I'm a Mormon now...

[phkrause]

Woody, she wasn't talking about the kind of underwear we wear today. Back in her day, women wore multiple layers of petticoats underneath their dresses. Altogether, they added quite a bit of weight, which she said was too much to be suspended from the waist.

Exactly!!!

[Woody]

Quote:

"The shoulders should be made to sustain the weight of every article of clothing worn upon the person."

I'm just going by a literal reading of her words. Perhaps I shouldn't do that. But to me "Every article of clothing" would mean every article of clothing.

[GreatLakesGramma]

So what? The garments you are referring to were called "unmentionables" back then. I doubt they were considered to be in the same category.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

"The shoulders should be made to sustain the weight of every article of clothing worn upon the person."

I'm just going by a literal reading of her words. Perhaps I shouldn't do that. But to me "Every article of clothing" would mean every article of clothing.

"Ah dunno nuthin' 'bout birthin' babies, Miz Scarlett!!!"

(Why did I think of *that* when I read that post?)

[Woody]

So what? The garments you are referring to were called "unmentionables" back then. I doubt they were considered to be in the same category.

[Woody]

We also have these instructions regarding our clothing from our prophet:

Quote:

Every article of clothing upon the person should be worn so loose that, in raising the arms, the clothing will be correspondingly lifted by the action. {HR, February 1, 1877 par. 6}

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

huh. A loose corset wouldn't have been much good for....support.

[Dr. Rich]

John317, And you do NOT believe that baptizing for the dead is the correct thing to do? Why not? Didn't Paul believe in it as found in 2Cor.15:29?

[GreatLakesGramma]

Originally Posted By: GreatLakesGramma

So what? The garments you are referring to were called "unmentionables" back then. I doubt they were considered to be in the same category.

Again. I am not an expert of women's underwear ... but our prophet appears to me to call them "under clothing".

See below:

Quote:

"This brings us to another error in the dress of women at the present day: The under clothing is usually sustained by the hips alone. This heavy weight, pressing upon the bowels, drags them downward ... Every woman who values health should avoid hanging any weight upon the hips. The shoulders should be made to sustain the weight of every article of clothing worn upon the person"

What we call underwear these days, and they called unmentionables in those days, is NOT, and was not then, even remotely heavy enough for anyone in their right mind to refer to them as "this heavy weight." If you read the whole article IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIMES IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN AND THE WAY WOMEN DRESSED BACK THEN, it is obvious that she is referring to the multiple petticoats, some of them quite heavy for winter warmth, that women wore under their dresses back then.

[Woody]

Quote:

EGW: "every article of clothing worn upon the person"

Hi GLG. I am just trying to understand what the term "every" means to EGW and thus to us.

[GreatLakesGramma]

As I said before, it's likely that their definition of clothing didn't include the unmentionables.

[Woody]

Thanks GLG. But, for me that's stretching my mind more than it likes to be stretched. :)

[GreatLakesGramma]

Sorry to hear it, Woody. You will never discover the truth if you aren't willing to consider the times in which something was written, and keep it in its proper context.

However, I personally find it hard to believe you. You've done the same thing with other of Ellen White's writings enough that it gives me the impression that you are really trying to discredit her by interpreting her writings to such extremes as to make them appear ridiculous.

[Woody]

No GLG. I just take people at their word. And when they say 'every' ... I assume they mean every. And I see no evidence that in the culture of Ellen White's time that the word 'every' did not mean every.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Of course "every" meant "every." It's "clothing" that was different then.

[Woody]

Since she referred to "under clothing" ... perhaps it was the word "under" that was different back then. How far under is "under" ?

[Twilight]

You've done the same thing with other of Ellen White's writings enough that it gives me the impression that you are really trying to discredit her by interpreting her writings to such extremes as to make them appear ridiculous.

I think you assessment is absolutely spot on.

[Woody]

Well ... I'm happy to consider the culture and times that it was written. But so far ... all I see written is one person's perspective on that with no documentation. Not to mention ... it still doesn't add up to me. But then perhaps I am not as intelligent as the next bear. And I am also a very 'literal' bear.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Okay. I have noted that on this forum are individuals who will post EGW quotes with the apparent express intent to incite controversy, while feigning ignorance and incredulity. Yet, some of these same people have stated that they have been pastors or otherwise worked for the SDA church.

I wish the game-playing would stop.

[phkrause]

Okay. I have noted that on this forum are individuals who will post EGW quotes with the apparent express intent to incite controversy, while feigning ignorance and incredulity. Yet, some of these same people have stated that they have been pastors or otherwise worked for the SDA church.

I wish the game-playing would stop.

[John317]

John317, And you do NOT believe that baptizing for the dead is the correct thing to do? Why not? Didn't Paul believe in it as found in 2Cor.15:29?

No, that is not what Paul teaches in that verse.

This of course is exactly what our friends in the Mormon church would like people to believe, because it is one of the sources they use as authority for their practice of baptizing the dead by proxy.

But it's important to remember that the Mormon's, unlike Paul, believe that human beings have an immortal soul. In fact, Mormons believe that each of us were once in heaven as a spirit and that after we were created there, we were sent into this world in order to live in a body and learn important lessons from this experience. On this view, when people die, they are really alive and more conscious and knowledgable than they were on earth as humans. Moreover, it is implying that the dead have a choice beyond the grave whether to be saved or not. None of the above views are based on valid Bible evidence.

Paul, therefore, of course, had no such beliefs as these. The apostle taught that we can only go to be with Jesus when Christ returns for His church, raises the dead from their graves and takes them to be where He is. Notice that 1 Thess. 4: 13-18 agrees with Jesus' own words in John 14: 3.

What, then, is Paul saying in 1 Cor. 15: 29?

He says, "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"

Compare 1 Cor. 15: 12-

"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

Please observe that in both questions, Paul is merely describing what some people do. He is not teaching that people should baptize for the dead, nor is he saying people should believe there is no resurrection of the dead. In both instances, he is merely using what some people are saying or doing as illustrations of the point He is making.

Paul's whole discussion here has to do with the resurrection, which he says is absolutely necessary for life. In this context, assuming the prepostion is "in behalf of," Paul is saying that people who baptize for the dead show that they believe there's a resurrection. As Paul states it, we cannot even be sure whether he's referring to Christians or Jews or pagans. Paul is simply referring to the fact that there are those who baptize for the dead. He doesn't say it's a good thing or a bad thing, only that it happens. If it was happening among Christians, we know there's no evidence to suggest that it was a teaching or general practice of the church.

Notice he says in verse 18 that if there is no resurrection of the body, all of the dead "have perished" and no one has any hope.

Paul could not make this statement if the dead are already NOW in heaven or hell. If the dead go immediately to their reward, they have not "perished" and thus the resurrection is not absolutely necessary in order for us to have any hope beyond the grave.

There are a number of other points in relation to 1 Cor. 15: 29 that should be taken into account:

1) The Greek preposition (huper + genitive noun or pronoun) which is here translated "for" or "in behalf of," may also be translated as "concerning" or "in view of," or "with reference to." (See A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek, H. P. V. Nunn, Cambride University Press, p. 31.)

The same preposition, huper + Genitive, has this meaning in John 1: 30; 2 Cor. 8: 23; 2 Thess. 2: 1.

If this is the corrrect translation in 1 Cor. 15: 29, the verse should then read:

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized in view of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized in view of them?

According to this translation, Paul is saying that the very fact that people are baptized shows that they believe this life is not all there is but that there is going to be a resurrection of the dead. People wouldn't be baptized if they believed there was no resurrection or future judgment.

2) If Paul taught that Christians should baptize people in behalf of the dead, we could expect to find evidence of such a doctrin elsewhere in his letters. But in fact, not a shred of such evidence exists in his letters.

3) There were already false teachings and practices entering into the church of Paul's day, so the mere fact that something was done or taught in the early church is no valid argument in itself of the truth of the practice or teaching.

4) A major principle of hermeneutics is that we must allow clear statements to explain unclear ones, and not allow obscure statements to be the foundation of doctrine. Therefore, if we make 1 Cor. 15: 29 the foundation of a major belief or practice-- such as the Mormons have done-- we would be making a great mistake.

5) As was touched on at the beginning of this post, to interpret Paul to mean by this verse that the dead are immortal and go directly to their reward after death, and that they have opportunity beyond the grave to decide for Christ, would do violence to Paul's beliefs about the nature of man and the state of the dead.

Conclusion: In view of this linguistic, contextual, and theological evidence, there's no valid reason to believe 1 Cor. 15: 29 teaches that Christians should be baptized on behalf of the dead.

Your thoughts?

[John317]

Okay. I have noted that on this forum are individuals who will post EGW quotes with the apparent express intent to incite controversy, while feigning ignorance and incredulity. Yet, some of these same people have stated that they have been pastors or otherwise worked for the SDA church.

I wish the game-playing would stop.

[Woody]

Let me once again go on record as clearly stating that no matter what my many years of experience in the church may be ... there remains MUCH in both scripture and the SOP that I am FAR from clearly understanding. So, I hope this will not need to be repeated.

[Woody]

With that said ... I will continue to post questions or concerns that I might have. As I was .....

[John317]

http://1857massacre.com/MMM/mormon_underwear.htm

Thanks for posting this. That's the first look I've had of them. They really look more comfortable than I thought they might be, although I'm sure they would feel hot if worn in the summer sun.

I've never had the termirity to ask a Mormon about it, but I suspect they would deny it or basically ignore the question.

I'm thinking that next time Mormons come to my door, I should ask them to step in and talk to me about something.

I've been in contact for several years with a nice Mormon man on FB, and I would feel comfortable asking him. I think he would be honest with me about it.