Talk:Baptism for the dead

message: The Verb not noun section should be renamed. It states that baptized, which is clearly a verb anyway, isn't a noun, and then states the real intention of the section: that it may intend a different verb. There is really no implication of being a noun in either sense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "verb not noun" 

message: The final section of this article states: 'In May 2009, it was discovered that President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, "who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day [sic] Saints last year during her son's campaign. ... It is not yet clear whether Obama is troubled by the practice. The White House declined to comment Tuesday [May 5, 2009]'. Well, so what? As the article explains, thousands of people have been posthumously baptized under this process. If Obama himself hasn't commented on the matter, is there any reason to single out his mother in particular? Robofish (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Dunham section 

message: There's a whole section saying the debate is largely a grammatical one, and then goes on to define the Greek baptizo for 8 lines.  There is no debate regarding two sides defining baptizo differently.  The crux of the debate is the simply optional ways of translating "hyper"/"uper."  This is alluded to in one line in the next paragraph, but needs to be the central point of the section.  The entire well-written paragraph about baptizo is mostly irrelevant.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, 3 months later, no discussion, tempted to delete the entire "Meanings of the verb baptizein" section.  It looks pretty and fancy and legit and academic, but then when you read it it's not really relevant.  As I said earlier, it's also not grammatically congruous.  People putting in pseudo-academic articles about how this is a faulty doctrine according to some "specialist" who wasn't there anymore than I was isn't really wikipedia-appropriate anyway.  It's like me putting a paragraph about how Chevys won some award in a Ford article.  I dunno, as is the weakness of the wikipedia, the original author will never find out about my comments, so I'll have to leave this here for a while, but if more time passes with no discussion, I'm making the edit.--Mrcolj (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more emphasis on the word "hyper" 

message: I have spotted a bit of a discrepancy in the article. In the intro it says, "...and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant." referring to baptism of the dead. However, later in the article it goes on to say that the LDS church still performs the baptism. I would imagine that many do not see the Mormon church as mainstream, but it has certainly been mainstreamed as of late. Does anyone disagree? --68.39.25.109 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: depends on what WP:RS define for mainstream Christianity In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in Article 

message: The recently added line about the new FamilySearch not showing information about temple ordinances seems out of place and a bit of a non-sequitur in the holocaust baptism controversy section. I looked for a better location to place it in the article and I think that the "Genealogy and baptism section" works best. One of the things that makes it seem out of place is that the cited references do not place this fact within the controversy. Therefore, it seems to me that it is too much original synthesis (creating an original narrative in the debate rather than reporting on the debate) to place it in the controversy section. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right. I have no problem or particular feeling about having it in either section, so whatever the consensus decides is fine with me. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's see if there is any resistance to the move shows up in the next few days, if not, or the consensus is to move, please feel free to do so. Editor2020 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence about new FamilySearch 

message: An interesting response at all dead mormons are now gay .com - presumably a commentary on baptism for the dead and the LDS's anti-gay stance. Clearly this site doesn't yet warrant a mention in the article, but maybe one to watch to see if it pivks up any media coverage  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outing for the dead 

message: See Talk:Mormonism and Christianity#rv notes discussion/dispute, relating to Talk:Christianity and environmentalism#User talk:97.87.29.188#May 2012 (relating to Mormonism and Christianity).  99.181.130.223 (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add here? 

message: The Mass for the dead is at minimum a baptism of the dead; given the Mandaen belief in rebaptism, it is also arguably baptism for the dead (though not vicarious in the same way as the Mormons). The Mandaen baptism rite includes (1) ritual purification with water, (2) crowning with a myrtle wreath, and (3) laying on of hands by a priest with oil. The Mandaen Mass for the dead includes (1) ritual purification with water, (2) crowning with a myrtle wreath, and (3) anointing with oil by a priest. There is a direct equivalency, even if the forms and words are different between the two (the dead are not immersed, nor can they gulp water, nor take communion). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A simplified description of this two interrelated ceremonies can be found at:  -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these sources say that the Mandaeans have "the religious practice of baptizing a person on behalf of one who is dead—a living person receiving the ordinance on behalf of a deceased person".  Esoglou (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandaen 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baptism for the dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906041916/http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm to http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified