It is such an obvious misunderstanding to read this as a Biblical affirmation of the Mormon practice of "baptisms for the dead" that I am almost shocked that anyone could have such a bizarre, surface-level reading of the scriptures as to read that into them. I would not normally even bother to respond (mainly because I don't want to get dinged for insulting the faith of another due to my own lack of being able to contain how I feel about this level of 'understanding', as I view it as not only very sad, but also an abuse of the scriptures themselves), but I do think it provides a good example of what can happen if people read the Bible as you apparently have, in a manner that divorces particular passages from their context in order to support by a bare reading some distinctive doctrine. And I don't mean by writing that that you should have to divine out of what it
doesn't say something that it
means to say. I do not think that the Bible writers or the Holy Spirit Who guided them were in any way unclear. So indeed, there are many things that
are amenable to such a bare reading, the key being to look at the context of the passage in question to see if you are even getting that right, or if you need to look a little deeper beyond "This is the literal arrangement of the words in this English sentence".
Since the passage you have chosen talks about the resurrection of the dead, let's look starting at verse 12, which is where that theme starts to become explicit within the chapter:
12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. 29
Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? 30 And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? 31 I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" 33 Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits." 34 Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.
+++
Looked at in context, the passage is a question to those who deny the resurrection of the dead, saying that if there is no resurrection from the dead, then of what use is baptism, as the baptized are in effect "baptized for the dead" -- baptized only to remain dead, not to new life in the resurrection, since that isn't a thing according to these people. In this view
all baptisms are baptisms for the dead, since you're just going to die anyway and not be resurrected.
But you don't have to take my word for it. This is actually the key phrase in St. John Chrysostom's
40th homily on 1 Corinthians, because this practice of baptizing the already departed was apparently the activity of the Marcionite heretics, who justified it by more or less the same understanding you have shown here: "Well it says that in the scriptures!", showing that they didn't know how to understand the scripture, either.
St. John asks us to consider:
What then is that which he means? Or will you that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath says in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power has the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle has said,
"They who are baptized for the dead." Do you see their extreme ridiculousness? Is it meet then to answer these things? I trow not; unless it were necessary to discourse with madmen of what they in their frenzy utter. But that none of the more exceedingly simple folk may be led captive, one must needs submit to answer even these men. As thus, if this was Paul's meaning wherefore did God threaten him that is not baptized? For it is impossible that any should not be baptized henceforth, this being once devised: and besides, the fault no longer lies with the dead, but with the living. But to whom spoke he,
"Unless you eat My flesh, and drink My blood, you have no life in yourselves?" (
John 6:53) To the living, or to the dead, tell me? And again,
"Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (
John 3:5) For if this be permitted, and there be no need of the mind of the receiver nor of his assent while he lives, what hinders both Greeks and Jews thus to become believers, other men after their decease doing these things in their stead?
+++
I will remind you here that St. John the Golden-Mouthed died in 407 AD, proving indisputably how the early Church itself did away with your heresies some
14 centuries before your false prophet who supposedly 'restored' them was even born. And should you wish, on account of the early date of this homily which shows by that fact that there was an early sect who practiced this activity (the Marcionites), to claim that that it is still a piece of evidence in favor of its supposedly apostolic or pre-'apostasy' provenance (and I suppose St. John's 'apostasy', according to the malformed Mormon reasoning), I will likewise remind you and anyone else who reads this that this same sect -- the Marcionites -- is named after a man (Marcion of Sinope) who was thrown out of the Church for his incredibly heretical and evil views in
140s AD.
So if Mormonism is really a 'restoration' of ancient
anything, it is a restoration of heresy, ignorance of the meaning of the scriptures, and "extreme ridiculousness", to quote the saint. It is
most definitely not a restoration of anything like the early Church.
