doubleofive said:
I was trying to leave this thread alone, but I had to comment on this. That's the verse that's used to justify the baptism of the dead? Paul was writing to the Corinthians because some of them denied the Resurrection, but still were baptized in the name of Jesus. Paul was saying that who gets baptized in the name of a dead person if everyone is just going to stay dead? He was trying to convince them that they needed to accept the Resurrection to make their faith real. Even the context of the chapter on your site says as much.darth_ender said:
To put it simply (and to partially answer a concern raised by 005), we believe that we have the fullness of truth, insofar as God has revealed to man, as well as proper authority to baptize. Remember, we believe we are a restoration of Christ's church. As such, we believe that many have missed the opportunity to receive the gospel. We make this available through baptism for the dead, as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:29
I don't want to fight or alienate my friends here, I just had to weigh in. I'm done here.
I assure you, if your comments are respectfully disagreeing, I feel no alienation. There is only one person who has commented in this thread that has offended me at all (though nothing too bad), and it's certainly not you. No alienation, and I respect your reasons for disagreeing. This is actually the sort of thing I'd hoped for when starting this thread. I don't expect to convince you to change your mind about the intent of that verse, but I hope I can explain why we disagree.
First, to actually support your view: the argument is that Paul was referring to "they" in 29 instead of "we," as shown in the next verse. He doesn't even say "you." That said, it does not seem logical to me that Paul, quick to condemn practices of which he did not approve, said nothing the dissuade any such practice, but rather spoke of it in such a casual manner. But it seems strange to me that there would be such an upset at the thought of performing an act on behalf of those who are dead. The atonement of Christ was an act performed on behalf of those who were living, would live, and those who had already died. With both baptisms and the atonement, though an act of salvation may have been performed for someone else, the person must still accept what has been done (in other words, for you Frink, even a baptism of a Holocaust victim does not guarantee in our minds that that person will accept the baptism).
See http://en.fairmormon.org/Baptism_for_the_dead for some more information, including references to historical precedent. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead#1_Corinthians_15:29
for discussion on alternative interpretations.
Doubleohfive, I'm sure you have more objections to what I believe than just this. If you want to address it, I welcome it. You have never been anything but respectful in every post I've ever read, and I believe we can discuss this without any hard feelings :)