[anniegetyourgun]

Such a practice is not biblical. But I'm not sure that has stopped the LDS in the past.

[dadokane]

"Such a practice is not biblical. But I'm not sure that has stopped the LDS in the past."

are the LDS on LSD?

[tessalu]

Mormons do not care what is biblical and what is not. What they do does not bother me. Let them baptise names if they want, so far as I am concerned, for it means nothing at all.

[maui_hawaii]

Actually it is biblical, but I am not in for a bible bash. So, lets not argue.

[Aliska]

Such a practice is not biblical. But I'm not sure that has stopped the LDS in the past.

They base it on this passage in 1 Cor 15:29:

"29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"

So it IS biblical. Problem is interpretation. I never really understood this passage, but apparently the early Christians were engaging in this practice and it isn't clear where Paul stands on it. He doesn't come right out and condemn it.

To me, the early Christians were doing this for relatives who had died before they knew about Jesus. Now everybody (in the west at least and much of the rest of the world) knows about Jesus. I think the Mormons rationalize it that they have the true Christian practices, as restored by Joseph Smith.

What are the Jews going to do when they find out there have probably been innumerable Catholic masses offered for them? In the Catholic faith, you can offer a mass for anyone, living or dead.

How would Mormons react to having a Catholic mass said for them?