LDS Joseph Smith and the Astronomers

[He is the way]

The NIV renders 1 Peter 4:6 as follows.

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those
who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to
men in regard to the body, but live according to God in
regard to the spirit.
1 Peter 4:6: NIV

Peter is talking about those who heard the Gospel and then passed away.

This could be another case where you are relying on a clumsy translation.

Bible hub has it this way:

1 Peter 4:6 Greek Text Analysis

 

[He is the way]

Christian Scholar Krister Stendahl made the following observation regarding baptism for the Dead:

In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul wrote: "Otherwise, what shall they do who are being baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptized for them" (Conzelmann, 1 Cor 15:19).


This verse is part of Paul's argumentation against those who denied a future resurrection (cf. 2 Tim 2:18, Justin, Dial. 80). He refers to a practice of vicarious baptism, a practice for which we have no other evidence in the Pauline or other New Testament or early Christian writings. Interpreters have puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice. At least he does not see fit to condemn it as heretical, but Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.


A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood "the dead" to refer to one's own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism "for the sake of joining" lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: "Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?"


Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes. Such a practice can be understood in partial analogy with Paul's reference to how the pagan spouses and joint children in mixed marriages are sanctified and cleansed by the Christian partners (1 Cor 7:14). Reference has often been made to 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, where Judas Maccabeaus, "taking account of the resurrection," makes Atonement for his dead comrades. (This was the very passage which Dr. Eck used in favor of purgatory in his 1519 Leipzig debate with Martin Luther. So it became part of the reason why Protestant Bibles excluded the Apocrypha or relegated them to an Appendix.)


To this could be added that the next link in Paul's argument for a future resurrection is his own exposure to martyrdom (1 Cor 15:30-32), a martyrdom that Paul certainly thinks of as having a vicarious effect (Phil 2:17, Rom 15:16, cf. Col 1:24).


Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul's remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.

I hope this helps...

Welcome to the debate.

 

[dzheremi]

Bible hub has it this way:

1 Peter 4:6 Greek Text Analysis

And the early Church understood it this way (bolded added; italics at source):

Wherefore, passing now to the words which we find farther on concerning unbelievers, "Who shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the quick and the dead," there is no necessity for our understanding the dead here to be those who have departed from the body. For it may be that the apostle intended by the word dead to denote unbelievers, as being spiritually dead, like those of whom it was said, "Let the dead bury their dead," (Matthew 8:22) and by the word living to denote those who believe in Him, having not heard in vain the call, "Awake, you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light;" (Ephesians 5:14) of whom also the Lord said: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25) On the same principle of interpretation, also, there is nothing compelling us to understand the immediately succeeding words of Peter — "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6) — as describing what has been done in hell. "For for this cause has the gospel been preached in this life to the dead," that is, to the unbelieving wicked, "that when they believed they might be judged according to men in the flesh,"— that is, by means of various afflictions and by the death of the body itself; for which reason the same apostle says in another place: "The time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God," (1 Peter 4:17) — "but live according to God in the spirit," since in that same spirit they had been dead while they were held prisoners in the death of unbelief and wickedness.

-- St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 164

 

[He is the way]

And the early Church understood it this way (bolded added; italics at source):

Wherefore, passing now to the words which we find farther on concerning unbelievers, "Who shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the quick and the dead," there is no necessity for our understanding the dead here to be those who have departed from the body. For it may be that the apostle intended by the word dead to denote unbelievers, as being spiritually dead, like those of whom it was said, "Let the dead bury their dead," (Matthew 8:22) and by the word living to denote those who believe in Him, having not heard in vain the call, "Awake, you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light;" (Ephesians 5:14) of whom also the Lord said: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25) On the same principle of interpretation, also, there is nothing compelling us to understand the immediately succeeding words of Peter — "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6) — as describing what has been done in hell. "For for this cause has the gospel been preached in this life to the dead," that is, to the unbelieving wicked, "that when they believed they might be judged according to men in the flesh,"— that is, by means of various afflictions and by the death of the body itself; for which reason the same apostle says in another place: "The time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God," (1 Peter 4:17) — "but live according to God in the spirit," since in that same spirit they had been dead while they were held prisoners in the death of unbelief and wickedness.

-- St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 164

There is more than one way to understand the meanings of words and phrases. I choose to understand things differently.

 

[Dale]

Yes they do because baptism for the dead was done by Christians as evidenced by Paul.

Why would non-Christians be baptizing for the dead if they did not believe in the resurrection? The only reason to baptize for the dead is because there is a resurrection. Paul is saying Christians are being baptized for the dead because there is a resurrection. After the temple was destroyed the most baptisms for the dead stopped and everyone forgot about the ordinance of baptism for the dead that Paul wrote about. As far as I know here is no record of any baptisms for the dead by non-Christians. I believe that another of the lost ordinances was the power to bind on earth and in heaven which was given to Peter and restored in these latter days.

HeisTheWay: "Yes they do because baptism for the dead was done by Christians as evidenced by Paul."

This reminds me of the dispute about speaking in tongues in the epistles of Paul. Pentecostals joyfully point to every mention of speaking in tongues. Still, if you read what Paul said about it, it looks like he saw nothing of value in the practice. Instead of wanting to allow it as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Paul's concern was only that it should not disrupt the service or interfere with preaching or the reading of scripture. In short, Paul saw no need for speaking in tongues but he was very reluctant to throw anyone out of the church over the issue. He did everything he could to keep those who practiced it in the the church in the hope that they would learn something and confirm their salvation.

Paul may have had the same attitude toward anyone baptizing by proxy or baptizing for the dead. He knew it was useless but he was reluctant to expel those who were doing it. He simply hoped that they would learn and eventually realize that it was useless.


HeIsTheWay: " After the temple was destroyed the most baptisms for the dead stopped and everyone forgot about the ordinance of baptism for the dead that Paul wrote about."

What does the destruction of the Jewish Temple have to do with it? Any baptisms for the dead, or by proxy, wasn't performed there anyway.

 

[natitude]

Welcome to the debate.

Thank you. Glad to be here.

 

[He is the way]

HeisTheWay: "Yes they do because baptism for the dead was done by Christians as evidenced by Paul."

This reminds me of the dispute about speaking in tongues in the epistles of Paul. Pentecostals joyfully point to every mention of speaking in tongues. Still, if you read what Paul said about it, it looks like he saw nothing of value in the practice. Instead of wanting to allow it as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Paul's concern was only that it should not disrupt the service or interfere with preaching or the reading of scripture. In short, Paul saw no need for speaking in tongues but he was very reluctant to throw anyone out of the church over the issue. He did everything he could to keep those who practiced it in the the church in the hope that they would learn something and confirm their salvation.

Paul may have had the same attitude toward anyone baptizing by proxy or baptizing for the dead. He knew it was useless but he was reluctant to expel those who were doing it. He simply hoped that they would learn and eventually realize that it was useless.


HeIsTheWay: " After the temple was destroyed the most baptisms for the dead stopped and everyone forgot about the ordinance of baptism for the dead that Paul wrote about."

What does the destruction of the Jewish Temple have to do with it? Any baptisms for the dead, or by proxy, wasn't performed there anyway.

Speaking with tongues is one of the gifts of God. His gifts are not useless:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 12:1 - 10)

1 NOW concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:


People who speak in tongues do sometimes prophesy. Prophecy is not useless:

(New Testament | Acts 19:6)

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I believe the temple was used for baptism for the dead. That was the purpose for the molten sea. I believe that when the temple was destroyed it ended baptism for the dead.

 

[dzheremi]

There is more than one way to understand the meanings of words and phrases.

True. You can also understand claims about baptizing dead people being justified by this verse like HH St. John Chrysostom did back in the late 4th/early 5th century, and laugh at those who read the scriptures that way because they're so detached from reality and from faith in Christ. That's fine too.

And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, “They who are baptized for the dead.” Seest thou their extreme ridiculousness? Is it meet then to answer these things? I trow not; unless it were necessary to discourse with madmen of what they in their frenzy utter. But that none of the more exceedingly simple folk may be led captive, one must needs submit to answer even these men. As thus, if this was Paul’s meaning wherefore did God threaten him that is not baptized? For it is impossible that any should not be baptized henceforth, this being once devised: and besides, the fault no longer lies with the dead, but with the living. But to whom spake he, “Unless ye eat My flesh, and drink My blood, ye have no life in yourselves?” (John vi. 53.) To the living, or to the dead, tell me? And again, “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John iii. 5.) For if this be permitted, and there be no need of the mind of the receiver nor of his assent while he lives, what hinders both Greeks and Jews thus to become believers, other men after their decease doing these things in their stead?​

 

[He is the way]

True. You can also understand claims about baptizing dead people being justified by this verse like HH St. John Chrysostom did back in the late 4th/early 5th century, and laugh at those who read the scriptures that way because they're so detached from reality and from faith in Christ. That's fine too.

And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, “They who are baptized for the dead.” Seest thou their extreme ridiculousness? Is it meet then to answer these things? I trow not; unless it were necessary to discourse with madmen of what they in their frenzy utter. But that none of the more exceedingly simple folk may be led captive, one must needs submit to answer even these men. As thus, if this was Paul’s meaning wherefore did God threaten him that is not baptized? For it is impossible that any should not be baptized henceforth, this being once devised: and besides, the fault no longer lies with the dead, but with the living. But to whom spake he, “Unless ye eat My flesh, and drink My blood, ye have no life in yourselves?” (John vi. 53.) To the living, or to the dead, tell me? And again, “Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John iii. 5.) For if this be permitted, and there be no need of the mind of the receiver nor of his assent while he lives, what hinders both Greeks and Jews thus to become believers, other men after their decease doing these things in their stead?​

People also ignore both baptism for the dead and the binding power Jesus Christ gave to Peter:

(New Testament | Matthew 16:19)

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I am grateful those wonderful ordinances have been restored. So many lives have been blessed by these amazing ordinances.

 

[dzheremi]

People also ignore both baptism for the dead and the binding power Jesus Christ gave to Peter:

(New Testament | Matthew 16:19)

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What does this have to do with anything?

I don't know a single soul who would disagree with this, by the way -- not Roman Catholic, not Orthodox, and not Protestant. The most you'll likely get is Orthodox and Protestant people both disagreeing with the claims to authority that some churches say come with this (e.g., Rome's unique ecclesiological claims that follow from their self-interested reading of this -- that it should apply to St. Peter and not anyone else, and of course in their mind, St. Peter = the Pope of Rome in perpetuity throughout the universe or whatever). That's not the same as ignoring the verse itself.

I am grateful those wonderful ordinances have been restored. So many lives have been blessed by these amazing ordinances.

Nothing was lost to be 'restored' in the first place. Restorationism is just anti-theism dressed up in religious language, as it presumes God to be incompetent. And Mormon 'ordinances' have never said anyone. They can't, as they do not come from God to begin with.

Thanks for the attempt to turn yet another thread into a Mormon testimony meeting, though. That never gets old.

 

[He is the way]

What does this have to do with anything?

Baptism for the dead and sealing together of families are both temple ordinances. They have been lost to the world after the destruction of the temple. Praise the Lord, they have been restored in our day.

I don't know a single soul who would disagree with this, by the way -- not Roman Catholic, not Orthodox, and not Protestant. The most you'll likely get is Orthodox and Protestant people both disagreeing with the claims to authority that some churches say come with this (e.g., Rome's unique ecclesiological claims that follow from their self-interested reading of this -- that it should apply to St. Peter and not anyone else, and of course in their mind, St. Peter = the Pope of Rome in perpetuity throughout the universe or whatever). That's not the same as ignoring the verse itself.

Like I said, those are temple ordinances and must be administered in God's holy house. His temples are dedicated for that purpose.

Nothing was lost to be 'restored' in the first place. Restorationism is just anti-theism dressed up in religious language, as it presumes God to be incompetent. And Mormon 'ordinances' have never said anyone. They can't, as they do not come from God to begin with.

Those ordinances were restored by God for His children.

Thanks for the attempt to turn yet another thread into a Mormon testimony meeting, though. That never gets old.

Doing God's work will never get old, neither will His LOVE for His children. God is LOVE.

 

[Peter1000]

Christian Scholar Krister Stendahl made the following observation regarding baptism for the Dead:

In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul wrote: "Otherwise, what shall they do who are being baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptized for them" (Conzelmann, 1 Cor 15:19).


This verse is part of Paul's argumentation against those who denied a future resurrection (cf. 2 Tim 2:18, Justin, Dial. 80). He refers to a practice of vicarious baptism, a practice for which we have no other evidence in the Pauline or other New Testament or early Christian writings. Interpreters have puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice. At least he does not see fit to condemn it as heretical, but Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.


A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood "the dead" to refer to one's own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism "for the sake of joining" lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: "Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?"


Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes. Such a practice can be understood in partial analogy with Paul's reference to how the pagan spouses and joint children in mixed marriages are sanctified and cleansed by the Christian partners (1 Cor 7:14). Reference has often been made to 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, where Judas Maccabeaus, "taking account of the resurrection," makes Atonement for his dead comrades. (This was the very passage which Dr. Eck used in favor of purgatory in his 1519 Leipzig debate with Martin Luther. So it became part of the reason why Protestant Bibles excluded the Apocrypha or relegated them to an Appendix.)


To this could be added that the next link in Paul's argument for a future resurrection is his own exposure to martyrdom (1 Cor 15:30-32), a martyrdom that Paul certainly thinks of as having a vicarious effect (Phil 2:17, Rom 15:16, cf. Col 1:24).


Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul's remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.

I hope this helps...

I believe also that Paul was speaking of vicarious baptism for the dead.

And the dead meaning those who have passed on to the spirit world, awaiting the resurrection.

As you have so graciously shown us, there was much discussion in the early church about Paul's statement here in 1 Corinthians. Some believe one thing, others believe another, and then others believe something else.

So what is the big deal if the Church of Jesus Christ believes that Paul was talking about a practice in the early church that included vicarious baptism for the dead? It should not be shocking, or unbelievable that we do, there being many different thoughts on the matter. What I would expect is that this forum would say something like: Huh, that is interesting, how is this work accomplished in your church? Instead it is met with disgust and argumentation.

I happen to believe that the extended whole practice of work for the dead is a necessary commitment on the part of our members. It is what I would call that which is part of the "meat" of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only do we labor diligently to find people that are looking for a better life in Christ,so we teach them and baptized them into the church. We go one step further to another commitment of our time and resources to find our dead ancestors, and then take their names to our temples to do all the saving ordinances necessary for them to
be judged according to men in the flesh, but llive according to God in the spirit.
The commitment to do this work is substantial and a higher commitment on our part is necessary. But the Lord has commanded it or he will smite this earth earth with a curse.
(Malachi 4:5-6) Elijah has been sent, and the Lord needs this work to be completed by the end of the millenium. So that all his children that came to earth will have the opportunity to enter his kingdom. Not just those that heard about him in this earth life

So thank you for the scholarship, I always appreciate that kind of work on the forum. I learn a lot.

 

[dzheremi]

So what is the big deal if the Church of Jesus Christ believes that Paul was talking about a practice in the early church that included vicarious baptism for the dead?

Because the fathers reject it, and we are not to accept novelties into our faith just because they may be practiced somewhere by someone. It's not a Christian practice.

It should not be shocking, or unbelievable that we do, there being many different thoughts on the matter. What I would expect is that this forum would say something like: Huh, that is interesting, how is this work accomplished in your church? Instead it is met with disgust and argumentation.

It's met with disgust because it's an abhorrent practice which the fathers condemned. By no definition is it 'interesting', and it would not be appropriate to respond to in that way. When Arius came up with his God-mutilating theological view, did the fathers say "Oh, that's interesting"? No. They held councils, giving him and his party a chance to explain themselves, and when that explanation was found to be severely lacking and he and his party refused to recant from it, he and they were condemned as heretics. Heresy is not interesting. It's disgusting. The modern fascination with it is nothing more or less than a sign of theological and historical illiteracy among the people. Only someone who doesn't know what they're doing would call the embrace of heresy interesting.

I happen to believe that the extended whole practice of work for the dead is a necessary commitment on the part of our members. It is what I would call that which is part of the "meat" of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Then why do you pick it out only from a handful of verses at random? Why is it not found over and over throughout the Biblical text, the fathers, and so on? Did the same God Who loves the world so much that He sent His only begotten Son to save it also hate it so much that He would hide the 'meat', only to be revealed beginning in 1830 AD? That's not the God I recognize, and I suspect all Christians could say the same.

Not only do we labor diligently to find people that are looking for a better life in Christ,so we teach them and baptized them into the church. We go one step further to another commitment of our time and resources to find our dead ancestors, and then take their names to our temples to do all the saving ordinances necessary for them to
be judged according to men in the flesh, but llive according to God in the spirit.

If you had any sort of connection to any form of historical Christianity, you'd have better things to do than this ritual where you are dunked over and over in a mechanical fashion in the name of thousands you never knew, who are just names on a page or in a database somewhere. It's sad, not salvific. The very definition of the empty ritual many less liturgical Christians claim that they see in the more liturgical churches. Maybe that's why you hide it away from everyone. Does it make you feel ashamed?

The commitment to do this work is substantial and a higher commitment on our part is necessary. But the Lord has commanded it or he will smite this earth earth with a curse.
(Malachi 4:5-6) Elijah has been sent, and the Lord needs this work to be completed by the end of the millenium. So that all his children that came to earth will have the opportunity to enter his kingdom. Not just those that heard about him in this earth life

Are you saying, following Elijah (somehow), that if you didn't perform baptisms for dead people, God would curse the earth?

How do you explain how they earth remained uncursed for the 1,000+ years between our earliest written patristic references to this practice (e.g., among the Gnostics of St. John Chrysostom's day, in the late 4th-early 5th century) and when JS supposedly 'restored' the Church in 1830? Because we know from the references we have that this was never an accepted practice in the Church.

 

[Peter1000]

The NIV renders 1 Peter 4:6 as follows.

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those
who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to
men in regard to the body, but live according to God in
regard to the spirit.
1 Peter 4:6: NIV

Peter is talking about those who heard the Gospel and then passed away.

This could be another case where you are relying on a clumsy translation.

This is a good example of the problem we have with hundreds of versions of the bible.

Since we don't have the original it is hard to know what the true interpretation is. So we have our interpretation and you have yours.

 

[Peter1000]

It is not there in the bible. You guys just refuse to admit the truth. The only baptism of the dead was and still is the washing of dead bodies in preparation for wrapping for burial. Had nothing to do with baptism unto salvation. That is the truth, but then you guys must share the same name as another denier of truth, Trump

You are the only one on this forum so far that believes baptism for the dead is a preparation for a dead persons burial. I can see why you cling to this interpretation because you believe when you die, you just sleep until the resurrection.
Trump and his supporters and anyone with common sense knows the truth of this election.

 

[natitude]

So thank you for the scholarship, I always appreciate that kind of work on the forum. I learn a lot.

I copied that quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in the Baptism for the Dead entry. My only scholarly ability is that of copy/paste, and I read people smarter than me. Robert Boylan's blog is a great resource, among others. For a bunch of quotes from non Latter-day Saint scholars affirming the ancient practice of vicarious baptism see here.

 

[Peter1000]

And the early Church understood it this way (bolded added; italics at source):

Wherefore, passing now to the words which we find farther on concerning unbelievers, "Who shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the quick and the dead," there is no necessity for our understanding the dead here to be those who have departed from the body.

For it may be that the apostle intended by the word dead to denote unbelievers, as being spiritually dead,

like those of whom it was said, "Let the dead bury their dead," (Matthew 8:22) and by the word living to denote those who believe in Him, having not heard in vain the call, "Awake, you that sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light;" (Ephesians 5:14) of whom also the Lord said: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25) On the same principle of interpretation, also, there is nothing compelling us to understand the immediately succeeding words of Peter — "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6) — as describing what has been done in hell. "For for this cause has the gospel been preached in this life to the dead," that is, to the unbelieving wicked,

"that when they believed they might be judged according to men in the flesh," that is, by means of various afflictions and by the death of the body itself; for which reason the same apostle says in another place: "The time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God," (1 Peter 4:17)

— "but live according to God in the spirit," since in that same spirit they had been dead while they were held prisoners in the death of unbelief and wickedness.

-- St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 164

dzheremi says:

For it may be that the apostle intended by the word dead to denote unbelievers, as being spiritually dead,

See especially bolded added. Doesn't seem like Argustine of Hippo was thoroughly convinced of his own words.

"that when they believed they might be judged according to men in the flesh," that is, by means of various afflictions and by the death of the body itself; for which reason the same apostle says in another place: "The time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God," (1 Peter 4:17)

His pious attempt to interpret "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh" he says a lot of nothingness, like a lot of words will suffice.

If Augustine may think the apostle intended..... Well, I think the apostles intended something else. Who knows who is right?

 

[dzheremi]

See especially bolded added. Doesn't seem like Argustine of Hippo was thoroughly convinced of his own words.

He recognizes that there's more than one way to interpret the verse, which is obvious enough to us, isn't it? I don't know why that's supposed to mean anything in itself.

If Augustine may think the apostle intended..... Well, I think the apostles intended something else. Who knows who is right?

The early Church itself is right. It not only does not include the Mormon interpretation, it explicitly condemns it insofar as you understand it to be baptizing dead people. Read St. John Chrysostom sometime. He laughs at the notion that baptism should involve the dead.

 

[Peter1000]

I copied that quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in the Baptism for the Dead entry. My only scholarly ability is that of copy/paste, and I read people smarter than me. Robert Boylan's blog is a great resource, among others. For a bunch of quotes from non Latter-day Saint scholars affirming the ancient practice of vicarious baptism see here.

Thank you for sending us all to "The Apostheosis Narative" (see the last word in your post, "here")

This is an excellent study of 1 Corinthians 15:29 by members of the Church of Jesus Christ and other non-Mormon scholars. I enjoyed the read. Thank you again.

The message of The Apostheosis Narative" is Paul was referring to vicarious baptism for the dead, and since he did not distance himself from it, it implies that he knew it was happening and was for it.

 

[mmksparbud]

You are the only one on this forum so far that believes baptism for the dead is a preparation for a dead persons burial. I can see why you cling to this interpretation because you believe when you die, you just sleep until the resurrection.
Trump and his supporters and anyone with common sense knows the truth of this election.

Yes, that he lost by6 6-7 million votes.