Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-03-01
FOR THE DEAD.

Writ, found both in the Old and
New Testament, upon which our
modern, learned, pious expositOrs
10 not like to touch. They seem TO
feel delicate about 1t. You may
peruse their copIous commentaries,
their sermons, and their theo-
logical magazines; you may run all
the year round from church to
church, from meeting to meeting,
and vet never lie able to derive any
knowledge concerning certain pas
sages in Scripture, seemingly plain
enough, and yet, in the present
state of theological development,
shrouded in dark mystery.
And when, finally, you become
tired of your fruitless search ut ran
dom, you form a bold resolution.
you conclude to do what, possibly,
you ought to have done firSt-yOu
take your bible and 90 to the Rev.
So-aad-sO the celebrated scholar,
the great orator, the conscientious
shepherd of the flock, and you ask
him for mercy's sake to tell you
what this or that particular passage
really means. Quite SO.
Did you ever try this? II not, DO,
and if your text IS very difficult
one, you will be surprised to learn
that the man really does not know;
that, in fact, he is as uniformed
upon the subject as You are.
Not that he would be likely TO say
so himself. lie would not be honest
enough, | fear, to commit himself
u that extent. Nor would he, ac-
cOrding to the saying Of Solomon:
try to appear wise 10y observing 81
lence. On the contrary, he would
probably have a great deal to say.
He would talk to you about faith in
Christ, the blessedness Of heaven,
the atonement, and such other sub
jects oil which you had not ques-
toned him at all. He would inter
sp=rse his fine speeches with quo
tations from Augustine, perhaps, or
from Luther, or Calvin, or Knox, or
anybody, and at last wind up by
the remark that there were some
things written, which God did never
intend us to know anything about.
For theolOgilns nova days actually
tell us that what is necessary for
salvation is clear enough. About
the rest we must not bother our
selves. AS If God did not mean that
We should be instructed by all He
has written, but that He wrote Ger
tain unintelligible passages merely
to show us cur ignorance and His
superior wisdom.
The argument Of st. Paul Il Cor,
XIV, 29) is one of the passages in
which our theologians are at a loss
to find any sense, and for which
they can find no practical applica-
ton. The apostle, in proving the
doctrine of the resurrection, says:
elise 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?"
For the dead, That is the Diff
Guilty. The little word .Jor is n
veritable thorn in the flesh of the
whole brotherhood Of diyines.
There has been hard struggle to
explain away this passage OF Holy
Writ. The apostle evidently refers
to some practice, some doctrine, well
known among the COrinthian
Christians; for else, how could he on
this baptism for the dead build an
argument for the doctrine Of resur-
rection? The argument, to be an
Argument at all. must, OF course, be
founded on something known, some
thing already granted, and about
which there was no doubt. Other
wise the appeal would be void OF all
logical force. But what this prac-
tice in the primitive church was,
that is the mystery.
1t has been suggested that the
word translated for ought to be
Guer, and that the meaning would
be this: Some Of. the Corinthian
church members had been baptized
over the dead, that is, on the graves
or in the cemeteries, and that the
Apostle refers to this fact as a proof
OF the resurrection. Just think OF
this, The Corinthians are supposed
to have carried water tanks 10 their
graveyards for baptismal purposes,
and that such quaint practice
would bee a proof Of the resurrection
OF the deadi The idea is too silly to
call for any serious consideration.
Then il has been suggested that
the words ''for the dead'' really
mean Gin the hope Of the resurrec-
ton OF the dead" The whole pas
sage Of this suggestion would be to
read thus: 'sElse what shall they
do which are baptized in the hope
of the resurrection of the dead, if
the dead rise not at all? Why are
they then baptized in the hope Of
the resurrection of the dead?" OF
course, the words ''for the dead" do
not mean any such thing, and can
not by any means within the wide
range Of grammar. or logic, or
rhetoric combined. be made b
mean it. To make the word ''for''
stand for sin the hope Of, /" and the
words s'the dead- TO be synony-
nous with s'the resurrection Of the
dead" is clearly an exegesis that,
applied to all other passages Of