[excerpted from http://www.irr.org/mit/baptdead.html ]
The fact that Pauls mention of baptism for the dead is not an endorsement is signaled by the impersonal manner in which he refers to the practitioners: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? If the rite was a legitimate part of apostolic teaching, we might have expected the apostle to say what shall you do . . . or what shall we do . . .
Paul does elsewhere use something with which he disagrees to make a theological point. In 1 Corinthians 8:10 the apostle refers to eating meat in an idols temple without showing it to be wrong in itself; however, that he believed it is wrong is clear from what he says later in 1 Corinthians 10:21.
It is clear from Romans 9:1-3 and 10:1-4 that Paul was acutely conscious that many among his own Jewish kinsmen were outside the gospel fold. He speaks of having great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart for his Hebrew brethren (9:2), and declares that my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved (10:1). Certainly there would have been some from the apostles own extended family who had gone to their graves unbaptized. If Paul taught baptism for the dead, it is inexplicable that he would exclude himself from those who practiced the rite, as he surely does when he writes, what shall they do which are baptized for the dead . . .
Notice too that in verses 30-32 the apostle immediately contrasts the fringe group practicing baptism for the dead with himself and the broader Christian community: And why stand we in jeopardy every hour . . . what advantageth it me if the dead rise not. Indeed, the impersonal they contrasts markedly with Pauls practice throughout 1 Corinthians 15, where he consistently addresses his readers as you (vv. 1,2,3,11,12,14,17,31,34,36,51,58), or, (including himself) we or us (vv. 3,15,19,30,32,49,51,52).
If we ask who the they in verse 29 refers to, the context clearly points us back to verse 12. It is those within the Corinthian congregation who are denying the resurrection, and whom the entire passage is written to refute. Then the biting aspect of Pauls argument becomes clear. These false teachers are inconsistent: they deny the resurrection, yet engage in a practice baptism for the dead which is based on the hope of resurrection.
This is exactly the understanding of the text held by the early Christian writer Tertullian. Writing about A.D. 180, he makes this comment on 1 Corinthians 15:29 His [Pauls] only aim in alluding to it was that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection.
Ironically, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism espouses this same interpretation of the verse: . . . Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.
Thus, far from endorsing the baptism for the dead, Paul associates it with a group whom he has already identified as being in deep spiritual error.
Ping for your reference, LC.
I cite a significant number of non-LDS scholars/theologians who acknowledge the practice by early Corinthians of vicariously baptizing their dead and you cite an internet article from an anti-Mormon “Mormons in Transition” website. LOL.