did you ask for all the sources for Uncle? Ask for his first, then I will post mine.

Dubbs wrote:
Protestant New English Bible has a footnote saying that some early Christians did practice vicarious baptism on behalf of their deceased ancestors.

Bible scholar Harold Riesenfeld writes, "None of the attempts to escape the theory of a vicarious baptism in primitive Christianity seems to be wholly successful" (in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. by G.W. Bromiley, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Vol. 8: 512-513, 1972, as cited by as cited by D.C. Peterson and S.D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word, Aspen Books, Salt Lake City, UT, 1992, p. 109)

Krister Stendahl, a Lutheran New Testament scholar and former Dean and Professor of Divinity at the Harvard Divinity School, says "the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes" (K. Stendahl, "Baptism for the Dead

OK, that's acceptable, Dubbs. Still not worthy of acceptance but you have the format right.

Dubbs wrote:
did you ask for all the sources for Uncle? Ask for his first, then I will post mine.

If he doesn't post his, then they are worthless as yours.

Post the sources.

Then his are also worthless.

Dubbs wrote:
Then his are also worthless.

Less worthless than yours, because you have no credibility here at all. But, yes, he should post his sources.

Now, about baptism for the dead -- I think the evidence is quite clear that it was practiced by certain individuals during and after Paul's time.

You LDS offer a theory that it is part of the Restoration, beginning with Adam, testified to by Malachi, that the family of man will be sealed up unto eternity. Nice.

Another theory follows this thought. That the baptisms were done for the dead because they wanted the same membership in Christ's fratenity as they did. The difference from above is that they, and Paul (!), claimed no authority to do so, nor testified that it was part of a sealing-for-eternity ritual.

You can use the same format for arguing that the deaconesses, prophetesses, and female priests of early Christianity were either, indeed, authorized servants of God, and then their authority was later suppressed by masculine domination.

Or you can argue that it was a perverse imitation of the male priesthood.

You see, Dubs and UncleBud, we have plenty of theories, we have some evidence, but nothing is conclusive.

That's why, Dubbs, you need to turn to Jesus for guidance instead of man made organization.

Don't beleive me then on Baptism for the dead, believe the references to non LDS scholars.

as far as the Priesthood, as I said, no other Christian faith I know of even claims to have the Priesthood, much less understand what it is and what they do with it. Christ gave the priesthood to his 12 apostles. As he always wanted it to be.