Baptisms for the Dead - now by Aaronic Priesthood

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

So...another question...(I aim to drive you people nuts)...Having been a good person and still LDS...but not active...would a special blessing from me been beneficial to my husband at all....or just a comfort somehow to me??

No idea. A gift from the spirit is tied to the spirit. So no one can answer that for you IMO.

I certainly don't think the spirit only works with active members. But neither do I think we can force the spirit to do what we want it to do. We have to listen to it and be able to discern it.

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

So...another question...(I aim to drive you people nuts)...Having been a good person and still LDS...but not active...would a special blessing from me been beneficial to my husband at all....or just a comfort somehow to me??

Blessings by faith have a lot of power.  Why wouldn't it have been beneficial?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Blessings by faith have a lot of power.  Why wouldn't it have been beneficial?

Darn...

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But this illustrates that when functioning under the priesthood keys of a prophet, temple president, and I presume any other key holder like stake President, bishop, quorum president, anyone under that person's stewardship can be assigned to carry out any priesthood practice. When we had a 70 organize our new stake a while back I asked if he had priesthood keys and he responded that he didn't personally but that they were temporarily assigned by the Q12 for the purpose of organizing the stake. I asked if he had hands laid on his head. He said the only authority he needed was the letter assigning him to do it.

So...I take all of this to mean that any person could perform any duty assigned by a priesthood key holder. This could be to witness a sealing or baptism, perform a sealing, baptism or other ordinance, give a blessing, set someone apart etc. etc. There really is no limitation to how a person can function under the priesthood keys simply because their own priesthood ordination may be lacking. If this can be done for Aaronic priesthood performing M. priesthood functions, why couldn't it also be true of women and YW?

 

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your stake pres has assigned you to call and set apart, bestowing priesthood keys which you do not possess, to a new Elder's Quorum President? That is definitely outside the norm of priesthood assignments and handbook requirements. The handbook is quite specific about who sets apart quorum leaders. For example, according to the handbook the bishop doesn't have the authority to assign one of his counselors to set apart a Deacon's quorum president and bestow keys on the president. Why? Because the counselor doesn't hold the keys. Same with the 70 calling and setting apart a new SP when he doesn't actually hold the keys. What would stop a bishop from delegating a counselor to convene a disciplinary council for a ward member? Is it simply outside of policy, or do the keys as a judge in Israel truly matter? If you knew that the policy specifically dictates the calling and setting apart of EQ Pres by the Stake Pres (not even one of his counselors) would you still accept the assignment to do it? If so, why? Are some kinds of assignments that are outside of policy ok to carry out while others are not? Is that left to you to decide if the breach of policy is reasonable and authorized, allowing you to call and bestow keys on an EQ Pres but not to call a woman to perform a priesthood duty? What if a SP assigned you to call and set apart a woman as a ward clerk, which is clearly outside of handbook regs? Would you do it? Or does gender make these exceptions to policy much worse than what you are already doing?

I interpret these kinds of delegations of authority to be either a. an inappropriate delegation, b. evidence that church leaders don't consider the setting apart and keys to be essential for a person to serve adequately in their calling, or c. evidence that the laying on of hands isn't as important as the 5th article of faith suggests in maintaining reified keys that are properly passed from one individual to another.

Gotcha.  Answer your own questions- you don't need my help to contradict yourself.

Edited December 19, 2017 by mfbukowski

[LittleNipper]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

Right. This is a proof-text (Bible bashing) used to argue that LDS doctrine about the spirit world and repenting is false doctrine (nothing can be done once you are dead). As has been pointed out, there are other Bible passages that contradict this (1 Peter 3 and 4). In a Bible bash, people will simply return to this passage from Ecclesiastes, plunking it like a piano with just that one key. 

This text (Ecclesiastics) reveals that once a person dies, he does not know what is happening back in the world of those yet living. I feel that it is silly to belabor the point. What isn't being answered is how being immersed for a dead person can have any affect on someone since they don't even know what is happening.

Edited December 19, 2017 by LittleNipper

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

This text (Ecclesiastics) reveals that once a person dies, he does not know what is happening back in the world of those yet living. I feel that it is silly to belabor the point. What isn't being answered is how being immersed for a dead person can have any affect on someone since they don't even know what is happening.

This text  (Ecclesiastes) is a poetic expression, and one stand alone verse that is used poorly as a prooftext cannot contradict the theological truths in other scripture.

[rongo]

34 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

This text (Ecclesiastics) reveals that once a person dies, he does not know what is happening back in the world of those yet living. I feel that it is silly to belabor the point. What isn't being answered is how being immersed for a dead person can have any affect on someone since they don't even know what is happening.

All of the scriptures, taken as a whole, show that this is not the correct interpretation. That is, your point is valid only if you insist on Ecclesiastes in isolation.

Peter answers your question: Jesus visited the spirits of those who had died and preached to them, so that they can repent and accept the gospel like the living. In other words, the dead can make choices and learn. They do "know what is happening."

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

------

1 Peter 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

[rongo]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your stake pres has assigned you to call and set apart, bestowing priesthood keys which you do not possess, to a new Elder's Quorum President? That is definitely outside the norm of priesthood assignments and handbook requirements.

That was my thought. I hope that mfbukowski misspoke. Only the stake president can set apart an elders quorum president. The handbook (and reason and prophetic explanation) are crystal clear on that. That is one of the things that cannot be delegated, like ordaining/setting apart a bishop. It has to be the stake president. 

I bet he misspoke, and was referring to other stake callings that can be delegated to high councilors. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Gotcha.  Answer your own questions- you don't need my help to contradict yourself.

Childish response.

Way to meld two different quotes together for one big misquote. In one instance I was sharing my opinion. In the other I was sharing the church position so I'm really not contradicting myself. I mention the church position because I assumed you would care about upholding the church position. Why won't you answer the question about why you would breach church policy in one instance but not in the other?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

That was my thought. I hope that mfbukowski misspoke. Only the stake president can set apart an elders quorum president. The handbook (and reason and prophetic explanation) are crystal clear on that. That is one of the things that cannot be delegated, like ordaining/setting apart a bishop. It has to be the stake president. 

I bet he misspoke, and was referring to other stake callings that can be delegated to high councilors. 

Maybe he misspoke, yet he didn't claim that excuse when he responded to my question. Instead he misquoted me by combining two very different quotes out of context. But I'm still willing to accept a statement from him that he was a. wrong b. misspoke or c. willing to ignore important policies in some instances but not others.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

That was my thought. I hope that mfbukowski misspoke. Only the stake president can set apart an elders quorum president. The handbook (and reason and prophetic explanation) are crystal clear on that. That is one of the things that cannot be delegated, like ordaining/setting apart a bishop. It has to be the stake president. 

I bet he misspoke, and was referring to other stake callings that can be delegated to high councilors. 

Yep I used that as an example for one of the many delegations that I have received but thinking about it I realized that that particular job was never delegated to me. Of you and Happy were correct.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Childish response.

Way to meld two different quotes together for one big misquote. In one instance I was sharing my opinion. In the other I was sharing the church position so I'm really not contradicting myself. I mention the church position because I assumed you would care about upholding the church position. Why won't you answer the question about why you would breach church policy in one instance but not in the other?

 

Sloppy writing.

You never made it clear which was which.

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sloppy writing.

You never made it clear which was which.

Read the previous comments to which I was referring at the time for context. Both comments you quoted from me were hours apart and the context of the discussion was different. Sloppy reading. Try again.

[mnn727]

On 12/14/2017 at 6:38 PM, Duncan said:

I wonder if women can be a recorder? you don't need the priesthood to tick off names. My bro said sometimes when you call clerk support you get a woman anyways, unless in Utah they name men "Gayle"

My Great Uncle was named Gayle. For much of his life he was an authentic hobo, riding the rails (boxcars) across America.

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Why would it matter if women were witnessing for baptism ( a priesthood ordinance) or a marriage/sealing (a priesthood ordinance). Is there a difference in witnessing one type of ordinance versus witnessing another? If anything I'd think an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance like baptism would have a lower threshold for witnessing, than a M. Priesthood ordinance like sealing.

I can only speculate but there's really not a fixed rite associated with marriage in the temple. With baptism it has to be done exactly in wording an immersion. The thought presumably is that witnesses aren't merely confirming that it happened but that it happened properly and thus have to have experience doing baptisms. That's not always followed but I believe is the theory behind it. But again I'm just surmising. So marriage is less of an issue since you really aren't ensuring the rite is done correctly. With baptism it's more akin to the Bishop ensuring the sacrament is done properly.

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

My Great Uncle was named Gayle. For much of his life he was an authentic hobo, riding the rails (boxcars) across America.

that's interesting! My mum had a cousin named Arthur, she said at school he got picked on and harrassed because of his name but he grew up to be in the RCMP and so now when he got picked on at least he could put them in handcuffs!

[LittleNipper]

On 12/19/2017 at 8:43 AM, JLHPROF said:

This text  (Ecclesiastes) is a poetic expression, and one stand alone verse that is used poorly as a prooftext cannot contradict the theological truths in other scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:29: “Otherwise, what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized on behalf of the dead?” So, exactly why isn't this an apostle's sarcastic dig against those who don't believe in life after death and yet participate in superstitious ritualism --- one oddball verse that is used poorly as a proof-text cannot contradict the theological reality in other scripture --- or does such only apply to non-Mormons?

Edited December 21, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

On 12/19/2017 at 9:02 AM, rongo said:

All of the scriptures, taken as a whole, show that this is not the correct interpretation. That is, your point is valid only if you insist on Ecclesiastes in isolation.

Peter answers your question: Jesus visited the spirits of those who had died and preached to them, so that they can repent and accept the gospel like the living. In other words, the dead can make choices and learn. They do "know what is happening."

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

------

1 Peter 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Just because a spirit is aware of its surroundings does in no way proves that the spirit would know what's happening back in land of the living. Jesus went to preach to and release those held in Abraham's bosom. That included the spirit of every deceased righteous man until Christ paid the penalty for all forms of sin. Hades also held the spirits of all dead individuals who ever died . Jesus testified /preached against those individuals. The Bible clearly testifies that Jesus talked to Satan on numerous occasions ---- it didn't help Satan!

Edited December 21, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

1 Corinthians 15:29: “Otherwise, what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized on behalf of the dead?” So, exactly why isn't this an apostle's sarcastic dig against those who don't believe in life after death and yet participate in superstitious ritualism --- one oddball verse that is used poorly as a proof-text cannot contradict the theological reality in other scripture --- or does such only apply to non-Mormons?

So the Apostle Paul spends the entire chapter solemnly attempting to summon all the evidence he can muster to prove to wavering members that there will be a literal ressurectiom of the physical body, but the best he can do to advocate for the doctrine of resurrection is to point to a counterfeit ordinance practiced by a group of unbelievers who don’t even believe in the resurrection of the body? Seems rather odd.

What provision for salvation, if any,  do you believe God has provided for those who go down to the grave without first coming unto Christ and receiving his salvation?

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the Apostle Paul spends the entire chapter solemnly attempting to summon all the evidence he can muster to prove to wavering members that there will be a literal ressurectiom of the physical body, but the best he can do to advocate for the doctrine of resurrection is to point to a counterfeit ordinance practiced by a group of unbelievers who don’t even believe in the resurrection of the body? Seems rather odd.

What provision for salvation, if any,  do you believe God has provided for those who go down to the grave without first coming unto Christ and receiving his salvation?

Not the only one, but obviously one of them... Where else it is mentioned in the Bible? For that matter, where is it mentioned in the book of Mormon?  

I firmly believe each individual has opportunities during his or her life provided by GOD Himself to seek the LORD for their salvation. I have faith in HIM. It is not for me or anyone else to get baptized for someone else ---- it would fly in the face of any  PERSONAL relationship with GOD --- but perhaps you believe that any relationship with the Lord must proceed through a prophet.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Not the only one, but obviously one of them... Where else it is mentioned in the Bible? For that matter, where is it mentioned in the book of Mormon?  

I firmly believe each individual has opportunities during his or her life provided by GOD Himself to seek the LORD for their salvation. I have faith in HIM. It is not for me or anyone else to get baptized for someone else ---- it would fly in the face of any  PERSONAL relationship with GOD --- but perhaps you believe that any relationship with the Lord must proceed through a prophet.

There are other related “salvation for the dead” scriptures in addition to Paul’s reference to baptism for the dead, such as Peter’s testimony that Christ preached the gospel to the one-time disobedient spirits who were in prison at the time of his death, and the gospel being preached to the dead so that as spirits they might be judged according to men in the flesh. For this reason, Latter-Day Saints don’t view Paul’s statement on baptism for the dead as something that stands alone.

So now that you acknowledge you believe God has made a provision for each and every human being who has ever lived to hear the gospel and accept Christ as their Savior, please answer the following question: How did God reveal the gospel to the billions of human beings who never even once heard of Christ during their lifetimes and never had the opportunity to hear a preacher preach the gospel of Christ? (Please be as detailed and specific as you can be in your answer so that I might clearly understand exactly how you understand God has extended the opportunity to learn of Christ and receive his salvation to such people.)

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I firmly believe each individual has opportunities during his or her life provided by GOD Himself to seek the LORD for their salvation. 

Nonsense - the list of mankind who through no fault of their own are born and die never even hearing the name of Christ is in the billions.
Either God is cruel issuing damnation to the innocent or God is just and loving to all his children.

Quote

I have faith in HIM. It is not for me or anyone else to get baptized for someone else ---- it would fly in the face of any  PERSONAL relationship with GOD --

Not at all.  Vicarious work is a keystone of the gospel.  Christ died for our sins.  Animal sacrifice for sin and as a sign of covenants before that.
Even in traditional Christianity our fallen nature is blamed on Adam's actions.  The evidence that the actions of one being can effect the salvation status of another being is all through the Bible.
Nor are Mormons the only Christian religion that practices Baptism for the Dead.

http://yorkshiretales.com/thesocietyforthepreventionofsalvationfortheunshrivendead/page_nonmormon_baptism_for_the_dead.html

8 million New Apostolic Christians also practice it.

Quote

- but perhaps you believe that any relationship with the Lord must proceed through a prophet.

No, our relationship does not go through the prophet but a legal administrator has always been a requirement for the gospel.
That's why even Christ went to John to be baptized.  John's authority was required.  That's why Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, David went to Nathan, and the early Christians followed Peter and Paul.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[kiwi57]

20 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

1 Corinthians 15:29: “Otherwise, what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized on behalf of the dead?” So, exactly why isn't this an apostle's sarcastic dig against those who don't believe in life after death and yet participate in superstitious ritualism --- one oddball verse that is used poorly as a proof-text cannot contradict the theological reality in other scripture --- or does such only apply to non-Mormons?

Bad example. That the earliest Christians performed proxy baptisms on behalf of the dead is no longer questioned by most serious scholars. And 1 Corinthians 15 is all about resurrection; Paul marshals argument after argument supporting it, and Baptism for the Dead is his clincher. To make it a dig against "superstitious ritualism" (one of the worst sins in the Protestant mind, but not in Paul's) would weaken his argument and detract from the main point.

The Ecclesiastes passage, by contrast, flatly contradicts the overwhelming testimony of Scripture.

Edited December 21, 2017 by kiwi57

[rongo]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

Bad example. That the earliest Christians performed proxy baptisms on behalf of the dead is no longer questioned by most serious scholars. And 1 Corinthians 15 is all about resurrection; Paul marshals argument after argument supporting it, and Baptism for the Dead is his clincher. To make it a dig against "superstitious ritualism" would weaken his argument and detract from the main point.

The Ecclesiastes passage, by contrast, flatly contradicts the overwhelming testimony of Scripture.

When people try to explain away 1 Cor. 15 vis a vis baptism for the dead, I have always asked who the "they" is that Paul refers to. As you note, this is his clincher. The subject is then quickly changed. 

I think "they" is the apostles. 

Those who say Paul is mocking the practice can't produce a shred of evidence for that, other than their wishful thinking. Where is there any indication of that? It is his clincher, as you say, for the reality of the resurrection (or at least the hope people have in it).

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

There are other related “salvation for the dead” scriptures in addition to Paul’s reference to baptism for the dead, such as Peter’s testimony that Christ preached the gospel to the one-time disobedient spirits who were in prison at the time of his death, and the gospel being preached to the dead so that as spirits they might be judged according to men in the flesh. For this reason, Latter-Day Saints don’t view Paul’s statement on baptism for the dead as something that stands alone.

So now that you acknowledge you believe God has made a provision for each and every human being who has ever lived to hear the gospel and accept Christ as their Savior, please answer the following question: How did God reveal the gospel to the billions of human beings who never even once heard of Christ during their lifetimes and never had the opportunity to hear a preacher preach the gospel of Christ? (Please be as detailed and specific as you can be in your answer so that I might clearly understand exactly how you understand God has extended the opportunity to learn of Christ and receive his salvation to such people.)

Man looks on the out ward appearance. The Lord looks upon the heart.