Hi, GodSeeker.
This will be the last of my four posts in this debate. I would just like to begin thanking you for the respectful and tolerant way in which you responded to my arguments. This experience was typical of what I have come to expect when debating Roman Catholics. Members of your Church are (a) strong in your convictions that your Church is Gods true Church on the earth today, (b) knowledgeable about what the scriptures say and what the doctrines of your Church are and (c) able to disagree with the LDS position without being demeaning or insulting.
Since this is my final post, I am going to try not to raise any really new issues, but to summarize my position.
In more than one commentary that I read on the verse when I was re-familiarizing myself with it, said that this particular phrase had an extremely wide variety of interpretations. The point being, that it is simply not possible contextually for you to emphatically declare that this verse says what Mormons would like to make it mean.
I realize that most of the commentaries you would likely have read would take this point of view. It is precisely because there is so little evidence for this practice that it becomes problematic. For most churches (both Catholic and Protestant), the question is not, Can we believe what Paul said was taking place really was taking place? but is rather What did Paul mean by his reference to this practice? Since there is so little to go on, most simply conclude that the doctrine must not be legitimate.
You must understand, however, that we Latter-day Saints do not base our doctrine on this passage. We base our doctrine on revelation. The revelation clarifies the verse. We didnt simply emphatically declare that this passage means what [we] would like to make it mean; on the contrary, we emphatically declare that it means what God told a living prophet it means.
Just so that you will be aware, however, there are a few pretty prominent individuals outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who do not simply dismiss baptism for the dead as an anomalous practice that has no foundation except in heresy. One such individual is Krister Stendahl,
Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm and the former dean of Harvard Divinity School. When the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being written, one of its editors, Truman Madsen, approached Stendahl (a long-time acquaintance) and asked him to write an article on baptism for the dead in ancient Christianity. Stendahl refused. Madsen persisted, saying, "We'd really like to have you involved. Would it be possible, could I maybe write an article on the subject, just a brief little thing, and send it to you and you just make any changes you want to and you can put your name on it?" Stendahl relented and agreed to read Madsens article.
Madsen, however, was unprepared for what happened next. After reading Madsens article, Stendahl immediately responded, This is a terrible article; it's not nearly strong enough; your case is much better than you are letting on; don't be so reticent." He ended up writing the article himself. It now appears in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Essentially he admitted, that the consensus of all informed biblical exegetes is that early Christians did practice baptism for the dead and it was a rite essentially as the Mormons describe it." Paul meant what the text appears to be saying and there really arent as many other interpretations as most people insist on extrapolating.
Stendahl is not the only non-LDS scholar to agree that this text (1 Corinthians 15:29) should be interpreted in as straightforward a way as the Latter-day Saints do. According to the conservative Protestant work, The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Gordon Fee, "The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptized, apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.
As I indicated, the distinction between what unbelievers (and sometimes baby or heretical Christians) and mature believers do and believe is made all the time in the New Testament.
You are aware, then, that contrary to what many Protestants claim, Jesus did, in fact, teach certain things to a select group of mature Christians, those individuals who were spiritually ready to be able to understand doctrines that never were intended for the masses.
In John 16:12, we read of Christs telling His Apostles that He had many more things to teach them that they would not at that time be ready to bear. Since this statement was made shortly before the Crucifixion, and since He had previously stated that everything He had taught openly to the world, it is entirely logical to assume that these teachings included those He imparted to them during His 40-day ministry after his resurrection. Granted, we have little to go on (which is to be expected if these things were to be taught only to a relative few), but in Acts 1:1-3 we are told that during this period of time, He did speak to His Apostles of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." This part of His ministry was not taught openly to the world and His words were not recorded. But even according to Catholic tradition, it is quite commonly understood that this 40-day ministry consisted primarily of His teaching those doctrines believed to be esoteric in nature.
According to Eusebius, Clement claimed that these were given (after the Resurrection) to Peter, James and John who shared them first with the rest of the Apostles and then with the Seventy. Interestingly, some knowledge of these esoteric teachings persisted into the third and fourth centuries and were even spoken of by Athanasius, who said, We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended. (
Defense Against the Arians 1:11)
The Latter-day Saints practice of baptism for the dead falls into the category of an esoteric ordinance. According to J.G. Davies, even baptism and the Eucharist were forbidden to outsiders. He points out that prior to the third century, a number of Christian writers refer to these ordinances (or sacraments) as disciplina arcani (secret discipline) and specifically note that it is because of their sacred nature, they could not be fully described. If baptism was considered an esoteric ordinance, it is certainly understandable that baptism for the dead would be. We believe that this would explain the scarcity of references to this practice in early Christian documents.
I would like very much to thank you for your willingness to debate this topic with me and for the courteous, respectful way in which you have responded to my posts. I realize that we will never see eye-to-eye on this doctrine, and that certain questions will remain unanswered as we conclude our discussion. It has, however, given me the opportunity to do some research I probably would not have undertaken otherwise. I will be watching for your final post and will look forward to other debates with you in the future.
God bless,
Squirt