Tvedtnes Review

[diglot]

My view is that the review ought not to be judged entirely on a parenthetical remark about what was essentially a tangential issue.

Unsurprisingly, you are avoiding the implications again by trying to paint it off as a tangential issue. Either (1) the reviewer pretended that he knows Greek and hence made a huge mistake in pretending that he did, or (2) he does know Greek but has never bothered to read the verse or the book he is reviewing. Either way you cut it, the review is laughable.

But obviously you will avoid the issue for the umpteenth time.

"Pitiful" is in the eye of the beholder; and more things there are that appear to be "pitiful," the greater the likelihood that the beholder is a pretentious elitist.

If I read a review in a journal on American History, and the scholar remarked that the Constitution was signed in 1292 by Barack Obama, I would call that review pitiful too. Doesn't make me a pretentious elitist, just somebody who can see a glaring error.

The only evidence you have that Baptism for the dead "is anomalous in earliest Christianity" is the argument from silence: it's not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament.

And there is nothing wrong, at all, with using an argument from silence. Especially when that silence is deafening. Arguments from silence are used all the time in the line of historical inquiry.

But Paul himself only mentions it incidentally in connection with another topic. If he hadn't done so, it wouldn't appear in the NT at all. So what would you "assume" from that? That no-one ever practiced it, ever?

So here's what I think: Paul is arguing for the reality of the resurrection. Baptism for the dead is his trump card; something it could only be if it were (1) well known and (2) impeccably orthodox. He is not at all "dissociating himself" or anybody else from the Saints who were performing this important work; rather he is appealing to a practice that is so well understood in its milieu as to require no special explanation, and so far from being "aberrant" that it actually adds force to his argument, instead of fatally weakening it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ok, if you think so.

[Pahoran]

This tactic of decrying anyone who agrees with someone you apparently don't like is exactly the same juvenile stuff I see from the CARMites on a regular basis (they lambast me too for simply agreeing with Mormon posters they despise). You would fit right in there with them.

Ah, guilt by association. How very mature, or something.

It probably would use it, but anti-semitism is a legitimate thing with a long sad history behind it. Comparing the use of anti-Mormon on message forums or in an internet journal to the use of anti-Semitism in a scholarly Jewish journal is laughable.

Why? Anti-Mormonism is likewise a legitimate phenomenon with a sad history that, while nowhere near as long as anti-Semitism has, is almost as old as its target. The only real difference between anti-Mormonism and anti-Semitism is that anti-Semitism launched the most recent and largest major pogrom of the two.

And may I remind you that you previously wrote this:

I doubt a review containing some whimsical piece of rhetoric like "anti-Mormon" would ever get published in a real scholarly journal. For instance, I highly doubt that the renown peer-reviewed journal Catholic Biblical Quarterly would publish a review in which the term "anti-Catholic" is used.

So you were the one who suggested such a comparison in the first place. And only now that it goes in my favour, you want to tell me that it is "laughable?" Really?

I've noticed you repeatedly avoid my main point as to why that review was pitiful (his remark about the Greek). I can only assume you want to avoid it and keep going for the anti-Mormon aspect I made as well simply because you can't defend what he says about the Greek while still believing the article isn't pitiful..

That's right. It couldn't possibly be that issues about Greek grammar are of less interest to me than how significant English words are used today.

The fact is that you sneeringly accused Tvedtnes of calling Hull an anti-Mormon merely to "dismiss" him. That was the criticism to which I was responding. It turned out that your criticism was based upon the same kind of hasty or careless reading that you accuse Tvedtnes of in relation to the Greek issue. Therefore, by your own standards, your criticism of Tvedtnes was "pitiful."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Unsurprisingly, you are avoiding the implications again by trying to paint it off as a tangential issue. Either (1) the reviewer pretended that he knows Greek and hence made a huge mistake in pretending that he did, or (2) he does know Greek but has never bothered to read the verse or the book he is reviewing. Either way you cut it, the review is laughable.

But obviously you will avoid the issue for the umpteenth time.

Unsurprisingly, you are worrying this particular bone and arrogantly insisting that I address it to your satisfaction, even though it was of little interest to me from the outset.

Equally unsurprisingly, you continue to insist that the entire review must be judged on that one paragraph. The reality is that the review makes a number of other (and considerably more significant) points, but I guess if you can get it declared "laughable" on that one point alone, then your "dismissive rhetoric" has succeeded.

And there is nothing wrong, at all, with using an argument from silence. Especially when that silence is deafening. Arguments from silence are used all the time in the line of historical inquiry.

But you are missing the point. (Or, if I were to take your approach, I could accuse you of ignoring the issue.) The point is that Paul doesn't bring up Baptism for the dead to condemn it as unorthodox or warn his audience against it; he simply makes a casual reference to it as something -- namely, a Christian practice -- that everyone knows about. But if he didn't have a need to re-teach the Corinthian Saints about the resurrection, he would never have mentioned it at all, would he?

So, were it not for the specific needs of Paul's audience, the NT would be completely silent on the subject; but it certainly happened.

So why assume it was "anomalous?" Why not adopt a little bit of humility here, and admit that the NT does not provide anyone with a complete, systematic rundown of first century Christian praxis?

Ok, if you think so.

Thank you; I do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[diglot]

Ah, guilt by association. How very mature, or something.

If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.

Why? Anti-Mormonism is likewise a legitimate phenomenon with a sad history that, while nowhere near as long as anti-Semitism has, is almost as old as its target. The only real difference between anti-Mormonism and anti-Semitism is that anti-Semitism launched the most recent and largest major pogrom of the two.

And may I remind you that you previously wrote this:

So you were the one who suggested such a comparison in the first place. And only now that it goes in my favour, you want to tell me that it is "laughable?" Really?

Yes I do. As I said above to another poster:

I do not think all "anti-" words can just be clumped into some general group where the same rules apply to the usage of every single one of them. Furthermore, I think that each individual word can itself be used in a variety of ways (some good, some bad).

For instance, if I was reading an article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly about the persecution of Catholics in Spain in the 1930s, and the author used the term "anti-Catholic" to describe the persecutors, I would probably have no qualms about it.

But if, in the same journal, I was reading an article on some distinctively Catholic theological belief (e.g. transubstantiation) which quoted a biblical passage the author thought supported it, and the author simply referred to those who disagree with that interpretation as "anti-Catholic", then yes, I would think it was simply a flippant piece of dismissive rhetoric that shouldn't have been used.

Context depends a great deal. I do not hold to a simplistic understanding of words in which a word carries the same connotation in any and all contexts.

That's right. It couldn't possibly be that issues about Greek grammar are of less interest to me than how significant English words are used today.

Entirely avoiding the issue again. lol this is hilarious

The fact is that you sneeringly accused Tvedtnes of calling Hull an anti-Mormon merely to "dismiss" him. That was the criticism to which I was responding. It turned out that your criticism was based upon the same kind of hasty or careless reading that you accuse Tvedtnes of in relation to the Greek issue. Therefore, by your own standards, your criticism of Tvedtnes was "pitiful."

Regards,

Pahoran

So you weren't responding to me saying that his review was pitiful? Because if you were, my calling his review "pitiful" in large part rested upon this Greek issue that you are so determined to avoid.

Oh well, since you are apparently not responding to me calling his review "pitiful", I can only surmise that you agree that it is pitiful due to his mangling of the Greek language, which leads to one of the following two conclusions: either (1) the reviewer pretended that he knows Greek and hence made a huge mistake in pretending that he did, or (2) he does know Greek but has never bothered to read the verse or the book he is reviewing. Either way you cut it, the review is pitiful.

Regardless if one part of my calling his review "pitiful" was itself pitiful, I am just some schmo in an online forum. Tvedtnes is a scholar who was publishing an article in an online journal... big difference.

I accept that a single part of my argument was itself pitiful. You pointed that out yesterday. Now please deal with the other aspect of my argument. (Not that I actually expect you too).

Edited November 23, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

Unsurprisingly, you are worrying this particular bone and arrogantly insisting that I address it to your satisfaction, even though it was of little interest to me from the outset.

Equally unsurprisingly, you continue to insist that the entire review must be judged on that one paragraph. The reality is that the review makes a number of other (and considerably more significant) points, but I guess if you can get it declared "laughable" on that one point alone, then your "dismissive rhetoric" has succeeded.

The review must be judged by one point if the implications of that one point are profound. But, of course, you are just merely going to ignore the implications that one point has.

I can only assume that you think it is alright for a scholar to review a book in an academic journal without actually bothering to read the book. Otherwise, you must think it is alright for a scholar to pretend to know a language he doesn't know (leading to a glaring error in the process, and thus misinforming the readers).

Personally, both of those things easily make a review pitiful.

But you are missing the point. (Or, if I were to take your approach, I could accuse you of ignoring the issue.) The point is that Paul doesn't bring up Baptism for the dead to condemn it as unorthodox or warn his audience against it; he simply makes a casual reference to it as something -- namely, a Christian practice -- that everyone knows about. But if he didn't have a need to re-teach the Corinthian Saints about the resurrection, he would never have mentioned it at all, would he?

So, were it not for the specific needs of Paul's audience, the NT would be completely silent on the subject; but it certainly happened.

So why assume it was "anomalous?" Why not adopt a little bit of humility here, and admit that the NT does not provide anyone with a complete, systematic rundown of first century Christian praxis?

Thank you; I do.

Regards,

Pahoran

If he makes a reference to it as a Christian practice, then why does he deliberately single out the practitioners of the practice? Why dissociate himself and the recipients of the epistle from the practitioners of it? I, along with most commentators I have read on this, think it is because the practice was aberrant and not approved of by Paul.

[Pahoran]

If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.

I'll keep that in mind.

Yes I do. As I said above to another poster:

I do not think all "anti-" words can just be clumped into some general group where the same rules apply to the usage of every single one of them. Furthermore, I think that each individual word can itself be used in a variety of ways (some good, some bad).

For instance, if I was reading an article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly about the persecution of Catholics in Spain in the 1930s, and the author used the term "anti-Catholic" to describe the persecutors, I would probably have no qualms about it.

But if, in the same journal, I was reading an article on some distinctively Catholic theological belief (e.g. transubstantiation) which quoted a biblical passage the author thought supported it, and the author simply referred to those who disagree with that interpretation as "anti-Catholic", then yes, I would think it was simply a flippant piece of dismissive rhetoric that shouldn't have been used.

Context depends a great deal. I do not hold to a simplistic understanding of words in which a word carries the same connotation in any and all contexts.

Neither do I.

But I happen to believe that anti-Semitism and anti-Mormonism are the same category of animal: they are both hate ideologies.

But evidently that doesn't bother you. Maybe because it's not your ox being gored.

Entirely avoiding the issue again. lol this is hilarious

Not my issue, and I have no obligations thereto.

But then again, I'm not the one who thinks that only Greek scholars have a right to an opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[diglot]

But then again, I'm not the one who thinks that only Greek scholars have a right to an opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

I didn't say that one has to be a Greek scholar to have an opinion. Yet again, you are incapable of dealing with issue and only try to obfuscate the discussion to save face.

You only wanted to respond to a point on which I was wrong, while ignoring the other, more crucial, reason as to why I said the review was pitiful.

I guess our discussion is over, and that while I was wrong in saying Hull was referred to as an anti-Mormon, I am vindicated that the review is still pitiful.

Thanks!

Edited November 23, 2011 by diglot

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

When you have some time for it, I hope you will offer a response to my post that was addressed to you.

[Pahoran]

The review must be judged by one point if the implications of that one point are profound. But, of course, you are just merely going to ignore the implications that one point has.

I remain unconvinced that "the implications of that one point are" quite as "profound" as you seem to think they are. Certainly, if that single paragraph upon which you hang all the justification for your "dismissive rhetoric" were to be removed, Tvedtnes' review would stand, virtually intact, and unaddressed by you.

I can only assume that you think it is alright for a scholar to review a book in an academic journal without actually bothering to read the book. Otherwise, you must think it is alright for a scholar to pretend to know a language he doesn't know (leading to a glaring error in the process, and thus misinforming the readers).

I think neither of those things are "alright," and I have no reason to suppose that either of them represents a fair description of anything in the Tvedtnes review.

Personally, both of those things easily make a review pitiful.

Yes, I have known all along that "pitiful" was merely your personal reaction. Which is why I find it puzzling that you should so insistently demand that everyone else agree with you.

If he makes a reference to it as a Christian practice, then why does he deliberately single out the practitioners of the practice? Why dissociate himself and the recipients of the epistle from the practitioners of it?

I see no evidence that Paul does either of those things. Paul was not an EV, needing to define himself by excluding others; nor was he a North American, for whom expressions like "those people" represent some kind of code phrase for "lesser people."

A construction similar to "those being baptized on behalf of the dead" neither includes nor excludes anyone in particular. It simply refers to those who perform a given rite, without trying to put them into any kind of box. Certainly, in languages with which I am familiar, it is idiomatically correct to use the third person to refer to people, or a group of people, in the abstract, without paying any particular attention to who "they" may or may not be. For instance, I work in the IT industry, but I would be more likely to talk about "those who work in IT" than "we who work in IT."

[Edited to add] Likewise, I recently was involved in Baptisms for the dead; yet I would ordinarily talk about "those who are baptised for the dead," rather than "we who are baptised for the dead," especially if I wanted to focus upon the doctrinal implications of the practice and not let my audience get distracted by the details of a particular event, or my participation therein.

So do you have any actual evidence that Paul was not doing the same?

I, along with most commentators I have read on this, think it is because the practice was aberrant and not approved of by Paul.

Yes, the emotional need to dismiss the as "aberrant" a practice that one's own religious tradition does not follow appears to be pervasive. However, Paul says nothing about the practice being "aberrant" at all. He simply points out that the rite is pointless if there is no resurrection -- but the whole chapter is arguing for the resurrection. A group of funny people doing a funny ceremony is an argument for precisely nothing, but Paul uses Baptism for the dead as an important point in favour of his argument. Which means, at the very least, that he clearly sees it as such.

And that only works if BftD is (1) impeccably orthodox, and (2) carried out by people the Corinthian Saints respect as doctrinal authorities.

As Tvedtnes cogently points out: Paul's letter to the Corinthians was, well, a letter, not a "homily," theological treatise or thesis. Nor, I might add, is it a legal document. It is a mistake to read it with the kind of minute, pharisaical attention to specific word choices as would apply, say, to a legal contract.

But of course, I forgot; Tvedtnes' review is "pitiful" and thus unworthy of your attention; so of course you can safely ignore everything it says, right?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited November 24, 2011 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I guess our discussion is over, and that while I was wrong in saying Hull was referred to as an anti-Mormon, I am vindicated that the review is still pitiful.

Thanks!

I would not want you to get the wrong idea, so I must point out that your dismissive rhetoric is in nowise vindicated.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Robert F. Smith]

It probably would use it, but anti-semitism is a legitimate thing with a long sad history behind it. Comparing the use of anti-Mormon on message forums or in an internet journal to the use of anti-Semitism in a scholarly Jewish journal is laughable.

"Laughable"?

The term "anti-semitism" was invented in the 19th century to refer to anti-Jewish activities and writings primarily in Europe, but has now ironically been broadened in use to include anti-Jewish activities and writings by Arab Muslims -- who are Semites!! I recall an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset referring (about 40 years ago) to an Israeli Jewish member of the Knesset as an "anti-Semite" because of his apparently anti-Arab legislative proposal.

Terms like anti-Catholic, anti-Semite, anti-Judaism, anti-Mormon, and the like, are used by the foremost scholars in refereed journals and books on a regular basis, provided of course that they refer to actual historical instances of the phenomenon. In recent times, for example, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (a Jewish organization) has come to the defense of the Mormons when they have been egregiously attacked by anti-Mormons.

Or like the song says: "You can hate your neighbor, but don't forget to say grace" (Eve of Destruction).

[Robert F. Smith]

Rob,

It doesn't look like Pahoran is going to reply any time soon, so I hope you don't mind my commenting.

"Otherwise, what will they do [poiēsousin, 3rd person plural] who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized [baptizontai, 3rd person plural] for the dead?"

Cf. II Maccabees 12:44b "it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead" (NRSV)

12:44a "if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again,"

12:45c "Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin."

There are other parallels as well, e.g., I Cor 15:20 "fallen asleep" // II Macc 12:45 "fall asleep," leading the late James Barr to conclude that Paul actually had II Macc 12 partly in mind as he wrote his words in I Cor 15.*

*Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster, 1983), 40-43, n. 19.

Second, I don't know anyone, including any "anti-Mormons," who deny that some of the Corinthian Christians were engaged in the practice mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:29. So this seems to be a straw-man.

Still, one must contend with commentators such as Gordon A. Carle, who maintain that the practice was a Marcionite heresy -- “How Mormon Scholars Conduct Patristic Research to Prove the Legitimacy of Their Religion: An Analysis of Mormon Use of Patristic Literature and History,” GJCT 4/1 (Feb 2004), available online at http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/4-1/1%20TOC%20v4%20m1.htm . Who is setting up straw men?

[LeSellers]

A construction similar to "those being baptized on behalf of the dead" neither includes nor excludes anyone in particular. It simply refers to those who perform a given rite, without trying to put them into any kind of box. Certainly, in languages with which I am familiar, it is idiomatically correct to use the third person to refer to people, or a group of people, in the abstract, without paying any particular attention to who "they" may or may not be. For instance, I work in the IT industry, but I would be more likely to talk about "those who work in IT" than "we who work in IT."

How many times do we find the phrase "they/those/them who believe" in the very Bible and even by the same author who wrote First Corinthians?

29 Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν;

Otherwise what shall do the baptized on-behalf-of the dead; if the dead do not rise at all? why also are they baptized for them?

To reject the argument as a support for Paul's logic defending the literal resurrection is to reject the conclusion. (A result I have seen, by the way, although for other reasons: Who'd want this disgusting physical body for eternity?)

Lehi

[diglot]

...

Terms like anti-Catholic, anti-Semite, anti-Judaism, anti-Mormon, and the like, are used by the foremost scholars in refereed journals and books on a regular basis, provided of course that they refer to actual historical instances of the phenomenon.

I know. I don't think I've said otherwise.

As I said earlier in this thread, the context in which "anti-whatever" is used in matters a great deal. If I was reading an article which talks about the persecution of Catholics in Spain in the 30s, and the author uses "anti-Catholic" to describe the persecutors, I would have no problem about the usage of that term.

However, if I was reading an article on some theological matter, and the author simply referred to those who disagree with his own Churches interpretation of that passage as "anti-Catholic", then I would think it is an unfortunate use of the term which should have been left out. (which is how "anti-Mormon" is used in the book review this thread is about)

But as I've said elsewhere before, I guess I must have just grown up with a different understanding as to exactly how "anti-" words should be used. I always understood the term "anti-" as classifying someone who hates a particular thing. Therefore, I find it ludicrous when someone is labeled as an "anti-Mormon" simply because this person disagrees with an LDS theological belief.

Edited November 30, 2011 by diglot

[ERayR]

I always understood the term "anti-" as classifying someone who hates a particular thing. Therefore, I find it ludicrous when someone labels someone an "anti-Mormon" simply because this person (or group of people) simply disagree with their own theological beliefs.

That is the problem when someone starts to substitute their own meaning for words. When someone deviates from the defined meaning confusion follows. Anti has a defined meaning.

an·ti

   /ˈæntaɪ, ˈænti/ [an-tahy, an-tee] [an-tahy, an-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural -tis.

a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Nothing here about hate, just opposition.

Edited November 30, 2011 by ERayR

[diglot]

That is the problem when someone starts to substitute their own meaning for words. When someone deviates from the defined meaning confusion follows. Anti has a defined meaning.

an·ti

   /ˈæntaɪ, ˈænti/ [an-tahy, an-tee] [an-tahy, an-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural -tis.

a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Nothing here about hate, just opposition.

Fair enough, but words are regularly understood in popular culture in a more nuanced way than that of a definition found in a dictionary.

[ERayR]

Fair enough, but words are regularly understood in popular culture in a more nuanced way than that of a definition found in a dictionary.

Yes and it tends to lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

[Pahoran]

I know. I don't think I've said otherwise.

As I said earlier in this thread, the context in which "anti-whatever" is used in matters a great deal. If I was reading an article which talks about the persecution of Catholics in Spain in the 30s, and the author uses "anti-Catholic" to describe the persecutors, I would have no problem about the usage of that term.

However, if I was reading an article on some theological matter, and the author simply referred to those who disagree with his own Churches interpretation of that passage as "anti-Catholic", then I would think it is an unfortunate use of the term which should have been left out. (which is how "anti-Mormon" is used in the book review this thread is about)

But as I've said elsewhere before, I guess I must have just grown up with a different understanding as to exactly how "anti-" words should be used. I always understood the term "anti-" as classifying someone who hates a particular thing. Therefore, I find it ludicrous when someone is labeled as an "anti-Mormon" simply because this person disagrees with an LDS theological belief.

But a moment's reflection ought to reveal that Tvedtnes did not label anyone as an "anti-Mormon" simply because that person disagreed with an LDS theological belief. This is glaringly obvious from the simple observation that the author of the book under review "disagrees with an LDS theological belief" and yet Tvedtnes clearly and unambiguously did not label him an anti-Mormon.

The anti-Mormons Tvedtnes referenced were those who had written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims. Their treatment of Baptism for the Dead serves only one agenda, namely to argue that "them Marmunz is wrong." They, unlike Hull, simply have no interest in it beyond that.

Does that help?

Regards,

Pahoran

[diglot]

But a moment's reflection ought to reveal that Tvedtnes did not label anyone as an "anti-Mormon" simply because that person disagreed with an LDS theological belief. This is glaringly obvious from the simple observation that the author of the book under review "disagrees with an LDS theological belief" and yet Tvedtnes clearly and unambiguously did not label him an anti-Mormon.

The anti-Mormons Tvedtnes referenced were those who had written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims. Their treatment of Baptism for the Dead serves only one agenda, namely to argue that "them Marmunz is wrong." They, unlike Hull, simply have no interest in it beyond that.

Does that help?

Regards,

Pahoran

As far as I can remember, Tvedtnes doesn't get specific by explicating the "anti-Mormons" are "those who had written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims". He just simply says that some anti-Mormons "argue that the ones performing vicarious baptism for the dead are heretics and hence not part of the body of Christians in Corinth", and that they "go so far as to say that Paul would not have approved of the practice [of baptism for the dead]."

Many (if not the vast majority) of the scholars I have read on this issue agree that Paul would not have approved of the practice. This conclusion is not, however, due to them being anti-Mormons or being opposed to LDS theology. It's just the result of looking at this verse in the larger context of Paul's baptismal theology and soteriology as seen in the wider Pauline corpus.

Edited November 30, 2011 by diglot

[Scott Lloyd]

Many (if not the vast majority) of the scholars I have read on this issue agree that Paul would not have approved of the practice. This conclusion is not, however, due to them being anti-Mormons or being opposed to LDS theology. It's just the result of looking at this verse in the larger context of Paul's baptismal theology and soteriology as seen in the wider Pauline corpus.

As diglot does not identify the "scholars" he has "read on this issue," one is left to wonder whether there is some confirmation bias at work here. If an author is, say, a Protestant who rejects the doctrine of baptism for the dead in the first place, is there any wonder that said author would interpret Paul's writings to conform to his own preconceived beliefs?

Edited November 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[LeSellers]

As diglot does not identify the "scholars" he has "read on this issue," one is left to wonder whether there is some confirmation bias at work here. If an author is, say, a Protestant who rejects the doctrine of baptism for the dead in the first place, is there any wonder that said author would interpret Paul's writings to conform to his own preconceived beliefs?

One of the problems with a doctrine like baptism for the dead is that the only people who accept it are Saints. Naturally, those who do not accept it would have a very difficult time seeing Paul as being logical when he points to the practice as being a support for his argument about the resurrection.

They must dismiss it because to see it as we do would be to put their entire theology on the line, a position they cannot take.

Lehi

Edited November 30, 2011 by LeSellers

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough, but words are regularly understood in popular culture in a more nuanced way than that of a definition found in a dictionary.

Then it gets us right back to the prior question: If someone is stridently opposed to Mormonism, what standing does he have to object to a term which identifies him as being stridently opposed to Mormonism? Is he trying to delude people into thinking he is not a strident opponent of it, even as he stridently opposes it?

[Scott Lloyd]

One of the problems with a doctrine like baptism for the dead is that the only people who accept it are Saints. Naturally, those who do not accept it would have a very difficult time seeing Paul as being logical when he points to the practice as being a support for his argument about the resurrection.

They must dismiss it because to see it as we do would be to put their entire theology on the line, a position they cannot take.

Precisely. I am, therefore, far from impressed when diglot marshals an army of "scholars" who claim to know from Paul's writings that he was disputing the validity of baptism for the dead.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[diglot]

Yea, silly me. All the literature I've read on this issue was just simply arriving at conclusions due to the fact that the authors are not part of the LDS Church. It wasn't because they did any sort of historical examination on this issue. Nor was it because they examined Paul's baptismal and soteriological theology to see what interpretations are more congruent with Paul's thought. It was simply because they're pesky Protestants with an agenda, who somehow managed to get all their studies through a rigorous peer-reviewing process without their obvious bias being found out.

Edited November 30, 2011 by diglot

[Scott Lloyd]

Yea, silly me. All the literature I've read on this issue was just simply arriving at conclusions due to the fact that the authors are not part of the LDS Church. It wasn't because they did any sort of historical examination on this issue. Nor was it because they examined Paul's baptismal and soteriological theology to see what interpretations are more congruent with Paul's thought. It was simply because they're pesky Protestants with an agenda, who somehow managed to get all their studies through a rigorous peer-reviewing process without their obvious bias being found out.

What we have here is the appeal-to-unnamed-authority fallacy — with a dash of the appeal to popularity fallacy added for flavoring.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Scott Lloyd