The Vision of the Redemption of the Dead

[telnetd]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The issue you are having is that you believe in Sola Scriptura and having the Bible interpret itself (according, of course, to ones particular theological viewpoint).

We believe in modern prophets given authority to interpret and clarify Scripture and doctrine.

We have, because of those modern prophets, a clearer idea of the overall plan of redemption for the human family- and are not obliged to accept your interpretation of our Scriptures that is informed by your creedal background.

Alma 40:26 was provided in error.  It's Alma 12:16,32.

"And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a 
spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, 
shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto 
righteousness.

Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of 
redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which 
was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan 
of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, 
according to the supreme goodness of God".

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Alma 40:26 was provided in error.  It's Alma 12:16,32.

"And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a 
spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, 
shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining unto 
righteousness.

Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of 
redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which 
was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan 
of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, 
according to the supreme goodness of God".

And my response still stands. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

When the Apostle Peter testifies that the gospel was preached to the spirits of the dead who had rejected Christ and his gospel in the days of Noah, and this that they might be judged according to men in the flesh while living according to the will of God in the spirit world; and when the Apostle Paul testifies of the ordinance of baptism for the dead, and when he further reveals that in the resurrection there will be one glory likened to the brightness of the sun, a second glory likened to the brightest of the moon, and a third glory likened to the brightness of the various stars in the firmament; and when the Savior himself testifies that varying degrees of fruitfulness will be found among his believers, with some bringing forth yields of 100 fold, while others will bringing forth yields of 60 fold, and still others who will bring forth yields of 30 fold — I hereby contest validity of your conclusion and assert that the chance that Peter, Paul and the Lord didn’t know about the the more expansive and inclusive plan of salvation of the dead accepted by the Latter-Day Saints are fractionally less than one.

That was an impressively long sentence. This assume Peter wrote 1 Peter which is dubious.

Also the most probable reading isn’t “spirits of the dead” because it doesn’t mention the spirits being preached to as being dead. This is probably a reference to the book of Enoch where it is described how the “Watchers” left heaven due to lust and came down to mate with human women. In the Enoch literature they taught forbidden secrets and God sent the flood to drown the people. The Watchers didn’t die but were imprisoned in the Earth. This is tying Jesus to Enoch and giving Jesus a higher role in dealing with these imprisoned spirits/“heroes”/angels/whatever.

Doubt Paul was talking about a graded resurrection here. Paul wasn’t testifying about baptism for the dead. At best he mentioned it as a point of inconsistency of people baptizing for the dead if the dead have no resurrection. You hit a problem here though. If they had something akin to the LDS view of baptism for the dead and were practicing it then why would they be doubting the resurrection? No idea what Paul meant there really.

Why did Peter and Paul have to know all these unique LDS doctrines? Other dispensations almost certainly didn’t. The idea that to be true Peter and Paul had to leave cryptic hints about them is silly. It is repurposing scripture that was probably never intended to be scripture. If Paul knew his epistles were going to be passed on for millenia I doubt he would have included so many minor details. Would the writer of 2 Timothy have included a warning about wicked coppersmith Alexander if the writer knew the epistle would be read for so long? Doubt it.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And when one adds into the equation the verity that God is a perfect Being of infinite and eternal love, compassion, kindness, long suffering, empathy, justice and mercy,- the chances that Peter, Paul and the Lord were unaware of the same glorious plan of salvation presently found in Doctrine and Covenants Sections 76, 88, 128, 137 and 138 are zero. The only way to believe otherwise is to either deny the existence of God or accept the unsettling possibility that for some unfathomable reason God doesn’t feel bound to practice what he preaches.

That Jesus would know of them seems fine and good but why did Peter and Paul have to know? The Doctrine and Covenants talks about how some truths have been held back for the last dispensation. Assuming Peter and Paul knew everything Joseph Smith did is kind of silly. Saying they had to know D&C 138 is very funny. There is no indication Joseph Smith knew that. Why would Peter and Paul have to know them?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

. You hit a problem here though. If they had something akin to the LDS view of baptism for the dead and were practicing it then why would they be doubting the resurrection?

Where is the suggestion in what is written that those who were practicing baptism of the dead doubted?  Peter doesn’t ask why are ‘some of you’ being baptized for the dead, is he? (I don’t know Greek, so I suppose it might be interpreted that way.). He is talking to one group about another group’s practices that demonstrate a belief in resurrection.  And since he is using that last group as evidence, it seems to me that in other ways the group would be seen as pretty mainstream for that culture (otherwise, why appeal to them as some sort of authority?).

Quote

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? ³⁰ And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 15&version=NIV

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Where is the suggestion in what is written that those who were practicing baptism of the dead doubted?  Peter doesn’t ask why are ‘some of you’ being baptized for the dead, is he? (I don’t know Greek, so I suppose it might be interpreted that way.). He is talking to one group about another group’s practices that demonstrate a belief in resurrection.  And since he is using that last group as evidence, it seems to me that in other ways the group would be seen as pretty mainstream for that culture (otherwise, why appeal to them as some sort of authority?).

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 15&version=NIV

I agree with you. I was working more with the theoretical that it is a Christian ordinance similar to what LDS use. If that were the case it would be the Christians doing it so would they be doubting the resurrection.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If that were the case it would be the Christians doing it so would they be doubting the resurrection.

Are you assuming the group Peter (or whoever it is) is talking about is not Christian?  Or did you just mean the Christian group he was talking to and identifying with at that moment?  If you see the baptizing group as nonChristian, could you explain why, please?

[InCognitus]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you assuming the group Peter (or whoever it is) is talking about is not Christian?  Or did you just mean the Christian group he was talking to and identifying with at that moment?  If you see the baptizing group as nonChristian, could you explain why, please?

I'm interested in this response too, but mainly I just wanted to just make a post to make sure the message board was still functioning since nobody has made a post in the last 24 hours!!

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm interested in this response too, but mainly I just wanted to just make a post to make sure the message board was still functioning since nobody has made a post in the last 24 hours!!

lol, I was feeling the same way, but it was both a Sunday and the end of the holidays so I figured everyone was busy.

[The Nehor]

On 1/3/2026 at 9:21 PM, Calm said:

Are you assuming the group Peter (or whoever it is) is talking about is not Christian?  Or did you just mean the Christian group he was talking to and identifying with at that moment?  If you see the baptizing group as nonChristian, could you explain why, please?

I have no idea who it was. I just find the theoretical that they were practicing an equivalent to what LDS do today unconvincing.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have no idea who it was. I just find the theoretical that they were practicing an equivalent to what LDS do today unconvincing.

I have no opinion on this at the moment.

Matthew 28 is apparently viewed as original as it is consistent across the extant versions.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …” (Matt 28:19)

The question to me is would the ones baptizing for the dead be following the same pattern and purpose as those baptizing for the living and if so, what would that be if not to be made a part of the Christian community as well as a ritual cleansing/sign of repentance?

Do you have anything in mind beyond it was not equivalent?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have no opinion on this at the moment.

Matthew 28 is apparently viewed as original as it is consistent across the extant versions.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …” (Matt 28:19)

The question to me is would the ones baptizing for the dead be following the same pattern and purpose as those baptizing for the living and if so, what would that be if not to be made a part of the Christian community as well as a ritual cleansing/sign of repentance?

Do you have anything in mind beyond it was not equivalent?

No idea. An extension of Jewish prayers for the Dead? Maybe something the followers of John the Baptist came up with or some offshoot group of them?

[telnetd]

On 1/3/2026 at 8:00 PM, Calm said:

Where is the suggestion in what is written that those who were practicing baptism of the dead doubted?  Peter doesn’t ask why are ‘some of you’ being baptized for the dead, is he? (I don’t know Greek, so I suppose it might be interpreted that way.). He is talking to one group about another group’s practices that demonstrate a belief in resurrection.

Right.  But it's Paul, not Peter. That group is not his group.  That is why he says, "Else
what shall we they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why
are we they then baptized for the dead?"

It's reasonable to believe Paul's use of "they" instead of "we" meant that neither he 
or the Corinthians performed proxy baptisms.

Edited January 6 by telnetd

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

That group is not his group.  That is why he says, "Else
what shall we they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why
are we they then baptized for the dead?"

It's reasonable to believe Paul's use of "they" instead of "we" meant that neither he 
or the Corinthians performed proxy baptisms.

The "they" argument against baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, to try to make it be about some other group of people unrelated to the Christian community has always seemed strange to me, especially when taking it in the context of the chapter for Paul's argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead.

What really makes sense here?  Let's presume [for example] that Paul is referring to some non-Christian or heretical group that is performing this non-Christian ordinance, and Paul uses their example to support the true Christian principle of the resurrection of the dead.  This seems a bit absurd to me, especially if we test this line of reasoning by rewording the verse and replace the word "they" with the name of an appropriate non-Christian or heretical group of our choosing.  For example:

"Else what shall [the apostate anti-Christ heretics] do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  why are [the apostate anti-Christ heretics] then baptized for the dead?"

Is that a persuasive argument?  I think not.  Doesn't such an interpretation make you wonder if the apostate anti-Christ heretics were wrong about baptism for the dead, could they not also be wrong about the resurrection of the dead?

And if baptism for the dead is supposed to be a non Christian practice by a non Christian group, why limit this line of reasoning to the practice of baptism for the dead?  Why not delve into other absurd illustrations to show support for the resurrection?  For example, imagine Paul standing before a group of Christians saying, "Else what shall the Hindus do which cast their living widows upon the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, if the dead rise not at all?  why do they then cast widows upon the funeral pyres of their husbands?"  Now imagine the reaction of the Christians to such an argument, would they say, "Oh yes, it makes sense that no one of another religious persuasion would throw women into fires unless there was really an afterlife."  Or would they say, "But that's a horrible thing for the Hindus to do, and a perfect example of why it's best NOT to believe in an afterlife." 

A reasonable, logical, and intelligent person (which Paul certainly was) does not support his belief in a certain doctrine or theory by relying upon evidence which is considered by his audience to be invalid.  If you're trying to convince an audience that something is true, you don't take testimonials from people that the audience would look upon with suspicion (such as the practice of a pagan or non-Christian or apostate branch of Christianity in this situation).  You choose testimonials from people that your audience respects, admires, and trusts.  And you take true principles that are already accepted by your audience and use them as building blocks to teach greater truths, teaching principle upon principle.

So, a more reasonable interpretation of the word "they" in 1 Corinthians 15:29 would be to conclude that Paul is talking about a group within the Christian community that is worthy, eligible, and has had the opportunity to be baptized for the dead, a group which would not include the entire Christian community to which Paul speaks because not all of the Christian community would have participated in this sacred ordinance.  (Even today, not all members of the restored church of Jesus Christ have had the opportunity to be baptized for the dead, so it would be quite normal for a Latter day Saint Christian to speak of "they" who are baptized for the dead, rather than "we".)  Certainly this conclusion is more reasonable than the idea that Paul would use the non-Christian practice of a non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine. 

Furthermore, using the word "they" to refer to other Christians isn't out of place to Paul, even within the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 15.  In verses 22-23 he says:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." (1 Corinthians 15:22–23)

Shall we say "That group is not his group" too?  

[teddyaware]

44 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The "they" argument against baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, to try to make it be about some other group of people unrelated to the Christian community has always seemed strange to me, especially when taking it in the context of the chapter for Paul's argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead.

What really makes sense here?  Let's presume [for example] that Paul is referring to some non-Christian or heretical group that is performing this non-Christian ordinance, and Paul uses their example to support the true Christian principle of the resurrection of the dead.  This seems a bit absurd to me, especially if we test this line of reasoning by rewording the verse and replace the word "they" with the name of an appropriate non-Christian or heretical group of our choosing.  For example:

"Else what shall [the apostate anti-Christ heretics] do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  why are [the apostate anti-Christ heretics] then baptized for the dead?"

Is that a persuasive argument?  I think not.  Doesn't such an interpretation make you wonder if the apostate anti-Christ heretics were wrong about baptism for the dead, could they not also be wrong about the resurrection of the dead?

And if baptism for the dead is supposed to be a non Christian practice by a non Christian group, why limit this line of reasoning to the practice of baptism for the dead?  Why not delve into other absurd illustrations to show support for the resurrection?  For example, imagine Paul standing before a group of Christians saying, "Else what shall the Hindus do which cast their living widows upon the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, if the dead rise not at all?  why do they then cast widows upon the funeral pyres of their husbands?"  Now imagine the reaction of the Christians to such an argument, would they say, "Oh yes, it makes sense that no one of another religious persuasion would throw women into fires unless there was really an afterlife."  Or would they say, "But that's a horrible thing for the Hindus to do, and a perfect example of why it's best NOT to believe in an afterlife." 

A reasonable, logical, and intelligent person (which Paul certainly was) does not support his belief in a certain doctrine or theory by relying upon evidence which is considered by his audience to be invalid.  If you're trying to convince an audience that something is true, you don't take testimonials from people that the audience would look upon with suspicion (such as the practice of a pagan or non-Christian or apostate branch of Christianity in this situation).  You choose testimonials from people that your audience respects, admires, and trusts.  And you take true principles that are already accepted by your audience and use them as building blocks to teach greater truths, teaching principle upon principle.

So, a more reasonable interpretation of the word "they" in 1 Corinthians 15:29 would be to conclude that Paul is talking about a group within the Christian community that is worthy, eligible, and has had the opportunity to be baptized for the dead, a group which would not include the entire Christian community to which Paul speaks because not all of the Christian community would have participated in this sacred ordinance.  (Even today, not all members of the restored church of Jesus Christ have had the opportunity to be baptized for the dead, so it would be quite normal for a Latter day Saint Christian to speak of "they" who are baptized for the dead, rather than "we".)  Certainly this conclusion is more reasonable than the idea that Paul would use the non-Christian practice of a non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine. 

Furthermore, using the word "they" to refer to other Christians isn't out of place to Paul, even within the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 15.  In verses 22-23 he says:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." (1 Corinthians 15:22–23)

Shall we say "That group is not his group" too?  

To me, the great absurdity I see in those who fight tooth and nail against the possibility of a merciful program of salvation for the dead is that they would rather believe in a God who is rash, unfair, unjust, unmerciful and callous to the most extreme extent imaginable (e.g. causing those who didn’t even ask to be born to have to unfairly endure the exquisite horrors of an endless hell for all eternity, with no possible hope of relief) than to rejoice in the glorious further light and knowledge revealed in these latter-days that testifies to the fact that God truly is a God of perfect justice, equity, long suffering mercy and, above all, eternal love. I believe the answer to this perplexingly mysterious behavior lies in the fact that some would rather believe in a God of purported love who’s simultaneously a cosmic tyrant than to have to admit to themselves that the plan of salvation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is much more logical and reasonable to believe than the unreasonable doctrines of salvation that they espouse. All I can say is that when I first learned of the plan of salvation of the Latter-Day Saints I was positively thrilled beyond measure and rejoiced for many days when I came to the realization that God truly is a God of perfect love.

Edited January 6 by teddyaware

[Clear]

I Just wanted to make a comment on the problem with adding personal context to the english translation.

Telnetd said: “Right.  But it's Paul, not Peter. That group is not his group.  That is why he says, "Else what shall we they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why
are we they then baptized for the dead?"   It's reasonable to believe Paul's use of "they" instead of "we" meant that neither he or the Corinthians performed proxy baptisms.”  

 

This conclusion is far too tenuous to make for the data given since this comment is reading too much into the rendering of the underlying Greek.  Let me explain: 

The verbs rendered “they” in 1 Cor 15:29, is simply a 3^rd person form and is not indicative of any specific group.  For example, “Τι ποιησουσιν” rendered “What [shall] they do” does not simply indicate any specific group, and thus, it is no more correct than the rendering: “what shall individuals do”, or “what shall those do”.  It is not necessarily referring to any other group other than those who are “doing” a thing (though one can excuse the conclusion since the word "they" often does refer to a specific group).

For example, in the second sentence, “ἐγείρονται” (3^rd Person plural) does refer to the “νεκροὶ”, and refers specifically to those who were dead while “Βαπτιζονται” is non-specific and simply refers to those baptized.  It does not indicate “They”, any more than “those” or the non-specific “individuals” (plural).

 

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, telnetd said:

But it's Paul, not Peter.

My bad, something was telling me I needed to double-check that.

[InCognitus]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

My bad, something was telling me I needed to double-check that.

Robbing Paul to pay Peter in this case  

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

To me, the great absurdity I see in those who fight tooth and nail against the possibility of a merciful program of salvation for the dead is that they would rather believe in a God who is rash, unfair, unjust, unmerciful and callous to the most extreme extent imaginable (e.g. causing those who didn’t even ask to be born to have to unfairly endure the exquisite horrors of an endless hell for all eternity, with no possible hope of relief) than to rejoice in the glorious further light and knowledge revealed in these latter-days that testifies to the fact that God truly is a God of perfect justice, equity, long suffering mercy and, above all, eternal love. I believe the answer to this perplexingly mysterious behavior lies in the fact that some would rather believe in a God of purported love who’s simultaneously a cosmic tyrant than to have to admit to themselves that the plan of salvation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is much more logical and reasonable to believe than the unreasonable doctrines of salvation that they espouse. All I can say is that when I first learned of the plan of salvation of the Latter-Day Saints I was positively thrilled beyond measure and rejoiced for many days when I came to the realization that God truly is a God of perfect love.

The great absurdity is assuming everyone else trying to figure out what Paul meant are choosing a belief based on what they want to be true (as you seem to be) when they are actually trying to puzzle out what the most probable reality is.

You spend way too much time concocting weird and irrational reasons for why people who disagree with you are really just malicious and depraved and want people to suffer. This is just xenophobia run crazy. It is “othering” and imagining people are inhuman. This kind of reasoning leads to all kinds of conspiracy nonsense that ends up hurting a lot of people.

[telnetd]

On 1/6/2026 at 6:57 PM, Calm said:

My bad, something was telling me I needed to double-check that.

That's ok. I mixed them up occasionally since they both start with "P" 🙂

 

[telnetd]

On 1/6/2026 at 1:43 PM, InCognitus said:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." (1 Corinthians 15:22–23)

Shall we say "That group is not his group" too? 

In the comparison between Adam and Christ, there is one or two groups, depending on
how you interpret it. 

In one case, the resurrection applies to one overall group. All who die will eventually 
be resurrected. A case for two groups is present if one believes "in Christ" means 
only those with faith in Christ will be made alive in the sense of eternal life and 
the other group refers to those who are not "in Christ".

The "firstfruits" verse is not the same analogy as given in those being baptized for the
dead. It is a difference in number. One group contains 1, Christ. The other group contains
more, those who "are Christ's". Both groups comprise the body of Christ, where Christ is
the head.

The whole chapter (1 Corinthians 15) is about the resurrection of the dead. Some people 
in Corinth were claiming that there is no resurrection (verse 12).  Paul is arguing that 
"Why are you being baptized for the dead if they don't believe in a resurrection?"

It could have been some other fringe group that believed in being baptized for their
dead ancestors in some form of ritual relationship or binding. There is no implication
these living people were Christians who were already baptized and now they were
being baptized again for a dead person who was never baptized.  No baptisms occurred
in the temple. Living disciples were only baptizing believers. That is the principle 
behind "repent and be baptized".

[telnetd]

On 1/6/2026 at 2:27 PM, teddyaware said:

To me, the great absurdity I see in those who fight tooth and nail against the possibility of a merciful program of salvation for the dead is that they would rather believe in a God who is rash, unfair, unjust, unmerciful and callous to the most extreme extent imaginable (e.g. causing those who didn’t even ask to be born to have to unfairly endure the exquisite horrors of an endless hell for all eternity, with no possible hope of relief)

We should focus on only those who have heard the gospel and rejected it. God has
already extended mercy to them while they lived. And they rejected him.

That is why the Book of Mormon refers to mortal life as the probationary period.

From the Bible, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".

The rich man in Luke 16 did not get a second chance.

Edited January 8 by telnetd

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

In the comparison between Adam and Christ, there is one or two groups, depending on
how you interpret it. 

In one case, the resurrection applies to one overall group. All who die will eventually 
be resurrected. A case for two groups is present if one believes "in Christ" means 
only those with faith in Christ will be made alive in the sense of eternal life and 
the other group refers to those who are not "in Christ".

The "firstfruits" verse is not the same analogy as given in those being baptized for the
dead. It is a difference in number. One group contains 1, Christ. The other group contains
more, those who "are Christ's". Both groups comprise the body of Christ, where Christ is
the head.

The whole chapter (1 Corinthians 15) is about the resurrection of the dead. Some people 
in Corinth were claiming that there is no resurrection (verse 12).  Paul is arguing that 
"Why are you being baptized for the dead if they don't believe in a resurrection?"

It could have been some other fringe group that believed in being baptized for their
dead ancestors in some form of ritual relationship or binding. There is no implication
these living people were Christians who were already baptized and now they were
being baptized again for a dead person who was never baptized.  No baptisms occurred
in the temple. Living disciples were only baptizing believers. That is the principle 
behind "repent and be baptized".

It is important to note that the “firstfruits” was believed to be proof of an imminent return of Jesus setting off mass resurrection very soon. The Resurrection had begun and it was expected it would continue immediately. Neither Paul nor his followers thought the general Resurrection was a distant event. That idea came up later when the messiah did not quickly return to fulfill the messianic expectations and the general resurrection did not continue to accelerate quickly.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

In the comparison between Adam and Christ, there is one or two groups, depending on
how you interpret it. 

In one case, the resurrection applies to one overall group. All who die will eventually 
be resurrected. A case for two groups is present if one believes "in Christ" means 
only those with faith in Christ will be made alive in the sense of eternal life and 
the other group refers to those who are not "in Christ".

The "firstfruits" verse is not the same analogy as given in those being baptized for the
dead. It is a difference in number. One group contains 1, Christ. The other group contains
more, those who "are Christ's". Both groups comprise the body of Christ, where Christ is
the head.

But none of this changes the fact that Paul referred to other Christians as "they", and therefore the idea that the "they" in 1 Corinthians 15:29 MUST be referring to an outside group is false.

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

The whole chapter (1 Corinthians 15) is about the resurrection of the dead. Some people 
in Corinth were claiming that there is no resurrection (verse 12).  Paul is arguing that 
"Why are you being baptized for the dead if they don't believe in a resurrection?"

So now it's "you" being baptized for the dead, not "they"?

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

It could have been some other fringe group that believed in being baptized for their
dead ancestors in some form of ritual relationship or binding. There is no implication
these living people were Christians who were already baptized and now they were
being baptized again for a dead person who was never baptized.  

But that view is completely illogical, as I showed in my post above. 

Can you explain how it is logical and persuasive for Paul to refer to an aberrant practice of a fringe or non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine?  Why would that convince anyone?  If this fringe or non-Christian group is wrong about doing baptisms for the dead, then couldn't they also be wrong about the resurrection from the dead?  How would that argument convince any intelligent person?

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

No baptisms occurred
in the temple.

Not in the Jewish temple, no.

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

Living disciples were only baptizing believers. That is the principle 
behind "repent and be baptized".

Except for those living disciples who were being "baptized for the dead" that Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

[teddyaware]

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But none of this changes the fact that Paul referred to other Christians as "they", and therefore the idea that the "they" in 1 Corinthians 15:29 MUST be referring to an outside group is false.

So now it's "you" being baptized for the dead, not "they"?

But that view is completely illogical, as I showed in my post above. 

Can you explain how it is logical and persuasive for Paul to refer to an aberrant practice of a fringe or non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine?  Why would that convince anyone?  If this fringe or non-Christian group is wrong about doing baptisms for the dead, then couldn't they also be wrong about the resurrection from the dead?  How would that argument convince any intelligent person?

Not in the Jewish temple, no.

Except for those living disciples who were being "baptized for the dead" that Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15:29.

In order for anyone to have a better chance of arriving at correct interpretations of the scriptures, it’s absolutely essential to view each individual verse within the context of its surrounding verses. Keeping this imperative in mind, 1 Corinthians 15:29 is easier to correctly interpret when it’s understood that in the previous verse (verse 28) the Apostle Paul is testifying of the salvation of the dead! Verse 28 presents the same doctrinal principles found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:106-110, with both references bearing witness to the fact that by the time of the final judgement all but the sons of perdition will be subdued by Christ’s love, receive a remission of their sins and inherit a mansions in one of the three heavenly kingdoms of post-resurrection glory. It’s then becomes clear that all the Apostle Paul is trying to say in verse 29 is this, “if all I’ve said in verses 21 to 28 is false because there isn’t going to be a general resurrection of the dead, then why in the world are the church members being baptized for the dead in the likeness of the resurrection?” In other words, it’s an absurdity to participate in baptisms for our deceased family members if there isn’t going to be a general resurrection of the dead.
 

For ease of comparison, I’ve copied 1 Corinthians 15: 21-29 and Doctrine and Covenants 76:107-110 below…

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

 

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be SUBDUED unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

29 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 Corinthians 15: 21-29)

and…

106 These are they (the eventual inheritors of the Telestial kingdom of glory) who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, UNTIL the fulness of times, when Christ shall have SUBDUED all enemies (excepting of the sons of perdition) under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom and present it unto the Father, spotless (the inheritors of the telestial glory will eventually also receive a remission of sins), saying: I have overcome (that is, the Savior’s love will eventually enable all but the sons of perdition to overcome any hesitancy that they have to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior) and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.

108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever.

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever (that is, all but the sons of perdition will bow the knee to God the Father and willingly confess to him that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior); (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

Edited January 9 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In order for anyone to have a better chance of arriving at correct interpretations of the scriptures, it’s absolutely essential to view each individual verse within the context of its surrounding verses. Keeping this imperative in mind, 1 Corinthians 15:29 is easier to correctly interpret when it’s understood that in the previous verse (verse 28) the Apostle Paul is testifying of the salvation of the dead! Verse 28 presents the same doctrinal principles found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:106-110, with both references bearing witness to the fact that by the time of the final judgement all but the sons of perdition will be subdued by Christ’s love, receive a remission of their sins and inherit a mansions in one of the three heavenly kingdoms of post-resurrection glory. It’s then becomes clear that all the Apostle Paul is trying to say in verse 29 is this, “if all I’ve said in verses 21 to 28 is false because there isn’t going to be a general resurrection of the dead, then why in the world are the church members being baptized for the dead in the likeness of the resurrection?” In other words, it’s an absurdity to participate in baptisms for our deceased family members if there isn’t going to be a general resurrection of the dead.
 

For ease of comparison, I’ve copied 1 Corinthians 15: 21-29 and Doctrine and Covenants 76:107-110 below…

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

 

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be SUBDUED unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

29 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 Corinthians 15: 21-29)

and…

106 These are they (the eventual inheritors of the Telestial kingdom of glory) who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, UNTIL the fulness of times, when Christ shall have SUBDUED all enemies (excepting of the sons of perdition) under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom and present it unto the Father, spotless (the inheritors of the telestial glory will eventually also receive a remission of sins), saying: I have overcome (that is, the Savior’s love will eventually enable all but the sons of perdition to overcome any hesitancy that they have to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior) and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.

108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever.

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever (that is, all but the sons of perdition will bow the knee to God the Father and willingly confess to him that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior); (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

This assumes that God is speaking directly through Paul and Joseph Smith and doesn’t show that Paul was preaching about salvation for the dead. If showing that this specifically was being taught requires a book of scripture that wouldn’t exist until over 1,000 years later then it wasn’t being taught in Paul’s letter by itself. If Paul was trying to teach that he was incompetent.