Baptisms for the Dead - now by Aaronic Priesthood

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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).

Paul is speaking of apostates. It is my guess that those who agree with this interpretation didn't wish to hurt your feelings. Paul who was always so particular and concise about what Christians should do, how they should behave, and what is expected ---- makes a flippant remark with regards to some apostates getting baptized for dead people and doesn't even mention anything about who was getting baptized for whom and in what way... It is obvious that Paul held no respect for the practice. And for Mormons it would seem the center of their belief structure, or they wouldn't be the kings of Ancestry investigations. 

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

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.

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.

 

Man looks on the outward appearances, but GOD looks upon the heart. Abram clearly never heard of Jesus the Messiah and yet he was counted righteous --- and he even lied concerning his wife to a Pharaoh. John was a legal authority? When in prison John sent a message asking if Jesus was indeed the Messiah! John was not ordained by anyone, he simply did what the Lord laid on his heart. It is man who tries to fabricate rules and regulations to enact control.

Edited December 22, 2017 by LittleNipper

[kiwi57]

56 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

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

True.

Also non-applicable.

[kiwi57]

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Paul is speaking of apostates.

Call for references, please.

Or did you just make that up?

Because it looks rather like a completely ad hoc assumption to me.

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

It is my guess that those who agree with this interpretation didn't wish to hurt your feelings.

Bad guess.

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Paul who was always so particular and concise about what Christians should do, how they should behave, and what is expected ---- makes a flippant remark

How do you know it was "flippant?"

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

with regards to some apostates

Which apostates?

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

getting baptized for dead people and doesn't even mention anything about who was getting baptized for whom and in what way... It is obvious that Paul held no respect for the practice.

No. It is not remotely obvious.

What is obvious to me is that this is one of those forced interpretations by which people who purport to believe some kind of "Sola Scriptura" doctrine actually throw the Bible under the bus in order to privilege their own assumptions.

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

And for Mormons it would seem the center of their belief structure, or they wouldn't be the kings of Ancestry investigations. 

Actually, 100% of all non-LDS people making a plausible effort to to discuss these matters in good faith with allow us to tell them what is the centre of our belief structure.

And, just FYI, it happens that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is at the centre of our belief structure.

You don't have to thank me. You're welcome.

Of course, being baptized on behalf of those who died without having had the opportunity to receive that ordinance (which Jesus, who was not a Protestant, said was essential to salvation) in person, is also an opportunity, in our own limited way, to emulate His example. For just as He did for us what we could not do for ourselves, do we can do for others what they cannot do for themselves.

I can't see how any genuine Christian could quarrel with that.

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

True.

Also non-applicable.

You accept ritualism that has no through biblical support and imagine what you ritually do now can effect the past choices of others. Salvation is between you and GOD alone. GOD has already sifted the hearts of the dead. 

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Call for references, please.

Or did you just make that up?

Because it looks rather like a completely ad hoc assumption to me.

Bad guess.

How do you know it was "flippant?"

Which apostates?

No. It is not remotely obvious.

What is obvious to me is that this is one of those forced interpretations by which people who purport to believe some kind of "Sola Scriptura" doctrine actually throw the Bible under the bus in order to privilege their own assumptions.

Actually, 100% of all non-LDS people making a plausible effort to to discuss these matters in good faith with allow us to tell them what is the centre of our belief structure.

And, just FYI, it happens that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is at the centre of our belief structure.

You don't have to thank me. You're welcome.

Of course, being baptized on behalf of those who died without having had the opportunity to receive that ordinance (which Jesus, who was not a Protestant, said was essential to salvation) in person, is also an opportunity, in our own limited way, to emulate His example. For just as He did for us what we could not do for ourselves, do we can do for others what they cannot do for themselves.

I can't see how any genuine Christian could quarrel with that.

You and they ---- "you" refers to those in the Church. "They" refers to those outside the Church. Obviously, the only ones forcing an interpretation are "they" who actually believe "they" have power to transpose anyone through their acts of ritualism.  It is always a personal evaluation between GOD and an individual.

I find that controlling Mormons simply shut down and turn off any real dialogue that isn't moving in their favor through exclusion. I think the Mormon term applied is "Banned". 

Biblically, the Aaronic Priesthood refers ONLY to Jews related by linage to Aaron (Cohen). Jesus is now the Chief Priest. The Holy of Holies was removed when Jesus gave up His life upon the cross. Mormonism seems more about reestablishing an exclusive priesthood rather than spreading the Gospel message to those alive NOW.

Where is your own proof that "they" refers to an acceptable group in this matter?

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by LittleNipper

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You accept ritualism that has no through biblical support and imagine what you ritually do now can effect the past choices of others. Salvation is between you and GOD alone. GOD has already sifted the hearts of the dead. 

 Not at all.

Christ specifically says in Mark that baptism is required for salvation.

Catholics and others claim that's just too bad for anyone who doesn't get the opportunity.
Some claim that Mark is wrong and baptism isn't even necessary so ignore the command of Christ.
Mormons and others recognize both that baptism is necessary and that God loves and provides the opportunity to be saved for all his children.

The alternative is a cruel unjust God not worthy of worship and in violation of his own Biblical words of love.

• I Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
  4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Edited December 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Bobbieaware]

17 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

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

A nice glib answer that contradicts the plain word of the Bible,

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and HOW SHALL THEY HEAR WITHOUT A PREACHER?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! (Romans 10)

In LDS soteriology, the above perfectly compassionate and hope-inspiring declaration of the Apostle Paul will literally be fulfilled. For we believe by the time of the final judgement there won’t be a single human being who will be able to protest and say God never sent an authorized minister of Christ to them, who could have patiently and lovingly preached to them the gospel, so that they might have had a real and fair chance to hear, understand,  believe, repent and receive the salvation of Christ.

What, if anything, do you think inferior or find wanting in the idea that every human being who ever lived will have the opportunity to hear and thoroughly understand the gospel of Christ so that they might be able to make a fully-informed decision to either accept or reject Christ and his salvation?

Edited December 22, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You and they ---- "you" refers to those in the Church. "They" refers to those outside the Church. Obviously, the only ones forcing an interpretation are "they" who actually believe "they" have power to transpose anyone through their acts of ritualism.  It is always a personal evaluation between GOD and an individual.

And one of the requirements that GOD has decreed is baptism. Or do you deny the plain testimony of Scripture on that point too?

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I find that controlling Mormons simply shut down and turn off any real dialogue that isn't moving in their favor through exclusion. I think the Mormon term applied is "Banned".

You think wrongly. I've been banned from here twice, and that was while arguing 100% in favour of the Church's position. Your assumption borders on being delusional.

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Biblically, the Aaronic Priesthood refers ONLY to Jews related by linage to Aaron (Cohen).

Then, of course, there was King David, who  wore priestly insignia, ministered before the altar and ate the shewbread, and had no Levite descent. But let's not worry about him, shall we?

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Jesus is now the Chief Priest. The Holy of Holies was removed when Jesus gave up His life upon the cross. Mormonism seems more about reestablishing an exclusive priesthood rather than spreading the Gospel message to those alive NOW.

So "exclusive" that there are ordained Priesthood holders in every LDS family.

Silly slogans are not a useful substitute for thought, LN.

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Where is your own proof that "they" refers to an acceptable group in this matter?

Thank you for asking, LN. The fact is that there is no "they" in that passage. Here is the Greek text:

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

Reading from the fourth word, you get Paul's formulation as follows:

οἱ  βαπτιζόμενοι  ὑπὲρ  τῶν  νεκρῶν Hoi baptizomenoi huper ton nekron.

A literal translation of this is: "The being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead-ones."

That "they" upon which you rest the entire weight of your argument is there only in order to make a coherent English sentence. IOW, it is solely an artifact of the English translation, and reflects no thought of Paul's. If you have assumed that Paul saying "they" is like an American saying "those people," then your assumption was wrong.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Imagine what you ritually do now can effect the past choices of others.

No, it simply gives them another chance to choose where they didn't have it before.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 12/19/2017 at 10:13 AM, clarkgoble said:

I can only speculate but there's really not a fixed rite associated with marriage in the temple. 

Huh? 

I must have missed something.

[mfbukowski]

Quote

"The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them."

Pretty odd that the apostate Council of Hippo condemned a practice that was never being done

https://books.google.com/books?id=ETIqAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq="The+Eucharist+shall+not+be+given+to+dead+bodies,+nor+baptism+conferred+upon+them."&source=bl&ots=iMqKtTQv1q&sig=n46vjk3tUG5-7Dallleunq2xcFo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy7ZvAl5_YAhXpyVQKHf8iA_gQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q="The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies%2C nor baptism conferred upon them."&f=false

 

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pretty odd that the apostate Council of Hippo condemned a practice that was never being done

https://books.google.com/books?id=ETIqAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq="The+Eucharist+shall+not+be+given+to+dead+bodies,+nor+baptism+conferred+upon+them."&source=bl&ots=iMqKtTQv1q&sig=n46vjk3tUG5-7Dallleunq2xcFo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy7ZvAl5_YAhXpyVQKHf8iA_gQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q="The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies%2C nor baptism conferred upon them."&f=false

 

It's amazing how many supposedly Mormon invented doctrine and practices actually are referenced by the ante-Nicene fathers.

Just today I was reading FairMormon's page full of references to the 3 heavens/degrees.  There are non-Mormon sites that have references to baptism for the dead in the same time period.  It's clear that the traditional Christian advocates of today pick and choose just as the Councils that selected the Canon did.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's amazing how many supposedly Mormon invented doctrine and practices actually are referenced by the ante-Nicene fathers.

Just today I was reading FairMormon's page full of references to the 3 heavens/degrees.  There are non-Mormon sites that have references to baptism for the dead in the same time period.  It's clear that the traditional Christian advocates of today pick and choose just as the Councils that selected the Canon did.

People never change!

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh? 

I must have missed something.

Maybe I'm misrecalling. I thought there was a general form and certain things one does, but that the exact wording wasn't fixed the way baptism and the sacrament were. That is authority is stated, the order is stated, but that the overall words were fluid. If I'm misrecalling then I'll correct myself.

Edited December 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Maybe I'm misrecalling. I thought there was a general form and certain things one does, but that the exact wording wasn't fixed the way baptism and the sacrament were. That is authority is stated, the order is stated, but that the overall words were fluid. If I'm misrecalling then I'll correct myself.

I think that might have been true pre-endowment restoration but the restored marriage ceremony basically matches the first one God performed for Adam and Eve.  Pretty sure that implies a fixed temple ceremony.  (1830-1842 notwithstanding).

[LittleNipper]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 Not at all.

Christ specifically says in Mark that baptism is required for salvation.

Catholics and others claim that's just too bad for anyone who doesn't get the opportunity.
Some claim that Mark is wrong and baptism isn't even necessary so ignore the command of Christ.
Mormons and others recognize both that baptism is necessary and that God loves and provides the opportunity to be saved for all his children.

The alternative is a cruel unjust God not worthy of worship and in violation of his own Biblical words of love.

• I Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
  4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The only baptism that matters is the baptism by the indwelling of Holy Spirit. This is the only baptism that GOD HIMSELF imparts. Water immersion is only an illustration. All the baths in the world isn't going to bestow the Holy Spirit on a dead person.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The only baptism that matters is the baptism by the indwelling of Holy Spirit. This is the only baptism that GOD HIMSELF imparts. Water immersion is only an illustration. All the baths in the world isn't going to bestow the Holy Spirit on a dead person.

Funny how Christ himself specifically disagrees with you both in command and example.

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And one of the requirements that GOD has decreed is baptism. Or do you deny the plain testimony of Scripture on that point too?

You think wrongly. I've been banned from here twice, and that was while arguing 100% in favour of the Church's position. Your assumption borders on being delusional.

Then, of course, there was King David, who  wore priestly insignia, ministered before the altar and ate the shewbread, and had no Levite descent. But let's not worry about him, shall we?

So "exclusive" that there are ordained Priesthood holders in every LDS family.

Silly slogans are not a useful substitute for thought, LN.

Thank you for asking, LN. The fact is that there is no "they" in that passage. Here is the Greek text:

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

Reading from the fourth word, you get Paul's formulation as follows:

οἱ  βαπτιζόμενοι  ὑπὲρ  τῶν  νεκρῶν Hoi baptizomenoi huper ton nekron.

A literal translation of this is: "The being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead-ones."

That "they" upon which you rest the entire weight of your argument is there only in order to make a coherent English sentence. IOW, it is solely an artifact of the English translation, and reflects no thought of Paul's. If you have assumed that Paul saying "they" is like an American saying "those people," then your assumption was wrong.

The Orthodox Jewish Bible reads like this:

²⁹ Otherwise, what will they do, the ones being given tevilah on behalf of the dead? If the Mesim really are not raised, why indeed are they given tevilah on behalf of the Mesim?

³⁰ Why also are we putting ourselves at risk and in danger every hour?

So, I'm not saying that there were not some peculiar sects practicing  baptism of the dead, but it would seem that those so engaged were also questioning life after death and were not regarded as part of the audience that Paul is writing to.

I'm very sorry; however, I can in no way condone Gnostic nor mystical ritualism. It supposes that we can control the destiny of the departed and we can not. We are given many chances throughout our lifetime ---- it is not about 2nd chances. People that reject the Lord are outcasts. If one never rejected the Lord ---- GOD sees that heart and deals with it according to HIS own legal inclination.

Edited December 23, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Funny how Christ himself specifically disagrees with you both in command and example.

Where exactly? Funnier how you see yourself playing GOD. Does the Bible dictate that you must get dunked per person, or does Mormon doctrine suppose that any number of departed individuals can be so baptized with one dunk. It would be so much faster that way (one dunk = twenty ancestors). I'd love to see the books, chapters, and verses involved. I know that Joseph Smith couldn't have designed the whole ritual himself --- prophets don't do such things --- GOD enlightens them ------------------- is that not true...

Edited December 23, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Jane_Doe]

33 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Where exactly? Funnier how you see yourself playing GOD. 

That's a false and flaming statement.  Come on LittleNipper, you're a Christian and hence should be better then that.

33 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Does the Bible dictate that you must get dunked per person

Baptism, Essential 

• Suffer it to be so now … to fulfil all righteousness, Matt. 3:15.

• teach all nations, baptizing them, Matt. 28:19.

• Jesus came … and was baptized of John, Mark 1:9.

• He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mark 16:16 (Ether 4:18; D&C 112:28–29).

• Jesus also being baptized, Luke 3:21.

• rejected the counsel of God … being not baptized, Luke 7:30.

• Except a man be born of water … he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3:5.

• Repent, and be baptized every one of you, Acts 2:38.

• commanded them to be baptized, Acts 10:48.

• be baptized, and wash away thy sins, Acts 22:16.

• One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4:5.

• saved us, by the washing of regeneration, Titus 3:5.

• baptism doth also now save us, 1 Pet. 3:21.

 

Clearly scripture says baptism is necessary, and this is believed by vast majority of Christendom (of which LDS is just a time sliver).

33 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

 I'd love to see the books, chapters, and verses involved. 

A bunch of examples listed above.

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

 This is the only baptism that GOD HIMSELF imparts. 

That's not in the Bible.

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

All the baths in the world isn't going to bestow the Holy Spirit on a dead person.

Dude: LDS don't believe any bath bestows the Holy Spirit.  Your argument here is completely nonsensical. 

16 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Mormonism seems more about reestablishing an exclusive priesthood rather than spreading the Gospel message to those alive NOW.

Another completely false statement.  Are you interested in getting your facts straight?  Or would you rather just tell us how wrong we are for believing XYZ, which Mormons don't actually believe in the first place?

Edited December 23, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[kiwi57]

18 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The Orthodox Jewish Bible reads like this:

The what? Paul's epistles are not part of any Orthodox Jewish scripture I'm aware of.

Quote

²⁹ Otherwise, what will they do, the ones being given tevilah on behalf of the dead? If the Mesim really are not raised, why indeed are they given tevilah on behalf of the Mesim?

³⁰ Why also are we putting ourselves at risk and in danger every hour?

And yet again, either you just don't get it, or you are evading the point. You can highlight that "they," but it is still not in the Greek text. It's in an English translation (peppered with Hebrew words) because the translators needed it to make the sentence work.

Quote

So, I'm not saying that there were not some peculiar sects practicing  baptism of the dead, but it would seem that those so engaged were also questioning life after death and were not regarded as part of the audience that Paul is writing to.

But LN: if you'd actually ever read 1 Corinthians, especially Chapter 15, you'd realise that questioning the Resurrection was characteristic of "the audience that Paul is writing to." That's why he spends all that time and paper bandwidth trying to pound the lesson into their skulls.

And Baptism for the Dead was an orthodox Christian practice at the time, which is the only reason it works as an argument for the Resurrection.

Quote

I'm very sorry; however, I can in no way condone Gnostic nor mystical ritualism. It supposes that we can control the destiny of the departed and we can not. We are given many chances throughout our lifetime ---- it is not about 2nd chances. People that reject the Lord are outcasts. If one never rejected the Lord ---- GOD sees that heart and deals with it according to HIS own legal inclination.

How very santimonious of you. You don't need to apologise for your own inability to grasp the Lord's eternal plan; it's your loss not ours. And we don't need you to "condone" our acceptance of His mercy to us and our dead.

But your obsession with it looks rather a lot like envy. And not "holy envy."

Edited December 23, 2017 by kiwi57

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Maybe I'm misrecalling. I thought there was a general form and certain things one does, but that the exact wording wasn't fixed the way baptism and the sacrament were. That is authority is stated, the order is stated, but that the overall words were fluid. If I'm misrecalling then I'll correct myself.

No it's definitely fixed and memorized- take it from a temple worker.    It's as fixed as the initiatories and endowment.  Often the sealer gives a talk to people attending, first, but then the actual sealing is is definitely fixed.  

[mfbukowski]

On 12/22/2017 at 5:16 AM, LittleNipper said:

You accept ritualism that has no through biblical support and imagine what you ritually do now can effect the past choices of others. Salvation is between you and GOD alone. GOD has already sifted the hearts of the dead. 

You never seem to understand that what is in the bible has been reformed by other scriptures.   Of course none of this is biblical and saying it is not is just like telling us that Relativity is not written by Newton and therefore cannot be "true".   

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No it's definitely fixed and memorized- take it from a temple worker.    It's as fixed as the initiatories and endowment.  Often the sealer gives a talk to people attending, first, but then the actual sealing is is definitely fixed.  

My bad then. Ignore what I wrote earlier.