative…to think.

But we do not need Joseph Smith’s contrary teachings.

It is Jesus Christ Who was the means through which the universe was created. And at the Incarnation, God was now joined to human flesh.

Christ did not need to be baptized. He is the author of salvation, not the baptismal rite.

It is Jesus Christ Himself Who now sanctified the water to purify us and unite us to Him in the beginning walk with Christ.

The Book of Acts speak of entire households being baptized.

I had my children baptized as soon as I could…not because they could think and choose…but I wanted them to have Christ’s life of grace within them from the beginning of their lives here on earth.

You also have to think outside America.

There has always been alot of infant mortality, and it is returning to our country with the increasing breakdown of our country.

There is a great danger mixing affluence with theology, mixed with individualism.

 

[Janderich]

Such as?

Such as…

• The manner of baptism for the living
• Writtings mentioning baptism for the dead
• Descriptions of washings and anointings
• Marriage for all, including the apostles
• The laying on of hands to confer priesthood authority

I don’t expect agreement on these items, but there is evidence…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Such as…

• The manner of baptism for the living
• Writtings mentioning baptism for the dead
• Descriptions of washings and anointings
• Marriage for all, including the apostles
• The laying on of hands to confer priesthood authority

I don’t expect agreement on these items, but there is evidence…

You should study deeper than you have. The matter of baptism, water, is the manner of baptism. (Frankly, I find the Mormon obsession with immersion to be pharisaical…you’re not really baptized unless you are fully submersed. Submersion is one way to baptize. Some would say the preferred way, but it is not the only way and never has been.) Baptism of the dead has been condemned by more orthodox Christian writings than the few quotes you can pull out of from the gnostics. Everyone is washed at our baptism, anointed at our confirmation. The priest washes at every Mass. Other ritual washings, such as on Holy Thursday. Others are anointed at different times for different reason. Catechumens are anointed several times, in prayers and rites that help them in their conversion journey. Confirmation will have you dripping with chrism oil. Priests are anointed at their ordination. etc. etc. St. Paul was not married. Jesus was not married. Jesus also taught that those who do not marry in order to serve the Kingdom of God have a valid vocation. Celibacy is a practice of the Roman Catholic church, it is not a doctrine. Other Catholic rites have married priests, our deacons can marry. Our priests are ordained by the laying on of hands, and always have been. That is part of what we call Apostolic succession.

Mormons have a much bigger task. Marriage as required to live with God forever…nowhere to be found until Joseph Smith made it up. Sealing requirements to anyone in order to live together with God, as His family…nowhere to be found until Joseph Smith made it up. Baptizing the dead, as anything but a fringe practice of fringe groups, nowhere to be found. It has never been described or practiced as a Sacrament of Christ’s Church. The Sacraments are for the living, the dead are either already with God, or not. They have lived their life, there is no need to “redeem” them. The practice makes absolutely no sense, making a person’s life, utterly pointless. We should all just sit around, never learn or do anything, or worry about how we live. The Mormons will “redeem” us once we’re dead.

Gnostic writings appeal more to Mormons than orthodox writings. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Such as…

• The manner of baptism for the living
• Writtings mentioning baptism for the dead
• Descriptions of washings and anointings
• Marriage for all, including the apostles
• The laying on of hands to confer priesthood authority

I don’t expect agreement on these items,** but there is evidence**…

And you’ve presented so much of it

 

[Janderich]

You should study deeper than you have. The matter of baptism, water, is the manner of baptism. (Frankly, I find the Mormon obsession with immersion to be pharisaical…you’re not really baptized unless you are fully submersed. Submersion is one way to baptize. Some would say the preferred way, but it is not the only way and never has been.) Baptism of the dead has been condemned by more orthodox Christian writings than the few quotes you can pull out of from the gnostics. Everyone is washed at our baptism, anointed at our confirmation. The priest washes at every Mass. Other ritual washings, such as on Holy Thursday. Others are anointed at different times for different reason. Catechumens are anointed several times, in prayers and rites that help them in their conversion journey. Confirmation will have you dripping with chrism oil. Priests are anointed at their ordination. etc. etc. St. Paul was not married. Jesus was not married. Jesus also taught that those who do not marry in order to serve the Kingdom of God have a valid vocation. Celibacy is a practice of the Roman Catholic church, it is not a doctrine. Other Catholic rites have married priests, our deacons can marry. Our priests are ordained by the laying on of hands, and always have been. That is part of what we call Apostolic succession.

The point in question revolves around whether there was early Christian evidence for some ordinances as practiced by the LDS. And the simple answer is “yes”. Now there could be another discussion on the interpretation of the evidence but I am not here to argue such a point. For current purposes you may interpret the evidence as you see fit and I may do likewise. I feel it sufficient to point out only that there is evidence.

The practice makes absolutely no sense, making a person’s life, utterly pointless. We should all just sit around, never learn or do anything, or worry about how we live. The Mormons will “redeem” us once we’re dead.

This is a misrepresentation of our beliefs. Either you do not know what you claim to know or you are purposefully twisting our doctrine.

Proxy ordinances do not automatically save a person. A person must accept the ordinances performed.

In order to be binding in eternity, any ordinance in behalf of the dead must be accepted by the people involved, merited by individual worthiness, and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (see D&C 132:7, 18). These determinations must be made beyond the veil.(“Temple Ordinances for the Dead,” A Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work: Ordinances and Covenants, (1993), 4)

Thus we spend much time doing genealogical research and performing ordinances simply to provide those who have passed on an opportunity of accepting these ordinances. Some, no doubt, will not be worthy or will not accept, yet we feel duty bound to do all we can to allow a person the opportunity to choose. I can understand if some on this site see it as a waste of time but performance of these ordinances is not intended to take away freedom, choice, or accountability in this life or the next.

 

[TexanKnight]

The point in question revolves around whether there was early Christian evidence for some ordinances as practiced by the LDS. And the simple answer is “yes”.

Actually, it is no. A phrase or two given in the manner they were given is not evidence it was being done by true CHRISTIANS.

This is a misrepresentation of our beliefs. Either you do not know what you claim to know or you are purposefully twisting our doctrine.

Actually, the is speaking the truth. There is no twisting there.

Proxy ordinances do not automatically save a person. A person must accept the ordinances performed.

They are dead. They cannot consent to what you are doing or accept it.

Thus we spend much time doing genealogical research and performing ordinances simply to provide those who have passed on an opportunity of accepting these ordinances. Some, no doubt, will not be worthy or will not accept, yet we feel duty bound to do all we can to allow a person the opportunity to choose. I can understand if some on this site see it as a waste of time but performance of these ordinances is not intended to take away freedom, choice, or accountability in this life or the next.

Yes…you do acts without the consent of the person or the person’s family.

 

[Janderich]

Actually, it is no. A phrase or two given in the manner they were given is not evidence it was being done by true CHRISTIANS.

As I quoted earlier on this thread, “While the victor writes the history book, which is true of both Christian and secular history, the victor is only the strongest combatant, not necessarily the most deserving. The modern methodology of historical research requires us to examine the historicity of the practices without the prejudice inherent in labels from one’s enemies.”
"Janderich:

This is a misrepresentation of our beliefs. Either you do not know what you claim to know or you are purposefully twisting our doctrine.

Actually, the is speaking the truth. There is no twisting there.

If you believe Rebecca is speaking the truth then please provide a quote from an LDS authority corroborating this statement by her, “We should all just sit around, never learn or do anything, or worry about how we live. The Mormons will “redeem” us once we’re dead.”

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic of the OP please