Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 6, 2006 16:49:06 GMT -4
As an additional note, no one is converted with a vicarious baptism. Conversion, in LDS theology, refers to a conscious choice to change religions, and can be completely independent of baptism. Therefore a deceased individual is not converted by a vicarious baptism until they chose to accept it - effectively they convert themselves.
I should also note that the Church does not place the names of those who have been baptized vicariously onto its rolls as members.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 6, 2006 22:38:24 GMT -4
If he couldn't believe the Bible as it stands, I think he would find the Book of Mormon far more unbelievable. I also can't fathom a God that would condemn you for not making choices that weren't available to you at the time. If the Truth, the whole Truth, wasn't revealed until after your death, I like to think God would make allowances for that which wouldn't rely on anyone but you and God.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 6, 2006 23:56:40 GMT -4
Mr. Jefferson may have changed his perspective once it was definitely proven to him that the afterlife was a reality.
But that's precisely the point here. The whole point of baptism for the dead is that God doesn't condemn people for not making choices not available to you at the time - he makes certain that the choice will be available to everyone, either in this life or after it. And he does it by allowing your descendents to provide you with that chance. Who better than your own family to give you that opportunity? This is a really unique doctrine of the LDS church - I'm not aware of any other church that does anything similar, and I think it's a great comfort that we know our ancestors will have the same opportunity to accpet what we have accepted, and benefit thereby.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 7, 2006 3:29:37 GMT -4
The whole point of baptism for the dead is that God doesn't condemn people for not making choices not available to you at the time - he makes certain that the choice will be available to everyone, either in this life or after it. And he does it by allowing your descendents to provide you with that chance. Who better than your own family to give you that opportunity? God? Seriously--I don't think it's fair to require the baptism of a church that didn't exist yet when you lived or that you had no way of knowing about in order to grant the same benefits. Even Jesus said he had other sheep that were not of that flock.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 7, 2006 18:09:05 GMT -4
Although the Mormon church has morphed itself into a harmless and respectable religion, There are factions that are more attune to Smiths original idea.
Smith said that the only way to heaven was through polygamy.
I think of Joesph Smith like I think of that Raelian guy or Charles Manson. He just started his little cult in order to get women... lots and lots of women. Smith had 28 wives at the time of his death.
Speaking of the time of his death, think of this. Smith gave this big speech when he was arrested in Illinois that he was off to be a martyr. Well, if this was so, why did he bring along a pistol. It is like if Jesus had concealed a dagger when the Romans arrested him.
When a mob broke into the jail where Smith was held he emptied his six shooter into the crowd. Three died instantly. If they did not come to kill him, they surely did after that had happened.
I do not believe in Mormonism for lots of reasons. One of these reasons is the same reason why I do not believe in the Raelians. If a flying saucer landed and some guy came and told me he was going to instruct me how to rewrite the bible, my first impression would be that it was not real. I would naturally think that this guy was part of some government test flight or maybe even a gag from a reality TV show. But Rael completely bought it. And his followers buy it too. The appeal of the Raelian movement is that people in it can have as much sex as they want without guilt. A similar draw existed for the early Mormon cult. And it has a similar foundation. If some man -- some physical walking and talking man -- appeared to me in the woods while I was meditating, and told me he was God or Jesus, I would laugh at him. But Smith (if he was telling the truth, which I doubt) did not doubt it for a second.
The Mormons believe that God is a physical thing just like you or I. There is a huge Mormon church in the San Francisco Bay area that allows visitors and that is part of the presentation they gladly provide. That God is kind of like a giant merlin magician like you or I. He has eyes, a nose, two kidneys, I guess and the whole package.
This is something I have heard them tell me directly several times. He has all these organs only better. I do not understand what an infinite creature would have any needs for these things.
When I hear this sort of talk I think of the time a banker told me he believed the Fox show that tried to raise doubt that the moon landings were real. I cannot believe I am listening to a grown man.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 8, 2006 18:33:59 GMT -4
Smith said that the only way to heaven was through polygamy. Incorrect. Smith said there was no way to heaven except through "the new and everlasting covenent of marriage" - meaning a marriage in the LDS temple. Polygamous marriage fulfilled the requirement, but it was not required that a marriage be polygamous in order to fulfill the requirement. A temple marriage is still seen as a requirement to reach the highest levels of exaltation (I believe I qouted the relevent passage of scripture in an earlier post). Vicarious temple sealings are also performed for the dead, by the way - to those they married in life. Which merely means that you don't know much about Joseph Smith (or I suppose it could prove you know little about "that Raelian guy" and Charles Manson). Smith did not "give a big speech" in which he proclaimed he was going to be a martyr - he told several friends that he felt he was going to become a martyr in conversations which they remembered later because that is what happened. Jesus' apostles had swords with them when he was arrested. Peter even used his to try to resist the arrest. To be a martyr by the common definition you need merely die for your beliefs - you do not need to surrender to and be killed by your enemies without a fight. Their objective from the first was to kill Smith - no amount of discussion on his part would have changed that. The mob was made up of between 100 and 200 men who blackened their faces with gunpowder and mud before they went to the jail so that they could not be readily recognized. The militia guarding the jail only gave token resistence, as they were hostile to the Mormons. Joseph had a six-shot pepperbox and his brother Hyrum had a single-shot pistol. The the other two men with them had only walking sticks. Hyrum was killed by a shot through the door and a simultaneous shot from the mob outside the jailhouse before anyone in the room made any resistence to the mob other than to try to barricade the door to the room. Joseph, after seeing his brother was dead opened the door and fired the pepperbox out - only three of the barrels fired. John Taylor tried to beat down the muzzles of the muskets poking through the door until he saw there were too many. He tried to escape through the window and was shot and fell back into the room (he survived, and his pocket-watch stopped a bullet, so we know the time of the attack). Joseph dropped his gun and tried to jump out the window, and was shot twice in the back from the guns in the room and once from outside. He fell to the ground out the window. Both Hyrum and Joseph were shot again after they were dead. It was claimed that four men were wounded by Joseph in the attack - John Willis, who was shot in the arm, William Voras, shot in the shoulder, William Gallahar, who was shot in the face, and a Mr. Allen. All four were indicted for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, since their wounds proved they were with the mob, but none of them were ever arrested or brought to trial. There is no evidence that any of them died of their wounds, even Mr. Gallahar, and there are reports that at least three of them later left the state. It is important to note that though he was in and out of courts his entire adult life Joseph was never convicted of a crime, including the final arrest that lead to his death. Hogwash. If the entire goal were to have guiltless sex they would have made it much easier to obtain it. As it was a husband to plural wives had to have their Stake leader's direction to take another wife (usually given when the Stake leader believed the man could support another wife), had to have their first wife and all prior wives' assent for the marriage, had to formally marry the new woman in the temple (or endowment house, during periods when the Church had no temple) and were required to provide for each of their plural wives, often building each a seperate home and homestead but always giving each wife at least seperate rooms to her own. The personages who appeared to Smith were not walking talking men in the woods. They were wearing very bright white robes, they were accompanied by a bright light that came from no visible source, were themselves a source of light, and they stood in the air above him, not on the ground. God is both spiritual and physical at the same time, just as we are. His body is perfect and immortal, however, not "just like" ours. What does an "infinite creature" need with a body? Well what do you need with a body?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 8, 2006 18:44:32 GMT -4
Seriously--I don't think it's fair to require the baptism of a church that didn't exist yet when you lived or that you had no way of knowing about in order to grant the same benefits. Even Jesus said he had other sheep that were not of that flock. If God is willing to let someone slide on baptism, why isn't he willing to let you slide on murder, or adultery, or even genocide? Where is He supposed to draw the line? Jesus' statement that he had other sheep is taken by the LDS church to refer to, among others, the Nephites in America: 3 Nephi 15: "21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 9, 2006 0:46:58 GMT -4
I don't consider not getting baptised when there was no church to baptise you a sin; I consider it an accident of time and place. (Well, I don't consider not getting baptised at all to be a sin, since I think your deeds are more important than lip service to the rituals of any faith. But that's not the point.) I don't see at all where you get a parallel between that and murder; quite a lot of truly evil people have been baptised by various faiths, and I don't think the baptism makes them better.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Oct 10, 2006 8:41:57 GMT -4
If you go by that then everyone who came before the Mormons was a sinner?
hhm! screwed up religion, but then, I never saw one that wasn't
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2006 11:54:07 GMT -4
I don't consider not getting baptised when there was no church to baptise you a sin; I consider it an accident of time and place. (Well, I don't consider not getting baptised at all to be a sin, since I think your deeds are more important than lip service to the rituals of any faith. But that's not the point.) I don't see at all where you get a parallel between that and murder; quite a lot of truly evil people have been baptised by various faiths, and I don't think the baptism makes them better. Baptism does not make people better, no. I think I haven't explained my point well enough. The LDS position is that God has made it a requirement to be baptized in order to enter heaven. That requirement must be fulfilled by everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Because there are many who had no opportunity to fulfill this requirement during their lives through no fault of their own, God has provided the avenue of vicarious baptism to fulfill the requirement, thus giving everyone equal opportunity to fulfill the requirement and therefore remaining a just God. My point was that if God makes an exception for one rule - not being baptized, what justification does He have for not making an exception on all rules? The LDS position is that He does not make any exceptions - everyone must fulfill the requirements He has set out, and because He is a just God everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. And why do you not consider baptism a deed?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2006 12:01:46 GMT -4
If you go by that then everyone who came before the Mormons was a sinner? hhm! screwed up religion, but then, I never saw one that wasn't Please at least make an attempt to read most of the posts in the thread before replying to one of them, "Captain Swoop". The whole point of vicarious baptism is that the LDS church recognizes that if their rituals have saving power then those who lived before the church was organized deserve an opportunity to partake of them. There is no assumption that people who lived before the church was organized are sinners or damned to hell through no fault of their own, and the LDS church is almost unique among Christian churches in having clear doctrine on this issue. In other words, you are almost completely wrong with this criticism. If anything the LDS church is the Christian church that has the most respect for those who lived before its existence.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 10, 2006 14:08:27 GMT -4
Baptism does not make people better, no. I think I haven't explained my point well enough. The LDS position is that God has made it a requirement to be baptized in order to enter heaven. That requirement must be fulfilled by everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Because there are many who had no opportunity to fulfill this requirement during their lives through no fault of their own, God has provided the avenue of vicarious baptism to fulfill the requirement, thus giving everyone equal opportunity to fulfill the requirement and therefore remaining a just God. You're missing my point. I think the LDS position is wrong and foolish. I think it's remarkably petty to say, "Without undergoing this one ritual, no matter how good a life you lived, no matter how many centuries you lived pre-Joseph Smith, you can't enter Heaven." I think a God who limited entry to Heaven on a temporal error is cruel. Besides, even allowing that vicarious baptism is the way to salvation, what about people who didn't leave any record? Because no one now knows about them, they're damned? How many people lived and died even a few hundred years ago leaving no trace of themselves? But they don't, and they didn't. I think "so-and-so lived a good and just life according to the standards of their time" is good enough. How many ancient Sumerians does the LDS church have that it has baptised? None, unless they got to some of the kings before requiring relatives to give consent. Besides, if baptism in the LDS church is required for salvation, God has changed the rules and made it retroactive, and that isn't fair. Even the Catholics consider that allowances are made by God for those who cannot have heard of Jesus. Because it isn't. Especially if it's done for you by someone else. I, for example, was about a month old when I was baptized. I had no say, any more than Thomas Jefferson would if you baptized him now. Even for those who made the choice, it's a one-time event that lasts perhaps all of five minutes. Whereas a well-lived life full of acts of compassion--a thing you have shown yourself sorely lacking when people don't fit your personal moral code; Jesus would disapprove--and charity is clearly not enough by your standards. What matters is the words you claim to espouse.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2006 14:52:44 GMT -4
You're missing my point. I think the LDS position is wrong and foolish. I think it's remarkably petty to say, "Without undergoing this one ritual, no matter how good a life you lived, no matter how many centuries you lived pre-Joseph Smith, you can't enter Heaven." I think a God who limited entry to Heaven on a temporal error is cruel. It's only foolish and cruel if it is a limitation. If God ensures that everyone who needs it receives it then it is no longer a limitation. Ah - finally something new. The answer is that God knows them, and He will ensure that information of their existence is passed on to those who can perform the baptism for them. If they left no evidence in this life the information will come from direct revelation. And baptisms for the dead are an allowance for those who cannot have heard of Jesus. The rule is not retroactive, because the LDS church is a restoration of the primitive church, which itself was a restoration of the authority held by earlier prophets. The rule has been here from the beginning, and baptisms performed under proper authority in prior dispensations are just as viable as baptisms performed today. It is an ongoing requirement that has had times when it could not be fulfilled because of the unbelief and faithlessness of those who at one time had the authority to fulfill it. Ah, I see your point. Yes infant baptism couldn't properly be called a deed, as you have no say in the matter. That would be why the LDS church doesn't engage in infant baptism. Children are generally baptized at age eight in the Church, an age when they can know something of what is going on. Converts are of course baptized as adults. In the case of a deceased person, the deed is in accepting the baptism. First of all, I heartily agree with you - one five-minute act cannot possibly make as much difference as a lifetime. Baptism is a requirement but in no way a guarantee. Is there any particular reason to stoop to personal attacks? Have I accused you of being uncharitable, unfeeling, or unchristian?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Oct 10, 2006 19:51:26 GMT -4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not that I'm wanting to get into a regilious argument here, so I'm going to just do a hit and run, but here's my take on The Book of Mormon. 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Galations 1:6-9 So, what is the basic message here? It seems to be "if you follow someone who is preaching something different from what we've preached - even if it's an angel - then you'll be in trouble." If you read this as a literal prohibition against the receiving of further scripture or revelations from man, god, or angels then you will have to reject the parts of the New Testament that were written after Galatians. As I don't know of any Christian church that does this, I'll assume that we agree this is not what is meant by the prohibition. The question then becomes, is the gospel preached by the Mormons different from the gospel as preached by Christ Himself and the early apostles? The position of the LDS church is that where our doctrines differ from those of "traditional" Christianity, it is because ours are a restoration of what was lost after the death of the apostles. The gospel we preach is therefore the same gospel that Christ and His apostles preached, and Paul's prohibition against acceptance of a new or other gospel doesn't apply. A-hem....pardon the intrusion at this late date in the discussion, but could we go back to your original post for a moment? You said your doctrine is a restoration of what was lost after the deaths of the apostles. We possess enough of their writings to get a clear picture of the gospel and all the NT scriptures agree on what the gospel is. Paul obviously wasn't referring to additional information. He was talking about changing the information already preached. Which Mormonism does. Most radically. I've been pretty sick and then my computer dropped dead for a couple of months which is why I never got back to you on the Intolerance thread. Sorry for that. I don't want you to think I wussed on that topic. Even so, I may have difficulty sustaining an intense, lengthy debate for quite a while yet. I just couldn't let that first post go unchallenged.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2006 23:28:45 GMT -4
Hoosiers - haven't heard from you for a long time.
The New Testament itself states that not everything Jesus taught is present. John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
And who decided what writings were preserved? People who were around long after the apostles and whose claims to inspiration were dubious at best.
What Paul taught is completely compatible with the LDS doctrine of the restoration. If it is a restoration it is not a change.
|
|