Baptisms For The Dead

[ERayR]

If your ancestors chose the Catholic faith tradition-it was their choice. It was their belief.

The Catholic Church or any church/synagogue/mosque has the right to keep Private the records of those living and dead of their faith tradition.

-I understand your dilemma.

If I were LDS I might think the same way.

As a Catholic -I think differently.

-Carol

A few generations back and in some areas the Catholic faith as the only one available. It wasn't as if there was much choice. They may have been very happy in the Catholic faith and if so and they don't want to accept my efforts on their behalf so be it but I should have the opportunity to offer the choice. Why should the Catholic church deny me access to my ancestors?

[Scott Lloyd]

He never sites it as valid or invalid. And never sites it as NECESSARY.

Why would he even bring it up if it was invalid?

It is a practice that arose, it was never taught.

This is quite an assumption on your part. Unless you have access to everything that the apostles and Christ ever said or wrote, you have no way of knowing that it was never taught.

[ERayR]

Please respect the Catholic belief on the after-life.

You do not have to agree with it.

The Catholic Church believes that there are no conversions after the point of death. Our faith teaches us that at the point of death-we are judged.

There is no conversion after death and our judgement-such is the Catholic teaching on this.

You do not have to agree with it-all we ask is respect on this issue.

-Carol

Carol, respect of anothers belief should run both ways. Can you not see that by denying me access to the records of my ancestors you are showing disrespect for my beliefs.

[saemo]

Your own Church fathers would disagree with you....Baptizing by proxy for the dead was a wide spread practice in the early church, All the way from France to Babylon.

Epiphanius was commenting on a recognized heresy. He was not teaching that it should be practiced.

Why would he even bring it up if it was invalid?This is quite an assumption on your part. Unless you have access to everything that the apostles and Christ ever said or wrote, you have no way of knowing that it was never taught.

This practice has been fought as a heresy since the Apostle's time, I think that is evidence enough that Paul was commenting on something that arose.

[LeSellers]

Epiphanius was commenting on a recognized heresy. He was not teaching that it should be practiced.This practice has been fought as a heresy since the Apostle's time, I think that is evidence enough that Paul was commenting on something that arose.

That should be simple to confirm.

Where's the quote?

Lehi

[JDave]

I can't understand why some LDS can't understand that devout members of other faiths could be offended by baptisms for the dead. The statement that "it doesn't matter anyway" if they disagree with us seems a bit disengenuous to me. The fact that we believe it could have an effect is the issue here, not whether they believe it could have an effect.

I believe a large part of the problem is that the majority of religious doctrine deals with what we do in this life. After this life comes the Judgement. The idea that somebody can still make any choices or actions after death -- that can affect their Judgement -- is pretty unique to the LDS and also a fairly new idea.

So to say that we are offering the dead a choice can seem more like a posthumous slap in the face by declaring they were wrong. People get upset if you tell them they are wrong. But they get more upset if you say things like that behind their back. I think it can feel that way to someone outside of the LDS church. The idea that the deceased actually still have choices needs to be understood and accepted.

[Scott Lloyd]

Epiphanius was commenting on a recognized heresy. He was not teaching that it should be practiced.This practice has been fought as a heresy since the Apostle's time, I think that is evidence enough that Paul was commenting on something that arose.

Commenting on a heresy? I don't get that from the portion that Zakuska quoted. Perhaps you can provide something that bears this out.

This practice has been fought as a heresy since the Apostle's time, I think that is evidence enough that Paul was commenting on something that arose.

CFR that the apostles regarded it as a heresy. What happened thereafter does not impress me, since I believe there was a general apostasy after the deaths of the apostles.

[saemo]

That's what i said Saemo-i would only make it so if it was actually true.

Of course WE believe they need those things-but if we are wrong, what are we enforcing upon them exactly?

I've asked this question a few times and i dont' think you've ever answered me yet. You have claimed that we are enforcing baptism upon them, but since you don't believe our temple work has any power, how do you think it is enforcing baptism on them?

You are enforcing your requirement of salvation on others by your practices.

[thesometimesaint]

Saemo:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...nscripts/?id=67

[LeSellers]

I can't understand why some LDS can't understand that devout members of other faiths could be offended by baptisms for the dead.

If no one ever did anything that could possibly ever cause offense, nothing would ever get done.

As I have said, there are those who are offended by a cheeseburger.

The statement that "it doesn't matter anyway" if they disagree with us seems a bit disengenuous to me. The fact that we believe it could have an effect is the issue here, not whether they believe it could have an effect.

If they do not believe it has any effect, i.e., that our doctrines and practices are erroneous, then we are doing nothing but wasting our time.

I believe a large part of the problem is that the majority of religious doctrine deals with what we do in this life. After this life comes the Judgement. The idea that somebody can still make any choices or actions after death -- that can affect their Judgement -- is pretty unique to the LDS and also a fairly new idea.

Which has nothing at all to do with their being offended.

They choose to be offended. And the object of their offense is meaningless in their own eyes. That is a waste of their energy.

So to say that we are offering the dead a choice can seem more like a posthumous slap in the face by declaring they were wrong.

And a posthumous (not to mention figurative) slap in the face is just how harmful?

People get upset if you tell them they are wrong. But they get more upset if you say things like that behind their back. I think it can feel that way to someone outside of the LDS church. The idea that the deceased actually still have choices needs to be understood and accepted.

For those hwo do not understand, we have done more than offer education on the matter. They refuse to receive the light we shine twoeards them.

Again, their being offended is their own choice, and has noting to do with what we do or do not do.

I am sorry they are offended, but I cannot change the fact that they have made their choice.

Lehi

[abqfriend]

We are switching topics:

I have no problem if the LDS church wishes to have Baptism for the dead as one of their doctrines/teachings.

The Initial comment here was by a member of this forum wondering why Catholics and other religious groups would not allow LDS have access to their Private church/synagogue records.

So-I see the issue as Public vs Private-and religious respect.

So--Baptize all you want and to whom you wish-just use Public records an your own genealogical records in those efforts.

-Carol

[LeSellers]

You are enforcing your requirement of salvation on others by your practices.

The only way this could possibly be true is if our understanding of God is true.

If not, if yours is, then we cannot enforce anything.

Lehi

[bluebell]

You are enforcing your requirement of salvation on others by your practices.

As Lehi has already said, your statement is only true IF my practices are truly of God.

[saemo]

That should be simple to confirm.

Where's the quote?

Lehi

I cannot find an English translation of the Panorian online.

At any rate, Epiphanius wrote the "Panorian", which is where the quote re: baptism of the dead came from. The entire work, multiple volumes, is a treatise against heresies. He carefully listed every heretical sect, and included the practices. His sources were his own observations, writings from the heretical sects and also the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.

You have pulled a quote out of a book that lists that practices of heretical sects.

[Zakuska]

Here it is online... Page 110:

http://books.google.com/books?id=s9-utOHPL...lamis#PPA110,M1

The problem with your anaylsis is, you forget the context in which Hugh Nibley used the quote:

At the beginning of the fifth century Epiphanius reports:

From Asia and Gaul has reached us the account [tradition] of a certain practice, namely that when any die without baptism among them, they baptize others in their place and in their name, so that, rising in the resurrection, they will not have to pay the penalty of having failed to receive baptism, but rather will become subject to the authority of the Creator of the World. For this reason this tradition which has reached us is said to be the very thing to which the Apostle himself refers when he says, "If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?"135

It is significant to find this practice surviving in those outlying places where, as Irenaeus points out, the pure old Christian doctrine was best preserved.136 As to the rest of the church, Epiphanius explains:

Others interpret the saying [1 Corinthians 15:29] finely [kalos], claiming that those who are on the point of death if they are catechumens [candidates for baptism] are to be considered worthy, in view of the expectation of baptism which they had before their death. They point out that he who has died shall also rise again, and hence will stand in need of that forgiveness of sins that comes through baptism.137

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...pts/?id=67#r135

The question is who's the one with the heretical practices?

Iraneus says the old "Pure Christiainity" was preserved by those who Epiphanies is claiming are heretics.

[saemo]

Here it is online... Page 110:

http://books.google.com/books?id=s9-utOHPL...lamis#PPA110,M1

The problem with your anaylsis is, you forget the context in which Hugh Nibley used the quote:

Hugh Nibley? You can't be serious. He would have been counted among the heretics by every Church Father.

The question is who's the one with the heretical practices?

Iraneus says the old "Pure Christiainity" was preserved by those who Epiphanies is claiming are heretics.

There is One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That heresies arose and people made themselves mini Popes is nothing new, and still occurs today.

Either you believe that Christ kept His promise, and that the Holy Spirit has guided His Church, or you don't. I see the evidence is clear that this is the case. In the preservation of the Sacraments, including Holy Orders, and the Church itself. That the Church survived, through times and places that you would think it should have not, is really quite miraculous.

I understand that in order to be LDS you'd have to believe the opposite, and fight against God's Church in order to make yourselves relevant. That doesn't change the Truth.

[Zakuska]

Oh I don't doubt he kept his promise... just not in the way you think he did.

[abqfriend]

Let's Show mutual Respect:

This thread is degenerating into throwing theological rocks at each others faith tradition.

-Carol

[Hoops22]

Oh I don't doubt he kept his promise... just not in the way you think he did.

Then what happened to those who lived before 1830?

[Zakuska]

They without us cannot be made perfect.

We only have to worry about those from 1830 back to Christ. He emptied the pit once already. He's going to do it again.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's Show mutual Respect:

This thread is degenerating into throwing theological rocks at each others faith tradition.

-Carol

I agree a degeneration is occurring, and I join you in decrying it.

So far, though, the rock throwing has been unilateral, as in "I understand that in order to be LDS you'd have to believe the opposite, and fight against God's Church in order to make yourselves relevant."

The Mormon stance, thus far, has been generally defensive, from what I can tell.

[abqfriend]

I think it goes both ways-back several posts-the Catholic Church and other Churches were indirectly compared to Satan or Satanic forces.

I agree a degeneration is occurring, and I join you in decrying it.

So far, though, the rock throwing has been unilateral, as in "I understand that in order to be LDS you'd have to believe the opposite, and fight against God's Church in order to make yourselves relevant."

The Mormon stance, thus far, has been generally defensive, from what I can tell.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Not only is Baptism for the Dead written about in Early Christian Writings it is also portrayed in Early Christian Art:

Early Christian Art:

The depiction below is of "The Resurrection and the Preaching of St. Baptist in the Hades" Note how Christ grips the hands of those being resurrected out of hades. (8th picture down)

Baptism for the Dead is connected to early Christianity and shows up not only in art work but also the early Christian Fathers mentions John the Baptist went to hades to preach the gospel before the Savior descended there to liberate the souls.

Many art works depict this sort of thing. The Old Testament Saints, the prophets, are there to greet the glorious King upon his descent. Common reappearing elements in the art work are Christ standing on the broken doors to hell many times with Satan under the doors.

Early Christian Writings:

From the writings of the Church Fathers during the 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria, a student scholar of Clement of Alexandria, wrote that John the Baptist had died before Christ, "so that he might descend to the lower regions and announce [preach] his coming. For everywhere the witness and forerunner of Jesus is John, being born before and dying shortly before the Son of God, so that not only to those of his generation but likewise to those who lived before Christ should liberation from the death be preached, and that he might everywhere prepare a people trained to receive the Lord."

Hippolytus, wrote that John the Baptist had died first that he might prepare the souls in the spirit world for the gospel. John, “first preached to those in Hades, becoming a forerunner there when he was put to death by Herod, that there too he might intimate that the Saviour would descend to ransom the souls of the saints from the hand of death.”

Later, a medieval Easter drama, the "Harrowing of Hell," John descends first, then is there to greet Christ when Christ descended.

Clement of Rome [30-100 A.D.], hints to this when he wrote: "Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee;" (Psa.28:7), and again I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because Thou art with me;" (Compare Psa.3:6), and again, Job says, "Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things." (Job. 19:25-6).

In the Ethiopic document known as the Testament of Our Lord and Our Savior Jesus Christ 38–39, Jesus tells his apostles, "For this reason I descended and conversed with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with your fathers the prophets, and I announced to them, in Sheol, the rest in the heavens where they shall come. With my right hand, I gave them the baptism of life, pardon and remission of all sin, as I did for you, and (as I shall do) hereafter for those who shall believe in me." He then tells them that he who believes "shall come out of the prison and will be delivered from chains, from punishment and from the fire," to which the apostles respond, "O Lord, you have truly given us joy and rest, for because of their faith and their confidence, you have announced to our fathers and to the prophets; also for us and for all (who believe in you)."

"Celsus [Ancient Anti-Christian], making fun of the strange doctrine [of the Christians], asks Origen: '"Don't you people actually tell about him, that when he had failed to convert the people on this earth he went down to the underworld to try to convert the people down there?"

"We assert that Jesus not only converted no small number of persons while he was in the body . . . but also, that when he became a spirit, without the covering of the body, he dwelt among those spirits which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to Himself."

(Origen, Against Celsus II'' 43, in PG 11:864-65)

[JDave]

If no one ever did anything that could possibly ever cause offense, nothing would ever get done.

As I have said, there are those who are offended by a cheeseburger.

I was only arguing that one could try to understand their concerns, not overly worry about them. The OP was asking why one could even be concerned, not whether we should do anything about it.

And a posthumous (not to mention figurative) slap in the face is just how harmful?

Just imagine yourself in their position. If somebody started a list of deceased Mormons, and claimed that their list was "Those Destined for an Eternity in Hell", this would cause some concern. We would think it was erroneous, we would hopefully not be offended by it, but I think quite a few people would be concerned about it. I would prefer not to have my name go on that list after I die.

I am only arguing for some understanding of other people's views. Not agreeing with them, just an attempt at empathy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just imagine yourself in their position.

I have, which is why their stance seems so irrational to me. It would not bother me in the least if some religion were to do posthumous baptisms for my dead relatives. The fact that saemo and his/her parish prays for the soul of Gordon B. Hinckley disturbs me not at all.

If somebody started a list of deceased Mormons, and claimed that their list was "Those Destined for an Eternity in Hell", this would cause some concern.

That is not even close to what Mormons do. Again, if you have to ugly up the analogy, it's a pretty good sign your logic is lacking.

I am only arguing for some understanding of other people's views. Not agreeing with them, just an attempt at empathy.

In this case, it strikes me as misplaced empathy.