reads:
“Otherwise what will they do, those who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?”
Now, this verse has caused a lot of controversy, and a few groups have gone so far as to, on the basis of it, institute practices in which living people are baptized on behalf of the dead.
But with a verse like this, where the strange phrase which simply mentions ‘baptism of the dead’ without elaboration, it seems a bit rash to start a whole new practice based on it. Perhaps a more likely explanation is what the NET Bible notes suggest:
That would make sense. And so, if the NET translators are right, the point of the passage is the reality of the resurrection, and whether the early Corinthians did or did not practice some sort of baptism for the dead at some point is a question of historical and not doctrinal significance, as nowhere in the Bible do we any encounter any hint of a recommendation for any sort of baptism for the dead.
54 Comments
This is not such a unique practice as one might think. The LDS Church practices this rite today. It was practiced in the first century by the mainstream Christians but discontinued in fifth century as an outgrowth of changes in religious philosophy originating in the Alexandrian religious schools. For example, Clement of Alexandria, an early Church father, noted the need to provide for those who lived and died without such saving ordinances when he said
“It is not right to condemn some without trial, and only give credit for righteousness to others who lived after the coming of the Lord.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, 6, in PG 9:272.
In The Pastor of Hermas, an ancient non- canonized Christian work, (Codex Vaticanus 3848.) one of the most trustworthy guides to the established beliefs of the early church, says the dead were preached to and baptized by proxy.
“…these Apostles, and the teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in [the] power and faith of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead; and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again. But although they went down while they were alive and came up alive, those who had fallen asleep before them (prokekoimemenoi) went down dead, but came out again living; for it was through these that they were made alive, and learned the name of the Son of God.”
There are many others. An interesting paper written in 1948 about the this subject can be found at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=67.
Fascinating. And I’m reminded again why I like biblioblogging–because it’s an absolutely fantastic way to engage the conversations going on in the world and to get information from people who might have more experience with the Bible than a 19-year-old like myself.
Thanks for taking the time to share, JL. I’ll go take a look at the paper and think through what it says. Fair warning, though–I don’t but much stock in LSD opinions, although I welcome any historical data coming out of BYU.
Peace,
Mitchell.
Actually, Hermes is not all that great of a book, but disjointed, often times adoptionistic, and quite frankly, doesn’t align with Scripture.
If could be that Tertullian, who is preferable to Hermes in any day, was right in that it represented for Paul the resurrection of the body. Hence, the baptism of the dead body signifies that the believer foresaw a bodily resurrection. If we stop isolated Scripture, we will examine then 1st Co. 15.42-44 which differentiates the perishable body and the imperishable body.
I’m not impressed with Hermes, nor, upon reading it, am I impressed with the essay which JLFuller has shared. It looks as rigorously logical as any publication can be when it has already decided before the outset what theological conclusion are to be reached, and what the historical record will say.
The theme 0f my post is not to convince but make available some additional sources and possible interpretations. Anyone who out-of-hand rejects a recognized researcher is leaving too much on the table. We don’t have to agree with anyone but we should see if their work takes us anywhere. In this case, Nibley may be the greatest researching mind of the twentieth century.
JL,
Nibley is generally seen as extremely impressive in Mormon circles, but outside I doubt the “greatest researching mind of the twentieth century” bit would recieve anything like a warm welcome in historical researchers. I believe that Nibley was one who knew a good many languages and even an extremely intelligent–that much shines forth in his works. But his method strikes me as, to quote fellow Mormon scholar Douglas Salmon, “Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor.”
I also have to take issue with your statement that it is always wrong to reject a recognized researcher quickly. When someone wants to argue, on the basis of rather cloudy passages, that certain theological beliefs which he is heavily invested in must be true, and those theological beliefs are ones I find to be completely at odds with my approach, I am not simply going to follow that person wherever he takes me–because he writes with the intention of taking me places I have no intention of ever going.
And I don’t think there’s any need to pretend we don’t post what we post with the ultimate aim of convincing or influencing people. I write to influence people toward conclusions, as do you. Even when we are doing nothing but pointing people towards “possibilities,” which possibilities we choose are carefully chosen with the aim of helping people grow in their understanding–which, inevitably involves them either embracing or learning appreciation for some core belief which we hold. We both do this.
Mitchell
I tend to disagree with your conclusion about trying to influence others. I seek first
to understand so that I can grow personally. I share what I believe is substantial and worthwhile in the hope that others will add what the have learned. I do not automatically exclude anyone’s understanding except those who were taught what to think not how to think. If your are solely interested doing missionary work then you have little to offer me. I have my own firmly held beliefs. Outside of that lies an area where no one I know explores often enough. That is, what the ancient record tells us about first century Christianity. Hugh Nibley offers a hint of something new every time I read him. Few others can do that. But I am interested to hear what other have to say. Just don’t bore me with religious drum beating and berating of other you disagree with. Your argument doesn’t have the horsepower and I have heard it all before. You can be a Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian and we will all get along fine as long as we stick to the notion that there is stuff out there worth exploring. For example, where did the Pistis Sophia Gnostics come up with their ideas that there is secret knowledge Christ reserved just for a few? I tend to think that corrupt ideas originate from a legitimate idea that has been perverted. But I don’t know. Maybe they all sat down one afternoon and made it all up out of whole cloth. I don’t think they did because there is some evidence to the contrary. But it is not conclusive to my understanding anyway. That is what I want to explore – that and other things. I have zero interest in anyone’s opinions about someone else’s religious beliefs especially if it is demeaning and derogatory.
The value of searching for legitimate scholarly works is because I do not have the time or training to do the work myself. What I have found all too often is what you said you observed in reading Nibley – someone with a point to prove. I acknowledge that in Nibley but even so he provides enough documentation that I can read the source material and decide for myself. I think we find that in Catholic writers and Jewish writers too. In fact, people engage in religious study because they are interested and have a particular bent. It does not disqualify them from having something to offer though. Where they get stuck is when they can’t get past their prejudices. If they ignore or purposely disregard some sources or information because it does not conform to their prejudices then I think they stop being valuable. I can wade through religious dogma all day long if, in the end, I can discover a new source or a unique point of view. I find nothing unique in the writings of most traditional Christian writers today. They are promoting a particular point of view with the aim of proving someone else wrong while holding themselves up as purveyors of the truth. Let them preach as they will. Just don’t refer me to them as legitimate sources because they are not. At least Nibley provides footnotes and refers to other non-Mormons for his conclusions. I can think for myself. Bible school preachers do not allow for that.
Mitchell
Did you watch CPAC last week? I know this is a site for religious discussion and the economy, but I see you are a patriot and that, in my mind, is almost as important as religion.
Mr. Fuller,
I have not known Mitchell for all that long, but I have found his mind to be one which always explores, and although we disagree, he and I, over a few things, I think your comments on him are rather disparaging and quite untrue.
To briefly answer your question – Gnosticism existed before Christ, so it is not unbelievable to say that they applied their Gnosticism to the Christianity. Further, we find the same thought – a secret knowledge – as the bedrock more generally of philosophy, in that a secret knowledge can be obtained through this or that.
Christ revealed the Word of the Father so there is no other revelation or secret knowledge to follow.
Dear JLFuller,
I’m not only interested in doing missionary work. I’m also interesting in reading people’s takes on history, regardless of their religious backgrounds. Please don’t take my dislike of Nibley’s essay as an indication that I want to shut out the writings of everyone who doesn’t share all my opinions. If I were to do that, I would eventually find myself in an isolated room somewhere rereading my own scribblings.
But I still believe that everything you, I, or anyone else shares is only what we think is substantial and worthwhile–that is, things which we hope will influence the thinking of others. But that being said, I definitely agree with you that it is good to examine and see what the historical record can tell us, and I’m willing to take a look at any work done in that direction, whether the worker is Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Jewish, or none of the above.
I definitely agree with you can corruptions come from perversions of legitimate ideas, and I’d also be inclined to think that gnostics were working with pre-existing material when they came up with their ideas–things rarely are made up out of thin air.
I disagree with you, however, on Bible schools. I’ve met a great many of intelligent, fair, and perceptive people with Bible school training, as well as narrow-minded people who can’t process anything other than polemic against opposing opinions. And I’ve found the same sort of people in secular schools, some who think carefully and some who simply repeat the ideas of others simplistically.
I’ll try not to bore you with religious drum-beating, and I want you to know that nothing I’ve written is intended to be insulting. I, like most people, I suspect, am currently in and probably will always be in the sticky and messy process of trying to correctly differentiate between what is legitimate and what is not, to commend whatever shows itself worthy, and to condemn whatever is shallow and deceptive. And because communicating in print always creates a distance we find in person, I can try but never guarantee that what I say won’t sound differently than how I intended it.
Peace,
Mitchell Powell
A Bible school preacher’s kid.
Joel,
Thank you for your kind words. I’ll try to keep living up to the ideal of being one who always explores, and I’ll try to keep my certainties and my uncertainties in their proper places.
Peace,
Mitchell.
Dear Joel (Re: The CPAC comment):
I did not watch CPAC, nor have I ever, because I have continued in a habit of not watching television. But I like to try to keep up on what’s going on in our country, so I’d be more than happy to hear any information you can give me about what went on. Although I’ve usually discussed religious things and the economy on this site, I’m willing to take on just about any topic of interest, so I’d be happy to hear what’s going on at CPAC.
Depending on what one means by “patriot,” patriotism can be a wonderful or horrible thing. If by patriot one means a person who has a disdain for all things foreign, a jingoistic approval of anything one’s country does, a strong desire for one’s government to exercise more and more control, and an urge to fight for it at the minutest provocation, patriotism is a horrid thing. But if one is motivated to support their nation through lending a helping hand to fell0w-citizens, by trying to help point people into more helpful directions for policy, by obeying the law, by praying that God will give wisdom and strength to those who lead it and live in it, and even through constructive criticism, that’s the sort of patriot I am trying to be.
And if we share that, I’m glad.
Peace,
Mitchell.
Where is patriotism aligned in importance as faith in God?
Pss…Mitchell, I didn’t ask that question. Trust me, I would encourage everyone not to watch CPAC.
JL and JoeL,
Oops. In my last response I meant to say “JL,” in but my mind accidently supplied the vowels ‘oe’ to fill it out.
And I didn’t think you, Joel, would encourage watching CPAC. You’re sort of democratish, but I suppose God loves you anyhow
If either of you want to talk any more about patriotism and Christianity and how they should or should not relate, I’ve but a post here where we can dialogue: http://fontwords.com/?p=964. Just based on what little you both said, I could probably agree with both of you at least on the broad outlines of what our role in our nation is as followers of Christ.
Shalom, Peace, Regards, Grace, Peace, etc.,
Mitchell.
Sort of ‘democratish’? I was born with the card and I love yellow dogs, even the dead ones
Sorry. In the future I’ll replace “sort of democratic” with “drooling left-wing maniac” . . .
Patriotism, in the way I intended, is the belief that our nation is a sacred and an exceptional place reserved by God for His special purpose. Our constitution was inspired, as was our early national leadership, to use the bible as its basis. In my youth I was taught, and still believe, He had something in mind for us as a nation. That is, to bring about the blessings of freedom and self determination for others by our example. Anyone who works at maintaining our freedom and ability to carry that work on is a patriot. Those among us who denigrate us or chose to attack our system of government in order to change it, is not. Politically speaking, patriots can be found in both political parties and among the independents.
Now, that’s more appropriate.
To be honest with you, JL, I am not exactly sure what to do with the doctrine of American exceptionalism. Now, as someone who does not believe the main tenants of Mormon doctrine, I naturally do not believe that God has revealed a new special religious teaching on the American continent. (I say this not trying to argue, but simply to put my viewpoint out in the open.)
But I, like you, believe that the hand of God has a role in historical events, and so it seems to me that God has caused and/or allowed the U.S. to develop in the way it was founded for his own purposes, though I’m not exactly sure what those are.
But I believe that the freedom to speak and act and receive justice we have been given in the United States is a gift from God, and that as long as our Republic exists, it is good for us to stand up for those values against all who would honestly or dishonestly take our nation down a harmful path. On that we agree.
JL, you’ll have to excuse me if I point out the glaring Mormon biases in that statement.
Mitchell
I think God’s purpose is more than creating the freedom where Joseph Smith or anyone else, could found a new religion. At the time, European countries had state religions which did not receive new ideas in the same way the United States did. If you recall your European history, they burned heretics at the stake in Spain, lopped off their heads in France and banished them in Britain as late as the mid 18th century. It seems to me that God had us in mind to set the example, imperfect as it was and is. Otherwise, why base our laws on biblical principles? It may have been forty years since I was in college but I think my memory serves me correctly on the time frame.
American exceptionalism is a politically conservative idea. Regardless of what one calls it, I think most Americans regard it as an accurate portrayal of our status in the world, especially in the twentieth century. We are an exceptional country and I believe it is because of our reliance on correct Christian principles and that we have a degree of personal freedom not enjoyed around the world. That freedom allows us to have a frank and free exchange of ideas which does not result in the letting of blood. Our fathers created a place where even the newest imigrant can prosper and succeed regardless of who his father was or his name for God. When we mess up we have open dialog about what happened, learn from our mistakes and attempt to make amends. These things and others make us exceptional.
Joel
I think if you had watched more of CPAC you would have seen the theme I wrote about in abundance. If all I saw was what the mainstream media said about CPAC I would not to want to watch either. Just remember: the media strongly favor the Democrats over Republicans and positively despise Conservatives even though most of them only hear snippets of the Conservative message.
If all I ever heard about Mormons was what I learned at the feet of a Southern Baptist preacher, I would hate Joseph Smith too. It is the same way with the media and Conservatives.
JL,
America at its best is a shining example to the world, and America at its worst is a cesspool of immorality and godlessness that the best of the world would do best to avoid imitating. It is my prayer that God would help us as a nation to be more the former than the latter, although all too often we fail. May God help us.
And as long as the dialogue in America is open, I’ll do my best to participate.
But who said anything about learning hatred for Smith at the feet of a Southern Baptist preacher? Where did that come from?
The JS comment came from a group whose blind bigotry goes beyond mere disagreement. They take it to a higher level, just as I see the media doing.
RE: JL,
Ah. Although I reject the unique teachings of Joseph Smith, I certainly don’t condone religious hatred. But just to be clear as to what’s you’re saying, would I be right in saying that your “I would hate Joseph Smith too” comment is referring to hatred by some group which you haven’t named and which isn’t involved in this discussion? The reason I ask this is that I understand that Joel has some Baptist background, and I’m just confirming to make sure I’m right in assuming that you’re not accusing him of hating Joseph Smith.
I am, of course, just checking to make sure we’re all on the same page.
Peace,
Mitchell.
I used the SBC because they are particularly incendiary in their approach to not only LDS theology and the Church in particular but other denominations as well. When visitors enter their buildings, you often are immediately greeted with a display of what can only be described as hate literature. The SBC website had 26 pages of this anti-Mormon literature for sale. You don’t find this level of vituperation anywhere else that I know of. Others may take a different view of things from us but they don’t rise to this level.
Although I haven’t seen any of the hate literature you describe in any Baptist Churches, I am against literature that expresses hatred towards Mormons. On the other hand, literature that explains why certain beliefs are accepted and why others are rejected by a group is, although unpleasant, fully legitimate. After all, Mormons have made a number of claims which are strongly at odds with mainstream Christian teaching, and given the aggressive missionary techniques of the LDS group, it only makes sense that Churches would want to produce literature to counter the assertions of Mormon missionaries. And so there is a fine line between clarity and over-agressiveness which we have to walk. I’d have to take a look at the SBC literature before I could decide whether it’s hateful. But regardless, I condemn hatred.
I speak of the Mormon missionary activity as aggressive only because I’ve been friends with three Mormon families, both of which have actively tried to recruit me, including a girl who is now a missionary. They’ve led me into discussions that have left me with little option other than to explain why I reject Mormonism as a belief system. I managed to do this with either enough tact on my part or enough tolerance on their part that my friendship with all these people was not broken. My discussions with a third family resulting in a person whose privacy I won’t violate rejecting the teachings of Joseph Smith and attending a non-Mormon Protestant church. And we also are still good friends.
Just as I found myself compelled to explain my stand against Mormonism personally, I can also imagine that if I were leading a Church and its members were being approached by persuasive Mormon missionaries, I would try to explain to my congregation why I reject the claims of Mormonism. I would feel it my spiritual duty as someone responsible for their spiritual well-being.
I say this all again not to insult you or your fellow-believers in any way, but only to try to give you what might be another perspective on why you see people speaking out against Mormon teachings.
In most cases, our missionaries maintain a level of civility that is broadly acceptable. I have never hard anyone describe them the way you do. I recognize that due to a lack of understanding of our theology, there is a lot of erroneous belief about us. Frankly, much is our fault. We don’t expect everyone will agree with us. But so much of the disagreement, such as we are not Christian, is undeserved. It is correct to say we are not Trinitarian however and most Christian churches believe that view of the nature of God to be fundamental to being a true believer. We, however, take the biblical explanation of Christ’s nature literally and teach that Trinitarianism is a fifth century construct of men not found in the bible. There are other things too but that may be the biggest rub with many traditional Christians if I am correct.
One interesting thing about the relationship between Mormons and Southern Baptists, actually most Evangelicals, is that in the last half of the twentieth century, some 300,000 of their number in the south, converted to Mormonism. This came from the SBC’s Dr. Richard Land. It kind makes it appear the real disagreement is more about sheep stealing than theology. Although the numbers of and data about where converts come from are not published, anecdotal evidence is that new members were once members of another faith tradition and not unaffiliated. They were once Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians and so forth. In Africa, most are former Catholics. Two temples are now in Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa. The significance is that temples are only built in areas where there exist about 50,000 members. That has happened in the last twenty years.
Perhaps the word ‘aggressive’ did not fully convey what I was trying to describe. There has not been a hint of rudeness that I can remember with any Mormon missionaries. (I was treated rudely by a six-year old Mormon once, but that says much about six-year-olds and nothing about Mormonism.) What I mean by aggressive is that Mormonism is consistently seeking to perpetuate itself, by convincing (in civil ways) people from both secularism and other religious groups to join Mormonism. It is this attempt, however well-meaning and civil it may be, that has prompted me to respond. By aggressive I mean that it proselytizes and seeks to grow by drawing people away from their current religious affiliations.
But on the whole, the LDS folk that I have encountered have been among the most morally upright and friendly people I have ever known. That’s why I’ve maintained friendships with them, even after we’ve both voiced our points of view and recognized our disagreements. Mormonism seems broadly to accept a tolerance of other religions and an acceptance of those who choose not to follow the Mormon path.
I’m not sure whether I would call Mormons Christian or not. Before doing so, I’d have to make sure I and whoever I am speaking with are clear on what we mean by ‘Christian.’ If by Christian we mean someone who follows in a tradition that emphasizes the life of Jesus Christ and his central role as a religious teacher, both I and Mormons are Christians. But if we use Christian in the narrower sense of people who are adhering to the basic teachings of biblical Christianity, it becomes harder to say who is and is not a Christian, and in my opinion the LDS group deviates in a few significant ways from orthodoxy, including in their view of Scripture and their view of God.
I think you’re right in saying that disagreement over the nature of God is one of the major sticking points. It’s part of why I consider myself to have a substantial unity with the teachings of most Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox groups, but not with Mormonism.
Again, I wish to make sure that you know I mean to personal disrespect to yourself or to other Mormons, whose conduct I have generally found quite acceptable. I’m only trying to lay out what I think about the things you’ve said so far, and I have no desire to push the conversation into areas you don’t want it to head to, or to continue discussions of any area that you don’t want to discuss.
Respectfully,
Mitchell Powell.
I included the Catholic thing because they too are taking umbrage with LDS missionary efforts around the world. A year or so ago, The Vatican directed their local organizations to refuse access to their membership archive records by Utah Genealogical Society. This has to do with LDS temple rites for LDS dead relatives, many of whom were Catholic. This is another one of those misunderstandings of what the work is about and what the rites actually mean and do. Just by way of explanation, work for the dead does not change the departed person’s previous church preference unless the dead person accepts it. We believe the dead are alive in spirit world and aware of what is happening here and able to make choices.
I wasn’t aware that the Catholics had taken this stance. I’m not sure that a refusal like that is based neccessarily on a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine, however. Is it not possible that Catholicism simply does not want to open its records to a group which it considers to be perverting the gospel? And is it not possible that the Catholics find the baptism of their already baptized Catholics deceased as offensive without misunderstanding the LDS teaching on this?
Interestingly, from my perspective Catholicism and LDS teaching share a similarity on their teaching about the dead in that they both, unlike most Protestant groups, teach that actions of the living can have a real effect on the state of the dead.
I will not get into much of the discussion going on here, Mitchell, but let me correct a few things.
1.) The baptist comment was uninformed. I have my ‘sources’ on Mormonism from something more than tracts. I won’t go into it, but your assumptions and other innuendos are, well, laughable.
2.) Mitchell is correct. Telling the truth is not hate speech. There is hate speech on both sides, but telling the truth about the doctrines of Mormonism, historical and present, as well as its founders, is not hate speech.
3.) The ‘media’ is more entertainment than real news. I watch MSNBC because it suits me. I don’t call it news. FoxNews, on the other hand, suits conservatives, sometimes, but it is hardly news either. Further, if CPAC was about American Exceptionalism, then it was little more than an idolatrous gathering at Dan.
Your demeanor is polite and friendly. I have had more disrespectful conversations with my wife, although I am sure it was not my fault. (Don’t tell her I said that. OK?) One of the interesting things about Mormon missionary work is that we reply heavily on the presence of the Holy Ghost to bear witness. I was not a missionary, (you would not believe what a yahoo I was in my youth) but I experience what I believe is the presence of the Holy Ghost on a fairly frequent basis. (Maybe it is just His absence that I notice when I drive Him away.) I have to think every well-meaning person who tries to live a holier life has that same experience. It seems stronger after I repent for one of my frequent foul-ups.
You talked about doing missionary work among the current church membership of other denominations. Yep. It sure raises some pastors hackles. It goes back to what we believe our reason for existence is – that is, our message is that Christ’s original gospel began to be polluted and changed shortly after the last apostles death and had to be restored according to prophecy. One huge loss was the priesthood and the authority to act in God’s name. If baptism is essential, there was no one on the earth with authority to provide that ordinance after about 70 AD. Of course those who disagree with us do so with vigor.
Yes sir, I think your take on Catholic reasoning could be spot on. But if our ordinances for the dead are meaningless, what is the rub? In the end though, it is a distinction without a difference according to the way we approach the subject. Every human being who has ever lived or will live on the earth will have this ordinance performed on their behalf if they do not do it for themselves while living. The vast majority will be performed during the millennial reign of Christ when the names and relationships of the dead will be made available through the veil.
Yeah, I would say with somevigor indeed.
Joel–please know that you are welcome to comment on any of my posts as much or as little as you see fit.
JL–and both the pro-Mormon and anti-Mormon literature then result from people trying to do what they think right: the pro-Mormon literature being produced from an urge to spread what is believed to be the original re-revealed message of Christianity, and the anti-Mormon literature comes from an urge to preserve Christianity from what is believed to be the Mormon twisting of essential doctrines.
But I fail to see the reason behind your assertion that if baptism is essential, there was no one on the earth with authority to provide that ordinance after about 70 A.D. I vigorously disagree with this view of baptism.
The rub here, is that the Mormon view is completely unbiblical. Further, their view on baptizing the dead is a heinous one given that the dead cannot speak for themselves. This is no doubt why the Catholics have closed their doors, as they realize the sanctity of life and death.
The authority to act in God’s name, i.e. the priesthood, was lost when the last apostle died. Those who came along afterward could not have it bestowed upon them because there was no left to do so. In order for any man’s priesthood to be valid there must be a living quorum with the requisite keys. When they are gone, it is gone. All the subsequent baptisms performed through out the ages are meaningless according to our beliefs, because the men who performed them had no authority to do so.
As for being unbiblical, Joel is correct in saying the bible says nothing about this practice. Many traditional Christians have been taught and firmly believe the bible contains everything Christ taught and cannot accept this. We understand but respectfully disagree that the bible contains the Gospel in its entirety. There is ample evidence to suggest the fifth century version of the scriptures that we use today is not complete and has some problems. We believe the bible insofar as it is translated correctly which it is not.
The errors found in the biblical versions we have today seems to me to be prima facia evidence of the need to restore the full and accurate Gospel as it was prophesied would happen. The price mankind paid for rejecting and killing Jesus Christ was the removal of the authority to act in God’s name (bind in heaven that which is bound on earth – read baptism) and the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Gospel message including the knowledge of who we are, who God is and how we relate. That does not mean that everything traditional Christianity did over the last two thousand years was a waste. On the contrary. They kept Christ’s name and mission alive in the presence of an overwhelmingly pagan world and made it possible for mankind to continue to believe in God and seek Him. As we see, there was no consistent understanding of Him nor a widely held belief tradition that accurately answered the questions of who we are, why we are here and what happens to us after death. Even today, we offer a method to find out for ones self whether what we say is true or not yet few want to know. They prefer to hold tightly to their traditions.
Quorums and such being neccessary for baptism is, as I see it, nothing but an addition to the original meaning of baptism. And I do not agree with you that the Bible we use today is a fifth-century Bible, any more so than a third or seventh or fourteenth century Bible. And I find no basis on which to question the essential accuracy of the process by which the Bible was passed down to the present–it seems far more likely to me that a text which was quickly passed throughout the entire world in thousands of copies to many different churches, than that Joseph Smith’s Bible produced in the 1800′s would match the original.
You speak of “the errors in today’s Bibles” as evidence, but I’ve seen no evidence that the Scriptures as they exist in the hands of the LDS church are more accurate. It is not that I do not I am unwilling to break with tradition, but I simply do not believe the claims of Mormonism.
It is an argument based only on one’s presuppositions. If I say ‘x’ must be before ‘y’ regardless of anything else, and you cannot find ‘x’, then I have one the argument. Unfortunately, the bible and history tell us a different story. The Apostles were not a ‘priesthood’ and they did not hold the rite of baptism only. Otherwise, those men in whom they anointed and those that they anointed would today have the same power and only them. Therefore, you argument is refuted there. Yet, we know that baptism was given and not ordered confirmed by an Apostle only. Peter says that we, the entire church, is the priesthood.
Further, the notion that somehow we have a 5th century bible – like a 5th century doctrine – is erroneously taught and more so, believed. Textual evidences survive from before the 5th century, back until the 1st century. Further, the great amount of writing by early Christians align with our bibles today.
Binding and loosening in heaven is a Jewish rabbinical term which many seem to misunderstand to their own destruction. Reading the Rabbi’s, they are only doing what heaven says, not having heaven conform to what is happening on earth. How arrogant are we that we think we can bind heaven to our will. That passage is not talking about baptism, but about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
When I hear Christ say that nothing will overcome the Church, His church, then I have a real difficult time believing that suddenly upon the death of John the church collapsed only to be resurrected 1800 years later by a man who claimed that he had a church greater than Christ and the Apostles.
The method you describe is to ask God if Joseph Smith is a prophet, which is akin to divination. Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to hold to such things. God gives us faith, opens out eyes to the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ and call us. There is nothing about a heart being warmed. When Peter stood up on Pentecost, he didn’t ask about Joseph Smith, but preached Christ and Him Crucified. That pricked the hearts of the listeners and they were convicted by the Spirit of Living God. Paul, when he preached didn’t rely upon a question and answer session. We are commanded to preach the Gospel, and if people hear that Gospel, they will believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mitchel
You are not the first one who differs from us. Surprised? I mention all this because the LDS theology is so different from traditional Christians in a couple of key points that there is some natural division between us. We understand and expect it. And if some Johnnie-come-lately was going around to my friends preaching a radically different version of the gospel as we do, I would take serious exception as well. More importantly though, there is much more that we share than separate us. Mormons believe God allowed every faith tradition some elements of the gospel including Islam. His inspiration is not limited just to Christians. I guess all we ask is that those who differ with us an feel the need to do so openly, get it right. There is a correct version of what we teach and the commonly held versions which are not. I suppose some say we must surely get our version of the Gospel from someone other than Christ. I understand why you differ and I will not take you off my Christmas card list. Like one Scottish pastor said tot he LDS mission president some years back: “For such a small church you sure have a big theology.” Well Mitchel, you ain’t heard the big parts yet.
Mitchel
There is an interesting article at Belief Net this morning regarding Christ’s decent in to hell by a non LDS writer.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/02/is-death-final-2.html
Joel.
Thanks for the input. One danger in starting down this road is that it requires more than a short time to explore, at least from the LDS view of things. It gets into some pretty heavy doctrine, but one thing I would like to address is the part where you said “… a church greater than Christ and the Apostles.”. If you read Joseph Smith’s story about how all this came about you would know that just isn’t the case. So, just for clarification, Joseph said God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in person and initiated the return of the Gospel. It wasn’t a new Gospel but rather the old one – the original one. I know many would take issue with the claim that God and Christ appeared to a fourteen year old boy especially for such a work as Joseph claims to have been charged with. It is perfectly understandable from a traditional Christian point of view. It always has been. Some dismiss it outright. Most do. But, a curious thing happens when you ask us to prove it. We don’t haul out a bunch papers written over the centuries by learned men. Our proof lies in the promptings of the Holy Ghost. We offer a simple proof. Read the Book of Mormon with an open mind and ask for Heavenly guidance while doing so. Ask sincerely with faith that God will answer you. Most people do not however, so they will never know. Most who refuse say the bible is correct and complete and they have no reason to read the B of M. Or they quickly scan through it looking for what they believe are things contrary to what they think the bible says about this and that. Or they say they would never insult God by asking about such an obviously heathen work or something like that. In the end they refuse for their own reasons. However those who do read it, and do so with an open mind, and even study and contemplate what it says, come away with a different understanding. Even some Evangelicals acknowledge it could not have been written by a fourteen year old boy with three years formal education. In the end, it is not any man’s testimony that confirms it. It is the Holy Ghost’s. I do not want to go too far down this road, but I just wanted to say these few things.
Actually, JL, I was going on what Smith himself said about having a better hand at church management than Christ. Assume not that I have no clue as to Mormon doctrine, heavy or otherwise. As I said, my sources are quite, while, knowledgeable.
And again, divination is not a practice allowed in Scripture.
Further, your ‘facts’ about Smith being 14 years old is wrong. Not merely off, but wrong. Born in 1805, Smith published his first edition which is different than the current one, in 1830. Further, given the measuring of the BOM by works current at the time, including the KJV, and certain Masonic rites and rituals, an overacted 25 year could very well publish something as the BOM.
One Trackback
[...] brings up a very controversial subject – For thus say those who are stubborn in folly:–Why did the Apostle say,–Different is [...]