Baptisms for the Dead

[Moksha]

I just read a column by Robert Kirby and thought it would be interesting to get some input on it from others.

We don't actually dig them up. That's against the law. Also, it's messy. Instead, the baptisms are performed by proxy in our temples. The goal is to baptize everyone who ever lived.

Toward that end, the LDS Church collects all manner of historical records. Anything that proves someone was once alive is enough to get him or her dunked.

It's a lot of work. Also, there's no way we can possibly know every single person who ever lived. Those we can't find records for will get caught up with the Lord somehow.

We've baptized kings, popes, despots, peasants, natives, plague victims, pirates, lunatics and Elvis. I'm pretty sure we haven't baptized any Neanderthals, but we'll get around to it eventually.

When the Jews found out we were baptizing Jewish victims of the Holocaust, they considered it insulting and demanded that we stop. The church said we would, but apparently we didn't. They got madder and we quit again.

Now the Roman Catholic Church has decided to stop supplying the LDS Church with parish records. No more trying to make Catholics into Mormons, even if it's just pretend.

I can see their point. It's a bit rude to go around baptizing other people's ancestors and expect them not to get upset about it. Even if they don't believe what we're doing has any real religious value, it's the idea.

Mormons wouldn't like it, either. If a group of cannibals decided to stop eating people for real and simply eat their souls instead, I doubt the LDS Church would gladly supply them with our membership records.

Kirby: We'll even get all those Neanderthals baptized - Salt Lake Tribune

[Hemidakota]

First problem with any pre-Adamites, is resurrection principle. LOL For LDS member, if we believe in such, then there is a problem with pre-humans and this principle. If by chance, I mean by chance, there were any people prior to Adam then we need at least a full skeleton to prove there was in order to help them. At this point, there isn't any so we can stop worrying in doing any temple work. I can't understand why LDS members do not understand this simple princple.

Next, only the Celestial Kingdom requires any work to be done. The lower kingdoms do not. So, that leads us down a path of why? Why do we continue the work for those who are murders? Perhaps, we care for them and also it is a commandment to save the dead - no matter of what transpired in mortality.

[jadams_4040]

Originally Posted by Moksha

I just read a column by Robert Kirby and thought it would be interesting to get some input on it from others.

Those whom we cannot find records on will be given the opportunity during the millenium.

[Ashes]

Wasn't it Paul who rejected baptizing the dead to the Corinthians? Perhaps not rejected, but he spoke on this issue with the pronoun "they" not "we"............

[Jenamarie]

1st Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Last time I checked my Scriptures, the dead do rise. (that's what the Ressurection is, after all, right? ) Therefore, they are baptized for the dead BECAUSE the dead will rise, and will have need of that ordinance.

I don't really think the pronounce "they" is a rejection, or seperation of Paul from "those" people.

[Xzain]

Originally Posted by Ashes

Wasn't it Paul who rejected baptizing the dead to the Corinthians? Perhaps not rejected, but he spoke on this issue with the pronoun "they" not "we"............

1 Corinthians 15:29-

29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Paul here is using the socratic method to make his listeners ponder on the reality of the ressurection and to put down some false doctrine that had arised. He is, I believe, using a sacred ritual as a proof of the verity of the doctrine of bodily ressurection.

That's what I get from the context and wording of the scripture. Although Paul does use 'they' instead of 'we', in this usage it does not mean Paul is refuting the doctrine of baptism for the dead. Indeed, the context of the chapter, which is about Christ's ressurection, strongly supports his usage of the doctrine in the manner I described above.

[Ashes]

Oh, I see.....thanks

[WANDERER]

If everyone will get a chance in the millenium...then....why?

(I realise it's a very important LDS belief...I'm just not sure I get this part of it).

[jms.mills]

Originally Posted by WANDERER

If everyone will get a chance in the millenium...then....why?

(I realise it's a very important LDS belief...I'm just not sure I get this part of it).

In my mind the reason we do baptisms for the dead now, rather than waiting for the millennium is similar to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), those who were supposed to be men of God simply ignored the man who was in need of help. It was a stranger who had no real obligation to help the injured man that stopped and helped.

If Latter-Day Saints simply let the work for the dead wait until the Millennium, we would be no different than the priest or the Levite who ignored a man in need. We have been charged with the sacred task of searching for our ancestors. Therefore, we must labor diligently to complete as much temple work as possible in this life, even if the work is for those who are not members of our immediate family lineage.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about accepting personal responsibility. We cannot simply "pass the buck" to the next generation. To wait is to be lazy and lukewarm about the teachings of the Gospel; Heavenly Father does not reward those who have a lukewarm attitude towards His commandments.

I hope that answers your question,

James

[WANDERER]

So the belief is that if you perform this ordinance then the person would benefit from it now..?