Kindly Correcting Anti-Mormon Claims Against Baptisms for the Dead (feat. Catholic Truth)

[@candicesmith6126]

Ironically, one investigator I taught on my mission (and he eventually chose to be baptized) was studying to become a Catholic priest. He was only six months away from being ordained. But he told us he was convinced the Church of Jesus Christ was true in part because of baptisms for the dead. One of the biggest highlights of my life has been to go with him into the LA temple and perform baptisms for the dead for his family. He was the happiest person inside the temple, haha!

[@GarySaint-xm6tr]

I wonder if you are the missionary story I was so impressed by. Did the guy you are talking about live by you while going through a period to decide if he was sure he wanted to become a Catholic priest?

[@GldnClaw]

A tangent, but I want to commend you on using the phrase "choosing to be baptized". I don't see it much, but I too like to say it that way to show that they demonstrated agency in doing so.

[@liamcorrigan4170]

I mean the Old Testament doesn't mention baptism for the remission of sins once, but John the Baptist has Jews calling him a prophet with Pharisees who were pedantic about every point of the law of Moses coming to be baptised and being rejected because they brought no fruits worthy of repentance. I mean, if baptism was a new thing why were the Pharisees coming to be baptised for the remission of sins and why would the legitimate heir of Aaron, being John the Baptist, not be called out for breaking the law of Moses or introducing new doctrine?

[@treystone9464]

Reminds me of a Catholic Monk soon to become a Bishop. He counseled depressed alcoholic people (while he was also a depressed alcoholic), one person he counciled eventually told him his father was LDS. The Monk acquired a BoM, thought he should study it to help reach him. Then the Monk had a dream about the man wearing all white, in an all-white place, getting married to a girl named "Alma". Later, to his surprise, he finds the Book of Alma, and stunned by Alma 5, how it perfectly aligns with his lesson plan and so proceeds teaching from Alma. It does help, so much later, the man does end up getting married in the temple to a girl named Alma. The first missionaries the Monk met was when he was riding his bicycle when he heard the strangest thing. He found an LDS missionary trying to speak French to a kid who was speaking back in Italian. Knowing both allowed him to help mediate between them. The rest is history.

[@GarySaint-xm6tr]

I need to look it up, but weren't the Isrealites going to the dead sea to be baptized, according to Joseph Smith. Glad you brought this point up.

[@zebiraross]

Why would anyone from any Christian religion not rejoice about the idea of baptisms for the dead? Is eternal damnation more comfortable for them?

[@dorar6123]

Same question

[@LadyDisdain3]

I think the leadership doesn’t like it because their doctrine relies on fear of a fiery hell to keep people faithful because their ‘heaven’ is quite ambiguous and not enough to generate faithfulness. That’s my theory anyway. We have a much greater understanding of eternity and purpose and so our doctrine doesn’t need people to live in fear of fire and brimstone.

[@Tom-fo5ce]

Is there any way I can get my name removed any list mormons have so they do not speak for me or baptize me or do anything in my name?

[@MattMorency]

​@@Tom-fo5cebaptism for the dead doesn't remove agency. You will still be able to accept or reject that ordinance.

[@garyr.8116]

@zebiraross - "Why would anyone..." perhaps because Mormons teach "The baptism of little children is an evil abomination" bom:moroni8 and that anybody that does so ""wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell." v.14 I'd be really worried about any supposed 'religion' whose 'scriptures' were dug up from something buried & only discernable by use of occultist seer stones, whose 'holiest' rites are practiced 'in secret' - and call 'an evil abomination' contradicting Jesus Word "Let the little children come to me" ...

[@LadyDisdain3]

Jonah was on fire with this one. Loved it. I would watch an entire presentation on our church beliefs versus others in the style he did here.

[@zachdavis7536]

I apologize for my Catholic brother that made the video. We should have nothing but good things to say about our LDS brethren.

[@WARDRADIO]

hey, you sound cool. Don;t sweat it... this dude's an outlier I am sure.

[@joshuapetersen4960]

I am LDS and for easter I went with my brother, his wife and kids to a Catholic mass, it was great. I loved everything about it. I love my Catholic brothers and Sisters, and this guy's video is not the norm. I have never once had anything bad to say about Catholics, nor experienced anything bad from any of them. In Fact they are some of the most devout I have met, including a very sweet nun, who I met one evening who had a superior spirit about her. I also used to volunteer in a soup kitchen once a week for the local Catholic church in town it was great doing that for the poor and needy.

[@Tom-fo5ce]

You don't know what you are talking about.

[@garyr.8116]

@zachdavis7536 - so you agree with the Mormon teaching: "The baptism of little children is an evil abomination" .... and that anybody that does so ""wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, **HE MUST GO DOWN TO HELL** ." - their Moroni 8 ????

[@chrisblanc663]

@@garyr.8116he probably disagrees with that particular point. But he probably agrees that “he that has the spirit of contention is not of me, but of the devil”. You don’t need to go about spreading contention like it’s butter. God bless you. 👍

[@Cindybin46]

When I was investigating the Church over 40 years ago (in my 20s) I came across "baptism for the dead" and thought "What???" I grew up Episcopalian and never heard of that! It almost made me want to stop learning about the Church. But then I learned that baptism for the dead is mentioned in the Bible! It's not just some weird "made up thing" only in the LDS Church. And when I took the time to understand it, of course I totally understood and accepted it. But so many people get all bent out of shape over this.

[@Sagart999]

A dependence on "scholars" is one of the reasons society has lost its way. People not looking to the Spirit, just academics. And I say that as a person with a Ph.D who fully appreciates the limitations of human understanding.

[@chrisblanc663]

My father had a PhD and my mother a masters. I absolutely value education and scholarly rigor, but I agree wholeheartedly with you, that our dependence on “experts” has gone way too far to our detriment.

[@CompassHealing]

I apologize for this Catholic rhetoric. I was very close to either becoming a Franciscan monk or a priest. My friend challenged me to read the Book of Mormon. I read it in 22 days and the rest is history. My mother converted as a 62 year old Oncologist and it created massive ripples in our community. I wrote a 90 page ebook about it. If you want it I’ll give it away free.

[@danielburns4483]

I'd be very interested in reading this. I want to get a deeper perspective on converts from Catholicism-- My very best friend just became Catholic (converted from Evangelical) and it is so funny to me how much he yearns for experience and doctrine that WE have in the Church of Jesus Christ but his pride really holds him back from doing the real searching.

[@garyr.8116]

@CompassHealing - "I was very close to either becoming a Franciscan monk or a priest. " - 'HOW' close? what was your age and # of years of seminary?

[@CompassHealing]

@@garyr.8116 went to Catholic school for 3 years, altar boy, and did an interview at Marymount college. The nun gave me advice to not become a priest.

[@garyr.8116]

@@CompassHealing Thank for your response and details. Ok, so you actually never STARTED any training/seminary to become a monk or priest, you were just 'close' to considering pursuing it. Too bad you didn't at least take it a bit further, as even those who go thru the education'/seminary formation don't always decide to go thru to completion/ordination, they at least walk away with an excellent education/formation that includes critical thinking.

[@CompassHealing]

@@garyr.8116 I’m grateful it panned out the way it did. A 2010 Pew Research Center study found that Mormons score higher than other religious groups in their knowledge of the Bible and Christianity. On average, Mormons answered almost six out of seven Bible questions correctly. They also scored highest in their knowledge of what the Constitution says about religion and the government.

[@bemorebetter5343]

This is why Catholic KZbinrs are getting in on the anti-Mormon train: vieeeews

[@jessicaloveridge2759]

Your charts were amazing! Cracked me up. Please use more graphs.

[@JD-pr1et]

I was a Catholic and Evangelical before becoming a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I became a member of the Lord's Church from those areas of post-Nicean Christianity partly because of the Church of Jesus Christ matching the Bible so much more than any other sect in general Christianity.

[@michellehopkins8926]

We owe a lot to the Catholic Church as they kept Christianity alive in the world. I dated Catholic girls in high school because these girls had morals similar to mine, I love the Catholics. As an LDS young man I often went to Catechism with friends, my faith was never challenged and I never challenged theirs.

[@DannyAGray]

Cardon just said General Zod was from Star Wars..... my nerd bone feels a bit broken.

😂

[@michaelmarsh8802]

In my experience Catholics are very good people. Been to mass and felt their love. They do a lot of good in the world. Having said that; those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[@Famr4evr]

True. That’s why this is so hard to understand why the video was created by a Catholic man.

[@garyr.8116]

As scripture says, we must "CONTEND FOR THE FAITH that was ONCE FOR ALL entrusted to God’s holy people." Jude 1:3 AND the House/ekklesia Jesus Founded - per HIS promise at Matthew 16:18 - WILL STAND - as it has for 2000+ years counting!

[@roygonzalez2478]

Talk to me about "indulgences" and I'll tell you about a fallen religion . Paying the Catholic church to get people out of purgatory for cash. Seriously?! They also lost me at praying to saints. How does one spell *Idol Worship* and how Mary is higher than Jesus with their dogma.

[@Tom-fo5ce]

maybe the same way Joey Smith gets worshipped at mormonism services? The little fraudster had to keep himself front and center

[@PatSmart-uk4vz]

The reason their scholars don't understand Paul's reference to baptism for the dead is simply because they don't accept baptism for the dead as a doctrine. As a result, they have to argue that Paul was pointing out an apostate group's practices, though they can't say why. To put it in perspective, their view is very much like saying, "You can see that the world is round because some people believe in giant, planet-sized turtles." This is, of course, ridiculous. Paul was very clearly arguing in defense of the _resurrection_ and used baptism for the dead as a support. As a highly intelligent man and gifted orator, he'd know better than to use an idea he believed to be false to support an idea he was trying to prove.

[@bartonbagnes4605]

Not only is there not Bible evidence for infant baptism,1 John 2: 12 "I write unto you, little children, for your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake." also Romans 4: 15 "... Where there is no law, there is no transgression." and Romans 7: 7 "...I had not known sin, but by the law..." and Romans 2: 14 "When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" As it says in Luke 12: 48 "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have commited much, of him they will ask the more.". So nothing about infant baptism, just many verses making it clear that you have to understand the law or you cannot sin. So much for Original Sin. In 1 Timothy 4 it says that some shall depart from the faith, and two signs of those who have given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils are Forbidding To Marry and Commanding Not To Eat Meat. The Catholic Church or those who would become the Catholic Church started forbidding to marry as early as the second century A.D. and they command people not to eat meat during lent. Oops! Of all the signs given of false churches and religions, The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints do none of them. And he's saying we interpret the Bible in a really skewed way? So where is their fulfillment of the prophecy that in the last days sons and daughters shall prophecy, young men shall see visions, and old men shall dream dreams? Yet another sign of false churches that the Catholic Church and all the Evangelical churches fulfill, they have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.

[@MommaCrissa]

The time for the visions and dreams mentioned in Joel come after the dividing and destruction of the Churches. Read all of Hosea and into Amos and then Joel. Hasn't happened yet that all will have mercy and given theses blessings.

[@bartonbagnes4605]

@@MommaCrissa Peter said in Acts 2: 17 "the last days", we are in the last days. Members of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints do prophecy, and receive visions and dreams. With all the aspects of it being fulfilled constantly since 1820, I would say that it hasn't happened already, nor is it yet to happen, but it is being fulfilled continuously.

[@richlopez5896]

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin-only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39, emphasis added). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14). Now, Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”-children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” Furthermore, St. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus, in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same. Were Only Adults Baptized? Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning-there were no “cradle Christians.” In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16). In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

[@bartonbagnes4605]

@@richlopez5896 When you start with a faulty premise, you'll only go the wrong direction. Nowhere is Original Sin mentioned in the Bible, quite the opposite. Ezekiel 18: 20-24, Ecclesiastes 7: 29, 1 John 2:12, Romans 4: 15, Romans 5: 13, Romans 7: 7, Romans 2: 12-15, Luke 12: 42-48. In short, if a child to young to understand the laws of God, or the laws of Jesus Christ as it's also called, does anything against them, especially if tricked or forced by those who do understand the law, they will be beaten with few to no stripes, or in other words, a short punishment. All those verses you misquoted, to try to force them to mean what you want, clearly can't mean what you claim. You may well try to bring up "I will visit the sins of the father's upon the children unto the third and fourth generation", but you would leave out or ignore the qualifier "of them that hate me." For if all the children of a parent follows the sins of their father except one, who refuses to go against the teachings of God, then only those who continue the sins their father did will receive the curse, that of course would include Adam's transgression. And since nobody else could knowingly eat of the forbidden fruit, nobody else could commit the "Original Sin", so nobody could be punished for it anyways. Now it's true that because of Adam death entered the world, not just the death of Adam and Eve, but decay and death of all living things. And because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ all mankind received the free gift of resurrection from the dead. And because Jesus Christ took upon himself the full punishments of all men, his now has authority to give rewards or punishments based on obedience to his laws and commandments, based on their knowledge of the same.

[@richlopez5896]

@@bartonbagnes4605 Scripture traces this condition back to the beginning of the human race-back to the Garden of Eden. As St. Paul says, “Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12). The Catechism thus states that God’s revelation “gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390). While we are not personally guilty of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve, we are affected by it. For us, original sin means being born without the sanctifying grace that we need for union with God. It also means that we have a broken nature that leads us to sin (CCC 388-390, 396-412). This truth is so profound a part of the Christian faith-and so obvious from the state of the world and the history of mankind-that the Church Fathers naturally discussed it. The good news is that God makes it possible for us to receive his grace, to be forgiven, and to overcome the power of sin. Hermas “‘They had need,’ [the Shepherd] said, ‘to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For,’ he said, ‘before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water [of baptism]. They go down into the water [spiritually] dead, and come out of it alive’” (The Shepherd 9:16:2). Theophilus of Antioch “For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death” (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]) Irenaeus “But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]” (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]) “Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning” (ibid., 5:16:3.) Tertullian “On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation” (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200] “‘Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection’ [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word ‘man,’ who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ” (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212] Origen “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244] “Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live” (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244] Augustine “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the sacrament [of baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ” (Letter to Jerome 166:7:21 [A.D. 415] Athanasius “Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world. . . . When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men” [Romans 5:12]. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 [inter A.D. 358-362]). Cyril of Jerusalem “Indeed, one man’s sin, that of Adam, had the power to bring death to the world. If by the transgression of one man, death reigned over the world, why should not life more fittingly reign by the righteousness of one man [Jesus]? If they were cast out of paradise because of the tree and the eating thereof, shall not the believers now enter more easily into paradise because of the tree of Jesus [the Cross]? If that man first formed out of the earth ushered in universal death, shall not he that formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, since he himself is life?” [John 10:10, 14:6] (Catechetical Lectures 13:1 [A.D. 350]

[@Famr4evr]

And!!! Children who dies before age 8 DO NOT need baptism by proxy! They only need to be sealed to their parents. 😊

[@BrianTerrill]

Catholics also believe in prayers for the dead, I don't know what so difficult accepting baptism for the dead for them is.

[@SaxSpy]

they havent voted on it yet

[@peter10562]

@@td6425 interesting 🤔 Why did the Apostle Paul do baptism for the dead?

[@roachemani]

@@td6425can you cite some scriptural evidence as to how one’s eternal fate is sealed once they pass away ? Didn’t Jesus visit the spirits in prison after his death ( 1 Peter 3:19-21 ) ? If so then this indicates that the factor of agency and free will is still active in the post mortal spirit world. Doesn’t make sense to have free will in mortality and not have free will after, because if it’s denied after then the fall of lucifer was not real because he chose out of his free will before the foundations of the world to rebel against God.

[@BrianTerrill]

@@td6425 it's not as cut and dry, there are also theories in the Catholic faith on the doctrine of Limbo and what happens to unbaptized babies etc.

[@HaleStorm49]

​@@roachemani This is why they talk about Mormons on their shows but rarely to them.

[@BrotherWells]

all we want to do, as LDS, is bring more light and revealed truth to others in other Christian faiths to help build them up even more and increase their faith in a world so cold. instead of tearing down others, we just want to help deepen their faith and love for Christ

[@ProdigalSonMatt]

1 Corinthians 15:29. At least there’s Biblical evidence for baptism for the dead… unlike infant baptisms 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

[@donquijote6030]

Great point. I, generally, have great friendships with Catholics. However, I find that they are almost totally ignorant of their own theology, the contents of the Bible, or even the history of the Bible.

[@matthewhunter6421]

Good job repeating what they said

[@rconger24]

If the gospel is preached to The Dead (1st Peter 3: 18-20, 4: 6) then why not Baptism for The Dead 1st Corinthians 15: 29)?

[@treystone9464]

@@rconger24They did Baptise for the Dead for 400 years, until they forbid giving the Eucharist and Baptizing the dead. They still believe in Masses for the Dead and other ordinances for the dead. Coptic Christians still baptize for the dead.

[@truthseeker4286]

Nope. The proper context of that scripture is this: there were living people who were in the process of converting to Christs' gospel. But they died. So people got baptized for them. There was no searching of names, was no searching of ancestors like us LDS do today. This is another example of the church hijacking scripture .

[@hugomilne-home8310]

I love ward radio news! Great articles

[@davden965]

The problem with the opinions of the evangelicals is, they don’t believe in modern day revelation, so how do their non prophet everyday men have a better translation of the Bible than our church that says it has a prophet. A regular man has a better translation than a prophet? Maybe that’s why they have 6000 different versions of the Bible

[@MrSeanVideos]

My parents are former members of the church now go to an evangelical church. They believe that they go back and use the oldest copies of the Bible available and translate literally what was written. My mother especially says she has faith in Christ, but goes to physical proof with things like archaeology. She says there is no physical proof of the things that happened in the Book of Mormon. I do not try to go into it with her because nothing I can say will help her. I pray for all my family that have left the church every day.

[@Yeezus20]

Who is saying that a regular man has a better translation than a prophet? Also, if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote in the New Testament what do you mean by translating? if they are the authors? Curious on what you are referring to

[@Yeezus20]

@@MrSeanVideos Well yes. We have over 5000 manuscripts written in Greek and can go back to translate exactly what was written. We have proof of the existence of Jesus, his baptism and crucifixion. Faith comes when talking about his resurrection because we can't physically prove that now. You need some sort of evidence to prove your claims otherwise any prophet can pop up saying they were visited by an angel.

[@elainehawes9347]

@@Yeezus20 no two of the earlest manuscripts read alike !!!

[@Canut0]

Jonah's graphs were very insightful, I like how we can reuse the graphs for other comparisons like oh ..... Number of times it says Pope in the Bible to number of times it says Prophet 🤔

[@BookWarden]

Ward Radio: C'mon, he's calling us stupid, how can he do that? Jonah later on: It's from a movie Cardon, you wouldn't get it. I love how hilarious and light hearted you guys are! (Edit: Looking back, this almost seems offensive, sorry.)

[@mda78803]

In that scripture reference they were discussing the Resurrection of the dead. Some didn’t believe in Resurrection so the question to them was why do we baptize for the dead if there is no Resurrection.

[@bschroader]

Exactly why Paul brings it up. So in an effort to teach correct doctrine regarding the resurrection, why would Paul use an example of an “invalid” practice? I would have to believe if he was determined to correct the doctrine of the resurrection citing the practice of baptism for the dead, he would also be just as compelled to say, “… and by the way, this baptism for the dead thing is also incorrect.”

[@KevinDeVocht]

Right? It wasn't just a comment made in passing. It was used as a specific example to support the doctrine of the resurrection.

[@CrackedCandy]

Yes, he used an accepted, well known practice, baptism for the dead, to help them understand a lesser understood or accepted doctrine, which is the resurrection

[@Yeezus20]

@@CrackedCandy But isn't it interesting that it is never mentioned again in any part of the bible? Paul isn't advocating baptism for the dead; rather, he's arguing that baptism in Christ's name is meaningful precisely because Christ was resurrected. At the time certain individuals claimed Jesus had not raised from the death yet still believed in him. Paul is saying why then would you be baptized in the name of a dead person this is worthless.

[@jtoddburt1]

let's dont forget the doctrine of limbo which the Catholics recently withdrew after centuries of belief. They had to maintain in centuries past that those not baptized as infants in the catholic church could not go to actual heaven (but hell) as a way to to ensure compliance of people to feel compelled to be catholic from birth. Of course, this doctrine seemed cruel for babies who can't be baptized in time before death, so they invented limbo as some sort of lesser heaven but not hell. So they've withdrawn that doctrine because it's still indicates an unfair God. They have yet to replace their doctrine with something that confirms a fair and just God. Of course LDS have doctrine to satisfy this need which is biblical (Gospel preached to dead and baptism for the dead)

[@JohnSmith-fd4ws]

My statistician husband says social science is always unreliable because you can't control and define so many variables.

[@gnomecaveira1490]

13:30 else why did the backboard shatter if Shaq did not do a monster dunk?

[@shibainferno]

Marv Albert developed an entire Boomshakalaka doctrine over this one verse!

[@angelalewis3645]

😂🤣

[@IntoAllTruth.]

What biblical verse supports praying to dead Saints to intercede with Christ?

[@whatsup3270]

I'm not double checking this but : Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36

[@Hamann9631]

@@whatsup3270 None of those verses say to pray to dead people.

[@danielmueller1443]

Revelation 5:8, 6:9-10, Hebrews 12:22-24

[@Hamann9631]

@@danielmueller1443 Those verses in Revelation do not say anything of the sort. "Saint" in there means members of Jesus Christ's church, not only dead people. Those prayers could have been the prayers of the saints (living members of the church of Jesus Christ). Dead people can pray to God, but that verse did not even describe living people praying to the dead. Those verses in Hebrews say nothing about praying to the dead. Those verses teach that we have something in common with followers of God in all ages.

[@gwengold8154]

Cardon, I would love to see this Catholic brother from another mother bring a bunch of his friends on your channel, and you guys have a family feud style trivia game on biblical knowledge!!!! 😊 Let's see who wins that showdown in the real world.

[@LadyDisdain3]

I’d watch the crap out of that.

[@angelalewis3645]

Paul’s reference to baptism for the dead was the OPPOSITE of “made in passing!”

[@grayman7208]

27:00 if you don't use the same questions in the surveys, then you cannot compare surveys. the comparison is meaningless.

[@TheYgds]

Considering we only focus 2 out of every 4 years on the Bible, that's pretty good. Furthermore, 7 questions is far too few to adequately measure anything. A single poorly constructed question can throw the whole survey off. If I was doing this, I wouldn't settle for less than 15 interfaith vetted questions. Another problem we have as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is that our relationship with Protestant Christianity tends to have so much contention, that we can hardly learn what they believe, because they're so pre-occupied with telling us what we believe.

[@wes2176]

Lets not rip on Catholicism too much. The previous video on this channel was such a pleasant bonding experience between the two faiths. However, the Book of Mormon fricking rules!!!

[@jonathanettinger6970]

True. The issue isn't Catholicism writ large. It's THIS Catholic and his bandwagon pandering.

[@Tom-fo5ce]

YES!! The Book of Mormon is not made up at all!!

[@wes2176]

@@Tom-fo5ce Do I sense some sort of sarcasm here?

[@jaredshipp9207]

It always gets me when both Catholics and Protestants want to argue from the Bible alone with the LDS, when the whole point of the Restored Church is modern revelation beyond the Bible. And the arrogance of this guy assuming because he, other Catholics, and scholars don't know what Paul meant, nobody else does.

[@hotwater8473]

Love dude with his shoulder rig, exercising his right to bare arms.

[@Killthesefears]

“What are you wearing today?” *pulls out a gun* 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Stay strapped bro😂😎

[@MillieKlein]

Jonah’s charts made me lol 😂

[@ScrivenArt]

It reminded me of James Veitch’s brilliant graph that he shared with his new business partner (scammer).

[@whatsup3270]

if only they were honest

[@ScrivenArt]

@@whatsup3270 I’m sure James Veitch was 100% honest and accurate when he presented his plan to Solomon.

[@dwRS1]

And this is why we needed a restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ. Thank God for Joseph Smith.

[@jessea2871]

True!! I would def let him marry my teenage daughter. Dude was a savage honoring the will of Heavenly Father!

[@dwRS1]

@@jessea2871 well you did get "honoring the will of Heavenly Father" right. If you understood the plan of salvation and the restoration you wouldn't be so condescending. You also need to brush up on early church history. Show me something better than the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints and I will listen.

[@PrepperDino]

Bodyguard with a cordless hole puncher ahhhh! LOL

[@jonathanettinger6970]

Hey. Remember all those videos made by our members which say "Here's 20+ minutes of why denomination X is wrong and bad and you shouldn't join them."? Oh. Wait. "Buh youse guys says all the other Christians are abominations and that's the same thing." No. No it isn't. 1. We present OUR story in which GOD spoke ill, that the CREEDS are an abomination and the professors OF them are corrupt. By corrupt, we mean teaching incorrect things. Not saying other Christians are inherently evil, just that the creeds are wrong and you shouldn't use them. 2. It's ONE point in the BEGINNING of our church history in CONTEXT of God speaking. 3. It's a starting point for everything else in the restoration. You reject the restoration? Fine. That's on you. Still doesn't excuse hit pieces, especially slanderous ones dripping with fallacies if not outright lies. When you go to THOSE lengths to prop up YOUR beliefs all you're really doing is admitting you're weak in your faith and can't simply offer your own beliefs convincingly. Instead, you need throw every bit of dung you can find and hope something sticks while SIMULTANEOUSLY asserting absolute nonsense about how you and the other groups agree on the important, salvific things and that's all that matters. Now some Catholics are playing the same game of Hi-Ho Cherry-picking-Oh. Sad.

[@matthewtolman5598]

I like how he films with a backdrop of his bookshelf. Usually doing so is a silent claim of being well read. Unfortunately for him, the black and yellow pattern of most of his books suggests the titles in his library are written "for dummies".

[@EldentistaVGC]

Can we just start calling him “cool hand Luke Hansen”

[@GldnClaw]

I had the same thought a few weeks ago on the Ward Radio Discord. I like it.

[@Schtroumpsolis]

1983 had a discussion about priesthood etc ,came the lds church ,so the priest opened his desk drawer and pulled out a blue card with rebutal answer for who ever would consider leaning toward the lds church. so its not of today that they do that.

[@MatthewCahoon]

Don’t forget to mention Matthew 23:9 And call no man your [spiritual] father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Catholics call their priests father. And 1 Peter 3:20-21 where it tells us baptisms are performed at the age of 8 years old.

[@rebeccaknudsen6190]

Check out the books on his shelf.

[@Alecia-Brown]

I was raised Catholic now lds, my mother still declares I’m catholic cause I was baptised as a baby catholic never mind what I’ve done as an adult, must be a catholic thing to say ‘unless we say it it didn’t happen’ crap

[@denisekyle6603]

I was raised in the Catholic church also ! Now LDS and loving it so much

[@gwengold8154]

Don't be too hard on your mother. The Catholic church is the authority she recognizes as being true authority. We only recognize the Lord's church as having true authority. It's kind of the same thing. I'm just sad that your mom doesn't understand what a huge role repentance plays in the purpose of baptism.

[@grayman7208]

both trent horn and pints with aquinas have also slandered the church.

[@jacobsamuelson3181]

I like to say they Beat the Beehive. LDS are know do be as bees. You don't mess with the Hive.

[@collintibbitts]

Love it. And technically Jesus was healing people on the Sabbath, which would have been the 7th day of the week, or Saturday...

[@oshemer5066]

Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Christians also have a decent claim to authority.

[@jaredshipp9207]

​@@APOSTOLICSAINTS The Eastern Orthodox is as dead of a tree as the Roman Catholic. Protestants the dead branches. Hence the need for the Restoration through Joseph Smith.

[@kjcdb8er]

Catholics just have sola-scriptura light. One of the internal inconsistencies that Catholics do have is that they do believe that the canon is closed. There is then the dissonance of extra biblical teachings that they then have to try and trace back to the canon at all costs. (I also love Catholics, and if LDS were not true, I'd be there in a pew.)

[@chefbernie62]

So this guy thinks that Paul is just spewing random things in the Bible. So Paul is just randomly teaching things. So Paul is just some random guy. Ok sure bud, sure.

[@gingermcgovern5682]

Hi from Colorado love your shirt!

[@Anti-Nephi-Lehi]

He who has the bigger “cannon” wins the war!!!

[@AtlasBrookingsMindReader]

Go and have a read of the Gospel of Nicodemus - two saints resurrected at the time of Christ’s resurrection visit their home town and write their experience and then are baptised, so another record of baptism of the dead and the need to be baptised. Not to mention the very interesting experience of the thief Dimas and his entrance into paradise...

[@davidnightingale146]

I believe the Ten Commandments are only completely listed once in the bible.

[@ZachBrown-n7t]

I just got the Book of Enoch, the Jewish Bible, and the Apocrypha, I first found Jeff's channel called Hello Saints and from there got inspired to gather and read all the other faiths texts. I hope you will invite Jeff from Hello Saints to your show. Also, I love your channel.

[@MudbeardMatt]

@WARDRADIO I wholeheartedly believe in the necessity of baptisms for the dead. However, the reference in Corinthians has NOTHING to do with baptisms for the dead. You can substitute ANY ordinance - for the living or the dead - in place of baptisms for the dead in that scripture and the and the message remains the same. The message is the dead being resurrected. Paul was pointing out the cognitive dissonance in the Corinthian saints' lack of belief in the resurrection and their participating in ordinances. (8:40)

[@whatsup3270]

I think Matt read the bible.

[@elainehawes9347]

hebrews ch 11 vs 38-39 without our help (baptism for the dead ) they should not be made perfect !!!

[@sethstewart1103]

Prohibition was a very good thing. We should not have overturned it. Millions of people have died and families have been broken due to alcoholism. Yes in actual fact, if we prohibit something legally, evil and conspiring men will have less of a megaphone to advertise their crummy products, and fewer people will get hooked on them, which is why they fought it so hard.

[@rbvmtr]

So where is it biblical to subject the spirits of the dead to be held hostage in spirit prison for a release pending a monetary value.

[@Yeezus20]

Where is it biblical that Elohim was once a human and that we are going to become gods?

[@danielcarriere1958]

Regarding 1 Peter 4:6, the traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage that goes all the way back to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian of Carthage is that Jesus preached to the dead between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you can find this referenced in Article 5 paragraphs 631 to 637. 632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there. (1 Pet 3:18-19) "634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead." (1 Peter 4:6) The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption." Other than the passage in Corinthians, there is no other explicit record of baptism of the dead in the Bible and none at all in the early church. Also, another small quibble - the Catholic Church does not teach continuous revelation. It has an authoritative teaching office that bases itself on Scripture and Oral traditions. In terms of this teaching on baptizing the dead, you have zero references in the teaching office and in oral tradition. And only 1 in scripture. For me to take seriously the idea that the early church taught baptism of the dead, I would need some trace of this teaching in the first four hundred years of church history. The doctrine of the Trinity and infant baptism, for example, are amply attested to in the early church. God bless, Daniel

[@BrittanyGray-oh4xu]

There is a third scripture where it is inferred not stated straight out in 1Kings 7:23-26.

[@Kaydubbbb]

I still want to see one of ourLDS temples with lions and palm trees as mentioned. Is there one?

[@Kaydubbbb]

I like to use the font description verses in the O.T. to show that baptism was not new with John the Baptist.

[@Heartsinmelody]

Jonah’s charts were hilarious- especially the infant baptism 😂

[@whatsup3270]

and 100% incorrect

[@Tom-fo5ce]

Is there any way I can get my name removed from any list mormons have so they do not speak for me or baptize me or do anything in my name?

[@John_Durrant]

Nothing is ever done in your name, only on your behalf. We believe that you are free to reject the baptism offered to you if you do not desire to follow Christ. God will force no man to heaven.

[@Jerome616]

@@John_Durrantwe just don’t want to follow devils like the Angel Moroni

[@Sagart999]

I found the Discord channel for the Ward Radio community, but could not identify the channel for the program itself. Is that available to the vast unwashed?

[@Jerome616]

Yikes… is this how all Mormons argue or just these guys? “What about this?” Reigns supreme

[@i2rtw]

This style of discussion, afaik, is pretty much exclusive to Ward Radio.

[@ineedoff1]

Please What is the intro music Title and artist someone please????

[@rxdocker]

"...which is why they're mormon" ill give him that one lmaooo that was funny

[@benjamingregersen9777]

Jonah, there's actually three scripture references to baptism for the dead in the Bible. In Leviticus there's a verse that says that the Dead in shaol will be redeemed by the blood of the covenant even though there's no water there. Baptism represents being washed and redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the blood of the covenant. Proxy baptism for the dead is the only way this can happen since there's no water in the pit.

[@whatsup3270]

Shoal is purgatory, technical a form of hell as God is absent.

[@paulcrave3112]

You guys are so clever. Even though you don’t know the Bible, can you do an episode on what it meant that the veil of the temple tore in two when the savior died ?

[@CryptoSurfer]

Yeah, it meant the veil tore in two

[@brucenorth5337]

Jesus Christ is the veil between us and the presence of the Father. He is the door. The veil represents Jesus Christ. The veil rent in sympathy with God. There is much more.

[@paulcrave3112]

@@brucenorth5337 I want to know more. I find it interesting. When I was a missionary it came up by those opposed to the church as evidence that there was no need for temples after the atonement. It came up in EQ lesson on Sunday by a 79 year old life member who said it’s something he never understood the meaning of and wondered if it meant that the veil was open and if so, why we need it in temple. I understand the symbolism with the veil representing Christ, and so did he. But there must be more to it.

[@FebbieG]

It seems to me that it's also symbolic that because Christ died, there is now a way through the veil to enter the presence of The Father.

[@whatsup3270]

@@paulcrave3112 There is a problem with the method used here. The veil is opposed to other writing about the event; thus the issue, and I say it shows a figurative writing. In that context the veil would mean the "Holy of Holies" was exposed. Thus God and his people reunited and were no longer separated. This old fellow is Other writings say an earthquake symbolizing a foundation split from the Temple controllers. And another has a darkness upon the earth symbolizing a loss of our human god.

[@whatsup3270]

" After she (Lydia) and her household had been baptized,..." Acts16:15 How do other know the household was only adults? Where were children if they were not in households.

[@spencerphillips983]

2nd video of yours i've watched and enjoying it. Dude hosting gives Jack Black vibes lol

[@Goobicon4507]

John 5:25-29 arguably says the same as the reference from Peter

[@Yeezus20]

How does that imply baptism for the dead?

[@BaronClapper]

Catholics baptize infants, but not for the reason that most of us are told. They baptize infants to invite them into the family of God, similar to the way we bless infant children in church and baptize eight-year olds. Catholics believe in repentance just like us. Baptizing an infant doesn't save someone, just like baptizing an eight-year old doesn't. Both sides have a great argument, and it comes down to personal revelation on who you believe.

[@danielcarriere1958]

Catholic Baptism isn't easily summarized by a few words. Yes, it is an invitation into the family of God, but it is also how we put on the death of Christ, as described in Romans 6:4, which unites us with Him. By his blood we have our sins forgiven and we live with hope in the resurrection.

[@kevinharper9190]

I once had a Bersa Thunder, also .380

[@HaleStorm49]

@6:45 The atonement was a galactic miracle, but not sure you can be redeemed from this one host.

[@wellsjdan]

I LOL at the trinity comparison. lol

[@nancyganoe7524]

I Corinthians 15 is all about resurrection. Vs 41: one Glory of the sun, one of the moon, one of the stars. Vs 42: "Do is the resurrection of the dead!" What is so hard about understanding that? All will be raised to a different glory!

[@justinbarnum6442]

Awesome video guys! Just one correction, just after the 18 minute mark, Luke may have miss spoke when he said baptism is necessary for salvation. The correct statement should be… Baptism is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God aka Celestial kingdom.

[@RealLadyG]

You cannot have Salvation without Baptism. What are you talking about?

[@Famr4evr]

@@RealLadyGI wonder if @justinbarnum6442 wanted it to be explicitly stated. Children under age 8 do not need baptism for exaltation.

[@justinbarnum6442]

What is salvation? Salvation means to be saved from physical death and spiritual death. We all know that everyone who lived on earth will be saved from physical death, meaning they will be resurrected. so my answer will be focused on spiritual death. according to LDS doctrine we believe that anyone who inherits a kingdom of glory meaning either the Telestial, Terrestrial or Celestial kingdom will be saved from spiritual death, also known as the second death. The only people who will not be saved from spiritual death will be the sons of perdition. This is a common misunderstanding within the LDS church. I also misunderstood the purpose of baptism for a very long time. D&C 76:31-48 pay very close attention to verses 36,37,43,44. And keep in mind this passage of scripture is talking about spiritual death/the second death. Please let me know if you have any questions!

[@justinbarnum6442]

@@Famr4evrhaha! No, I wasn’t referring to that.

[@RealLadyG]

@@justinbarnum6442 Justin, I had to 🤭 chuckle a bit because what you describe about Salvation is our exact doctrine and beliefs that is taught throughout the church (starting with the gospel lessons from the missionaries), so I don’t get where you are coming from that “it is a common misunderstanding” within the church. What is there to misunderstand? What could you possible misunderstand about Baptism? It’s mandatory. Except for little children and perhaps those who are mentally challenged, no one will get into Heaven without Baptism. Therefore, there’s no Salvation (eternal life) without being Baptized by authority.

[@DoulaGarcia]

Seven questions?! What kind of sampling is that? That tells us actually nothing.

[@MrRickb75645]

We don't worship the Bible. We worship God the father, and his only begotten son Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost. Three separate beings who are as one in their thoughts and actions.

[@jessicaloveridge2759]

I have no problem with any other religion but I find there are haters and bigots in all.

[@brandonjaquish]

Isaiah 9:6, John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3, 1 John 5:7…these are all verses in the Bible that teach the Trinity! :) Luke 18 talks about Jesus calling the children to himself. This verse in the Greek that it was originally written in also includes the word for infant. The Bible also talks about how baptism takes the place of Jewish circumcising which happened after 8 days of the baby boy being born. :) Also…I don’t think it’s good to construct doctrine around someone receiving “revelation”. Catholics aren’t just bound to Scripture. We believe in Scripture & Tradition. Traditionally, there has been no evidence in the early church or at all of anyone baptizing for the dead until Joseph Smith said so… Purgatory is explained in 2 Maccabees which was discerned to be part of the canon of Scripture by the Catholic Church. Also Jesus talks about Purgatory as well as St. Paul (Matthew 5 & 1 Corinthians 3). :) Also…when the Pope speaks in ex Cathedra, it is only in matters pertaining to faith and morals and it’s not coming up with new public revelation. :) -your friendly neighborhood Catholic

[@Cindybin46]

It's such a sad reality that we don't understand the Bible.

[@grayman7208]

there are only 2 verses that say - thou shalt not murder. and 1 verse that says - thou shalt not commit adultery.

[@wes2176]

When is Kwaku going to wear an Arizona T-shirt? Oh yeah, I asked it all right!

[@PipeDaddy907]

He did the Trump gaf! One Corinthians?! Lmao

[@wes2176]

I think a creature lives in Jonahs forehead, one day it will come busting out like in 'Aliens'. (The wiggly eyebrow phenomenon)

[@UVJ_Scott]

Below is what Catholics believe regarding the necessity of baptism, which is to say baptism is necessarily, but not necessarily required for salvation. Catholic doctrine on the fate of those who die without being baptized is nuanced and has evolved over time. Traditionally, the Church taught the necessity of baptism for salvation, based on Jesus' words in the Gospel of John (John 3:5). However, the Church also acknowledges God's mercy and justice, which informs its understanding of the fate of unbaptized individuals. Here are key points of Catholic teaching on this matter: 1. **Baptism of Desire**: The Church teaches that those who desire baptism but die before receiving it can be saved through what is called "baptism of desire." This includes catechumens (those preparing for baptism) who die before they can be baptized. 2. **Baptism of Blood**: This refers to the belief that martyrs who die for their faith before being baptized are granted salvation through their martyrdom, which is considered a form of baptism. 3. **Unbaptized Infants**: The fate of infants who die without baptism has been a complex issue. Historically, the concept of Limbo was proposed, suggesting a state of natural happiness without the beatific vision of God. However, this is not an official doctrine. The Church now expresses hope that unbaptized infants are saved and entrusts them to God's mercy, as reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1261). 4. **God's Mercy and Justice**: The Church acknowledges that God is not bound by the sacraments. God's mercy and justice extend beyond human understanding, and thus, the Church hopes and prays for the salvation of all, including those who die without baptism through no fault of their own (CCC 1257-1260). Overall, while baptism is seen as necessary for salvation, the Church also recognizes that God's grace can operate in ways known only to Him, and it maintains hope for the salvation of all who die without the sacrament.

[@CryptoSurfer]

So I take it that the Catholic stance on baptism is non-biblical

[@leeuniverse]

It really irritates me when Catholics who generally know better act like Evangelicals, being Anti-Mormon, instead of honestly disagreeing, and following Christs HARSH Admonition to his followers in Mark 9, Luke 9, etc. concerning other believers "not with you who are as Children". Even worse, like on Catholic Answers or whatever, seeing Anti-Mormon Articles with the "Catholic Holy Seal of Approval" on those articles.... It's just SICK.

[@bethanygonzales5529]

Hmmm… he reminds me of the werewolf guy in Silver Bullet. 😯

[@whatsup3270]

Honestly this was painfully bad. There is a ton of Catholicism in the LDS and it is growing. Every year LDS leaders when pushed on issues revert to Catholic teachings to assist the LDS answer tough questions. Left alone the LDS is moving to Catholic light.

[@jamesnielsen1220]

Can you provide the title to of the video?

[@Dorn-Dvinn]

Good talk but purgatory is in Maccabees but then again so is prayer for the dead. Also, masses and prayers for the dead are Catholic doctrine. Supported by Maccabees.

[@Bl3ndrz]

Cardon, I love you man, but some of your mannerisms starting at 15:15 reminded me of a T-rex 😭

[@harmonicarchipelgo9351]

"It's a really vague scripture and even scholars don't understand what it means". I am just going to go out on a limb here: Some people (presumably Christians since Paul is using their actions to support his resurrection thesis) were getting baptized for the dead. So what does "for the dead" mean? I think it can be figured out from the context with good faith study. It was used as evidence for the resurrection, so what connection is there between baptism, death, and resurrection? In a non-resurrection model of the afterlife, final judgement happens immediately upon death so people who died without baptism would not have a window of time to receive baptism. But in a resurrection model there is a space of time between death and resurrection and final judgement happens at the time of resurrection. Thus there is a possibility to receive baptism after death but before final judgment. This leads to the reading of "for the dead" as "for the benefit of the dead" i.e. so the dead can receive baptism before their resurrection. Other readings of "for the dead" where the live person is getting their own personal baptism such as "to respect the dead" "for when they are dead" "to be with the dead" etc. don't provide any support for Paul's thesis since they work just as well as reasons to get baptized in non-resurrection model. One plausible alternative could be "as an example for the dead". Meaning that the dead could baptize each other and would be inspired by living people getting baptized for themselves. This would be pretty thin evidence for Paul's thesis since saying "why else do people get baptized to inspire the dead" is easily refuted with "people get baptized for their own salvation and obedience to God, not to inspire the dead". But it isn't completely crazy. So I guess Joseph Smith's revelation is necessary for complete certainty but proxy baptism seems by far the most plausible reading as that is the only reading that is the logical checkmate that Paul seems to think it is.

[@whatsup3270]

No until Jesus' death they were all one religion which did NOT believe in resurrection, thus the comment Paul makes which is you cant take baptism without a belief in the resurrection.

[@harmonicarchipelgo9351]

@@whatsup3270 Only some factions of Judaism at the time of Jesus didn't believe in resurrection (the major one being the Sadducees). Also, this passage occurs in Corinthians. A letter to the Christians in Corinth. If only people who believed in resurrection could get baptized, then Paul wouldn't need to convince them about resurrection as they were already baptized. The existence of the chapter itself indicates that resurrection (at least individual resurrection as opposed to just the resurrection of Jesus) was a less emphasized and poorly understood point of doctrine. Thus people totally could get baptized without knowing it. Further, your interpretation of "for the dead" is to completely ignore its inclusion in the sentence?

[@whatsup3270]

@@harmonicarchipelgo9351 Paul says to the Jews if they are baptized but do not accept the NEW TEACHING of a resurrection, they have wasted their baptism. The dead are them, they will die without accepting the teaching.

[@harmonicarchipelgo9351]

@@whatsup3270 Where does Paul say that? I just reread 1 Cor 15 and I didn't see Paul call resurrection a new teaching at any point. Paul was a Pharisee before becoming Christian. Pharisees also believed in resurrection so it wasn't a new teaching for Paul. BTW I just checked my Greek Bible and the preposition "for" is the translation of υπερ which means either "on behalf of" / "for the benefit of". Very weird choice of preposition if the people getting baptized are also the dead.

[@whatsup3270]

@@harmonicarchipelgo9351 What does verses 22 say.

[@davidhawkins5719]

Post apostles, the Fathers (Doctors) of the Church took over. This is where the apostasy really took off. Most Catholic superstitions, the rosary, worshiping the cross, kissing rings, the Trinity as attributed to a vision Constantine supposedly had, Papal authority and many other doctrines were man made by the Fathers and not from revelation. Scripture in the Bible far more support the Restoration and not Catholicism. Chapter 15 of Corinthia is all about Resurrection and glories to be obtained. Baptism for the dead is relevant to celestial resurrections and glory.

[@danielcarriere1958]

The great apostasy just doesn't have evidence for it. The same thing is true about the book of Mormon - there is no historical evidence to support it either. But you do find a massive amount of historical evidence from the earliest days. Apart from the evidence found in scripture, you find the Didache, the letter of Clement of Rome to the church in Corinth, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch as he is being led to Rome for martyrdom, the letters of Ignatius to Polycarp, a disciple of John, the letters of Polycarp to his own Church, the writings of Ireneaus of Lyons against the Gnostics, the writings of Tertullian of Carthage against the Montanists and the Monarchianists, the writings of Justin Martyr, the letters of Perpetua of Carthage before her execution for her faith, the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria, the writings of Cyprian of Carthage, and so on and so on. All of these are before Constantine. And within this corpus of historical evidence, there is nothing that supports Mormonism.

[@kappagemini]

The inconsistency of the Mary doctrine is what helped me leave the Catholic church. You can't say the church is the same for 2,000 years but also add new things.

[@whatsup3270]

Please explain, nothing changed about Mary.

[@Yeezus20]

What changed?

[@kappagemini]

​@jesusporras9370 The official decree of the Immaculate conception came in 1854, making it dogma. Prior to that you could be in good standing without believing that. After 1854, if you didn't believe it, you were not in line with dogma and couldn't take communion. How is that consistent?

[@Yeezus20]

@@kappagemini The proclamation of the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854 is often viewed as a development of doctrine rather than an inconsistency. This concept, similar to how the Trinity doctrine evolved, suggests that Church understanding deepens over time without contradicting earlier beliefs.

[@bensonjarvis5025]

I have never been this early