The Church of Jesus Christ

[Lastdaysbeliever]

Then again--please give us your explanation of why Paul would use what you claim is a "pagan" rite to validate a Christian fundamental staple such as the resurrection?

While you are at it--please give us your Biblical evidence Paul thought of baptism for the dead as a pagan rite? Where do we find that in 1Cor15?



I know it's a ridiculous argument--what has baptism in the sea got to do with 1Cor15:29?

And what has Hebrews 9:27 got to do with it?

If you are going to use the idea once a man is dead--there is no more opportunities--then Christ's Atonement is nullified for 4,000 years of mankind. You do realize God came to save them also--and without that Blood--no man can be saved? How do you explan that? And if it was a vicarious act God accomplished in His Atonement--retroactive to even the dead--then death does not shorten the Hand of God:

1 Peter 4:5-6---King James Version
5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For 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.

God conquered death and hell, so why should anyone have a hopeless view for those who have died? They are all alive to God.

1st, if Paul was claiming baptism for the dead was part of the church he wouldn't have used "others", as in other people, and would have used "us", or "we" or the "church". So, consequently, your use of this verse is twisting what Paul meant to fit your own religious narrative.

Paul certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there were no resurrection, why would the custom exist? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead - erroneously based on this passage - is neither Scriptural nor sensible.

2nd, since we are appointed once to die and then the judgment, Smith's claim that you Mormon's can baptize those who have died to give them a chance to "obey the requirements of the law of God.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/baptism-for-the-dead?lang=eng) after they died is (Hebrews 9:27) unbiblical. Along with that, such a lie further invalidates Christ's death and resurrection, His willing sacrifice for our salvation, redemption and restoration of our relationship with the Father. Again, Joe Smith creating another facet to the Mormon merit-based salvation, but now for the dead (who already faced judgment according to the Bible), not just the living.

 

[Richard7]

Wrong! Nowhere does Scripture tell us to prove a teaching by a subjective feeling in the chest, which could simply be caused by something one ate for lunch. We see if a teaching is true the same way the Bereans did--by searching the Scriptures.

Well you and the scriptures surely part company then...

 

[dberrie2020]

1st, if Paul was claiming baptism for the dead was part of the church he wouldn't have used "others", as in other people, and would have used "us", or "we" or the "church".

I have no idea where you get that from:

1 Corinthians 15:17-18--King James Version
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

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

Paul certainly does not approve of the practice;

I have no idea where you get that from either. Where do we find that in 1Cor15? That's nothing but a prejudice.

he merely says that if there were no resurrection, why would the custom exist?

And why would Paul validate the Resurrection with something which he does not approve of--or thought was a false practice?

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

Wasn't it Paul who testified of this principle?

1 Corinthians 2:12-13---King James Version
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You believe whatever you will--but for Paul to validate something true using something "pagan" and false is a far cry from reason. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead - erroneously based on this passage - is neither Scriptural nor sensible.

What isn't sensible is Paul using baptism for the dead--which has a scriptural reference--as a point to validate the Resurrection--and it be a false or pagan rite. Unsustainable.

2nd, since we are appointed once to die and then the judgment, Smith's claim that you Mormon's can baptize those who have died to give them a chance to "obey the requirements of the law of God.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/baptism-for-the-dead?lang=eng) after they died is (Hebrews 9:27) unbiblical.

Again--it most certainly isn't. You have not answered the point I have posed--where God died vicariously for the sins of the whole world--including those which had been dead for up to 4,000 years.

Also--you didn't answer to my other posted scripture:

1 Peter 4:5-6---King James Version
5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For 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 3:18-19---King James Version
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Just so one is judged after death--does not mean they are judged immediately after death, as the scriptures show:

Rev20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I don't think every man died at the same time.

Along with that, such a lie further invalidates Christ's death and resurrection, His willing sacrifice for our salvation, redemption and restoration of our relationship with the Father.

How so, as the Atonement for all men included those who had died 4,000 years earlier? If they were judged immediately after death--then all those who died prior to the Atonement were damned, including Abraham, Jacob, etc.--as one could not enter into eternal life without His Blood.

 

[dberrie2020]

Bonnie said: Wrong! Nowhere does Scripture tell us to prove a teaching by a subjective feeling in the chest, which could simply be caused by something one ate for lunch.

dberrie said---So--you believe this was caused by something they ate?

Luke 24:31-32---King James Version
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Bonnie?

 

[Yitoz]

1st, if Paul was claiming baptism for the dead was part of the church he wouldn't have used "others", as in other people, and would have used "us", or "we" or the "church". So, consequently, your use of this verse is twisting what Paul meant to fit your own religious narrative.

Paul certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there were no resurrection, why would the custom exist? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead - erroneously based on this passage - is neither Scriptural nor sensible.

2nd, since we are appointed once to die and then the judgment, Smith's claim that you Mormon's can baptize those who have died to give them a chance to "obey the requirements of the law of God.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/baptism-for-the-dead?lang=eng) after they died is (Hebrews 9:27) unbiblical. Along with that, such a lie further invalidates Christ's death and resurrection, His willing sacrifice for our salvation, redemption and restoration of our relationship with the Father. Again, Joe Smith creating another facet to the Mormon merit-based salvation, but now for the dead (who already faced judgment according to the Bible), not just the living.

It's simply the mormon necromantic infatuation with their demonic temple rites.

 

[Slyzr]

Everyone is dead for your temple stuff?

Bump ..

 

[brotherofJared]

It's simply the mormon necromantic infatuation with their demonic temple rites.

That's the best you can do? Take a swipe with your magnificent opinion.

 

[dberrie2020]

It's simply the mormon necromantic infatuation with their demonic temple rites.

Isn't that the same claim some would make against the need for a temple at all?

Revelation 7:13-15---King James Version
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Revelation 11:1-2---King James Version
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Those without a temple won't be able to fit anything they have with that testimony, hence--the frontal attack. The LDS have a temple, where those who serve God, are arrayed in white.

 

[dberrie2020]

Lastdaysbeliever said:
1st, if Paul was claiming baptism for the dead was part of the church he wouldn't have used "others", as in other people, and would have used "us", or "we" or the "church".

I have no idea where you get that from:

1 Corinthians 15:17-18--King James Version
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

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

Lastdaysbeliever said:
Paul certainly does not approve of the practice;

I have no idea where you get that from either. Where do we find that in 1Cor15? That's nothing but a prejudice.

Lastdaysbeliever said:
he merely says that if there were no resurrection, why would the custom exist?

And why would Paul validate the Resurrection with something which he does not approve of--or thought was a false practice?

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

Wasn't it Paul who testified of this principle?

1 Corinthians 2:12-13---King James Version
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You believe whatever you will--but for Paul to validate something true using something "pagan" and false is a far cry from reason. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Lastdaysbeliever said:
The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead - erroneously based on this passage - is neither Scriptural nor sensible.

What isn't sensible is Paul using baptism for the dead--which has a scriptural reference--as a point to validate the Resurrection--and it be a false or pagan rite. Unsustainable.

Lastdaysbeliever said:
2nd, since we are appointed once to die and then the judgment, Smith's claim that you Mormon's can baptize those who have died to give them a chance to "obey the requirements of the law of God.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/baptism-for-the-dead?lang=eng) after they died is (Hebrews 9:27) unbiblical.

Again--it most certainly isn't. You have not answered the point I have posed--where God died vicariously for the sins of the whole world--including those which had been dead for up to 4,000 years.

Also--you didn't answer to my other posted scripture:

1 Peter 4:5-6---King James Version
5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For 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 3:18-19---King James Version
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Just so one is judged after death--does not mean they are judged immediately after death, as the scriptures show:

Rev20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I don't think every man died at the same time.

Anyone???

 

[Richard7]

It's simply the mormon necromantic infatuation with their demonic temple rites.

And what is demonic about all the love for one's neighbor or one's family member what has deceased... how about all the billions of people that never heard of Christ or the Plan of Salvation? So again what is demonic about caring for others in the spirit of Temple Work and love..
Satan has no love and can only do that which is evil... nice try.

 

[Richard7]

I have no idea where you get that from:

1 Corinthians 15:17-18--King James Version
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

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



I have no idea where you get that from either. Where do we find that in 1Cor15? That's nothing but a prejudice.



And why would Paul validate the Resurrection with something which he does not approve of--or thought was a false practice?

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

Wasn't it Paul who testified of this principle?

1 Corinthians 2:12-13---King James Version
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You believe whatever you will--but for Paul to validate something true using something "pagan" and false is a far cry from reason. It makes no sense whatsoever.



What isn't sensible is Paul using baptism for the dead--which has a scriptural reference--as a point to validate the Resurrection--and it be a false or pagan rite. Unsustainable.



Again--it most certainly isn't. You have not answered the point I have posed--where God died vicariously for the sins of the whole world--including those which had been dead for up to 4,000 years.

Also--you didn't answer to my other posted scripture:

1 Peter 4:5-6---King James Version
5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For 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 3:18-19---King James Version
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Just so one is judged after death--does not mean they are judged immediately after death, as the scriptures show:

Rev20:12-15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I don't think every man died at the same time.

Anyone???

? ? ? ?

 

[Markk]

As I have pondered the thought of why the critics here would choose to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--one thought is prevalent in my musings.

The NT church had the living, mortal apostles and prophets. They had heavenly visitations to numerous occasions--with witnesses. They had the priesthood. Jesus Christ Himself visited them, and continuing revelation and scripture ensued. They had the temple--present and future, etc.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also possess those same traits.

Yet--those who have little to none of that, --attack the very church which does have those things, claiming it as being false.

How is that persecution any different than what the traditional Jews leveled agaisnt the first century church of Jesus Christ?

If you truly want to understand why the Christian church rejects Mormonism, or better put LDS doctrine, is that it makes God a man and allows man to be equal with God. This is blasphemy in the highest degree. Believing and even more so teaching that man, by works, be exalted to the exact nature of God and Christ…having the same Power, Knowledge, Glory, and Dominion. This is core LDS thought and Doctrine.

Trying to force the teachings of the Bible, and the ways and beliefs of the OT and NT folks does not erase the core teaching that man can be equal by nature and being as God and have everything He has. Again, to a Christian this is unacceptable. It does not mean that Mormon’s are not good people, most are.

D-berrie…the LDS doctrine that Man can become not only a god, but a God equal in every way is just unacceptable to what the Christian church teach and believe.

There is a huge fundamental 180 here, splitting hairs on non essential teachings and doctrines can’t erase this. And, becasue it is basically done secretly, or quietly at best…with the cloak of being true Christianity makes it worse and show a certain amount of premeditated deception.

I tell you what this is a Mormon forum. Be honest here and tell the folks how they can become a God, and have all that he has including all Power, Knowledge, Glory, and Dominion, even the same as the HF and JC. Can you openly walk folks through how this is possible through LDS teachings and by the further revelation the church champions they alone have?

This would go a long way, at least for me, it showing that you are really honest in what you believe. Do you believe you will someday have the same Glory as God and Christ?

 

[dberrie2020]

If you truly want to understand why the Christian church rejects Mormonism, or better put LDS doctrine, is that it makes God a man ...

The Christian church didn't reject that idea:

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


I believe what you mean is--your rejection of the Christian Church.

and allows man to be equal with God. This is blasphemy in the highest degree. Believing and even more so teaching that man, by works, be exalted to the exact nature of God and Christ…having the same Power, Knowledge, Glory, and Dominion. This is core LDS thought and Doctrine.

Are you referring to this blasphemy?

Ephesians 3:19--King James Version
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

 

[Markk]

The Christian church didn't reject that idea:

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


I believe what you mean is--your rejection of the Christian Church.



Are you referring to this blasphemy?

Ephesians 3:19--King James Version
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Well, that is not what I meant at all…you asked a specific question based on your pondering and musings. The Christian church see the
LDS church as blasphmous for their teachings and belief that God was one e a man, and that man can be equal with God in nature and being.

I have never meet a Christian that would even entertain such a thought.

You are apparently upset because you don’t like folks attacking the doctrines of the LDS church and when I explain the single most reason why…you ignore it by pasting Scriptures in which the Christian church interprets differently.

In simple conversation, do you believe you can have the same Glory of God some day, not to mention the same power, knowledge, and dominion…or like most Mormons are you embarrassed by this teaching?

When I LDS I certainly was, but to be fair being born and raised with the teaching I did not really see how off it was in regards to the Christian world, although I would never tell a non member I could be a God…do you.

It seems like that would be the largest selling point of becoming a member…” Come and become a God with us, and you too can create worlds without end and populated them with your spirt children…just as HF did.”

So once again, LDS doctrine is attacked by Christian apologists, in that it teaches that man can become a God, and that God was once a man.

 

[Magdalena]

Well, that is not what I meant at all…you asked a specific question based on your pondering and musings. The Christian church see the
LDS church as blasphmous for their teachings and belief that God was one e a man, and that man can be equal with God in nature and being.

I have never meet a Christian that would even entertain such a thought.

You are apparently upset because you don’t like folks attacking the doctrines of the LDS church and when I explain the single most reason why…you ignore it by pasting Scriptures in which the Christian church interprets differently.

In simple conversation, do you believe you can have the same Glory of God some day, not to mention the same power, knowledge, and dominion…or like most Mormons are you embarrassed by this teaching?

When I LDS I certainly was, but to be fair being born and raised with the teaching I did not really see how off it was in regards to the Christian world, although I would never tell a non member I could be a God…do you.

It seems like that would be the largest selling point of becoming a member…” Come and become a God with us, and you too can create worlds without end and populated them with your spirt children…just as HF did.”

So once again, LDS doctrine is attacked by Christian apologists, in that it teaches that man can become a God, and that God was once a man.

Nice to see you back, Markk.

I remember when Mormons used to proudly claim that as their doctrine, among other things that they‘ve since become embarrassed about.

 

[Markk]

Nice to see you back, Markk.

I remember when Mormons used to proudly claim that as their doctrine, among other things that they‘ve since become embarrassed about.

How’s things going?

I remember when members were proud also, and proud to be called a Mormon…but now it is a disgrace I guess. For me, and I suspect yourself, it just adds to the lies we were taught growing up in the church. Add another notch on the door…

Today the brethren speak with very carefully chosen words…long gone are the days that they openly taught core doctrines in plain terms.

Honestly, I believe he may not even grasp what is taught, if not, he is certainly embarrassed to speak what is actually taught and expected of him.

Could you imagine if Franklin Graham or Greg Laurie taught at a crusade you can have the same power, knowledge, glory and dominion as God?

My point being in his OP he wonders why LDS doctrine is attacked yet he refuses to want to understand and admit why. Aside for the theological and systematic debate…I am just wanting to answer his implied question, and at least have a honest understanding of our differences.

I could really careless if they want to keep a sabbath day…or other non essential ’stuff’…but the answer to his question is really obvious when you dig in to what the church really teaches and is centered around, which is of course becoming Gods and Goddesses…claiming to be equal in nature with the Christian God is so off center to th Christian church I am not sure what they really expect.

 

[dberrie2020]

Well, that is not what I meant at all…you asked a specific question based on your pondering and musings.

Which your postulations have nothing to do with:

dberrie said--"As I have pondered the thought of why the critics here would choose to attack The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--one thought is prevalent in my musings.

The NT church had the living, mortal apostles and prophets. They had heavenly visitations to numerous occasions--with witnesses. They had the priesthood. Jesus Christ Himself visited them, and continuing revelation and scripture ensued. They had the temple--present and future, etc.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also possess those same traits.

Yet--those who have little to none of that, --attack the very church which does have those things, claiming it as being false.

How is that persecution any different than what the traditional Jews leveled against the first century church of Jesus Christ?"

Care to address that?

The Christian church see the LDS church as blasphmous for their teachings and belief that God was one e a man,

What you call blasphemous--the NT church claimed as a central tenant of Christianity:

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Could you explain for us how Christianity is absent the story of God becoming a man--and dying for the sins of the whole world?

You are apparently upset because you don’t like folks attacking the doctrines of the LDS church and when I explain the single most reason why…you ignore it by pasting Scriptures in which the Christian church interprets differently.

When you state "Christian church"--it's apparently a different Christianity than what true Christianity is within the Biblical NT text. The Bible has the central story of man's salvation being God becoming a man.

Ever read that story? This is the time of year where we celebrate the birth of Christ. I like the Luke rendition. You might want to read that--it's a central part of Christianity.

In simple conversation, do you believe you can have the same Glory of God some day, not to mention the same power, knowledge, and dominion…or like most Mormons are you embarrassed by this teaching?

Markk---I'm not sure why you are obsessed about that. I'm not.

I believe what the scriptures testify to, and that is good enough for me:

Ephesians 3:19--King James Version
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Do you believe that? It is Christianity--right? Or do you have another rendition?

 

[Markk]

DB…

You addressed how the LDS church (doctrine) is attacked by Christians. Okay fair enough, if writing posts is persecution . I am simply telling you why. We have a fundamentally different interpretation of the Bible and the LDS church has extra biblical doctrines.

You are upset because LDS doctrine is questioned and disputed by those here, yet all you do is attack what we believe and insist that we are wrong in our interpretations and you have the only true interpretations.

I have no problem accepting LDS interpretations of the Bible as being LDS…why do you insist that we can’t have our own? The bottom line is that there is not any main stream Christian Churches that would come close to entertaining the man can have the same Glory, Knowledge , Power , and Dominion of God. To the Christian it is the highest form of blasphemy possible.

You being a man, make yourself a God…that is just not an acceptable interpretation or doctrine.

If you believe that the Bible teaches that fine, but you are in a very small percentile that would come close to believing that.

Do you believe that you will have the same Glory and Power as God and Christ?

In regards to the difference against persecution of 1st century Christians…killing and harming them…to writing and teaching what the LDS church teaches on internet a fourm…there is no comparison.

Think about it DB…I am simply telling folks, after 34 years of believing it, what the church teaches, and that I now believe it is blasphamy…and you want to compare that to Christian persecution in the 1st century…go figure?

 

[dberrie2020]

DB…
You addressed how the LDS church (doctrine) is attacked by Christians. Okay fair enough, if writing posts is persecution . I am simply telling you why.

And I simply posted the scripture which shows your position isn't Christian:

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

We have a fundamentally different interpretation of the Bible and the LDS church has extra biblical doctrines.

That was the same accusation the traditional Jews were making against the NT church in adding the NT to the Hebrew Bible--to this very day.

I have no problem accepting LDS interpretations of the Bible as being LDS…why do you insist that we can’t have our own?

Cite, please. Making up scenarios out of thin air isn't what I would label realistic. My point in posting scriptures is to show it isn't only me which disagrees with the critics here--but the Biblical text:

Ephesians 3:19--King James Version
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

You haven't posted the first Biblical scripture, which isn't unusual for the critics here--nor have you engaged the testimony of the Biblical writers above.

 

[dberrie2020]

Lastdaysbeliever said: 1st, if Paul was claiming baptism for the dead was part of the church he wouldn't have used "others", as in other people, and would have used "us", or "we" or the "church".

I have no idea where you get that from:

1 Corinthians 15:17-18--King James Version
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

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

Lastdaysbeliever?