Baptism for the dead,?

[gazelam]

If the LDS teachings are stable, what are the bedrock presuppositions that they are based on?

Joseph Smith stated : “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

What about the changing doctrines over the last 200 years…

What doctrines are you referring to?

then how can one know the other LDS sects are not true?

Study, prayer, guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you study the evidence that directly contradicts the prophesies, translations, and teachings of Joseph Smith, and the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham,…

Please provide specific examples. Regarding the Book of Abraham, we don’t have all of the papyrus scrolls now that Joseph Smith had.

The evidence is available and in large enough quantities–both in Holy Scripture as well the historical, linguistic, and scientific evidence–that support the divine promises of Jesus Christ that he founded a Church before His death and confirmed before His Resurrection that it would not fall into apostasy.

The Bible specifically states that there would be a falling away from the Church and a restoration.

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.

How then can the LDS Church doctrines, and the contradictions of them that have been admitted to…

Again, what are they?

This is the problem of that fragility of LDS doctrine that you ask about: only doctrines that came to light after the early 1820s are true even if those doctrines contradict the Apostles’ teachings.

What are these contradictions?

My apologies. Please feel free to correct my future comments as often as necessary regarding this matter.

 

[Legend]

Quoting ‘the shepherd of hermas’??? You must be grasping at straws! A post on YouTube by a Mormon missionary said that ‘Jesus was running a church, but he was killed, and subsequent followers corrupted the doctrine’. Something to that effect. He made Jesus sound like a cult leader…not like our Lord and Savior, not like Everlasting God, at all!

Why are you dragging out obscure passages of documents that are not considered infallible at all. Do you also avoid documents from your own Church that might not be ‘faith-promoting’? Your leaders do encourage this.

In fact, I see no need to debate you at all.

Have a nice life. I hope you find out that truth is more than arrogance, self-centeredness, and confusing people, soon!

 

[gazelam]

Quoting ‘the shepherd of hermas’??? You must be grasping at straws!

Not grasping at straws…

The Shepherd of Hermas is referenced as a footnote in CCC 2517.

CatholicCulture.org notes that “The Shepherd was well-regarded by several of the Fathers, though there was little interest in it by St. Jerome’s time. St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen considered the Shepherd inspired, while Eusebius and St. Athanasius approved of its use for catechumens.”.

 

[Horton]

The Bible specifically states that there would be a falling away from the Church and a restoration.

You would love to think the bible specifically states what you claim, however gazelam, once again my friend you didn’t do enough of your homework when picking a few things at fairmorman.

The first verse you quote as being proof of a “falling away” is actually part of a farewell speech of St Paul. I’ve provided much of the farewell to give you some context. I’ve explained to you so many times about cherry picking verses. Even if this verse was close to what you claim, it wasn’t Jesus speaking to the Church, it was St. Paul, who although a great saint of the Church, was not in a position to declare the Church would fall.

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.

Paul’s Farewell Speech at Miletus
“But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. 26. And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, 27. for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God. 28. Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood. 29. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. 30. And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them. 31 So be vigilant and remember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you with tears. 32. And now I commend you to God and to that gracious word of his that can build you up and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated.

This one was a laugh out loud moment. Your claim as proof of Jesus Christ stating there would be a restoration church, your lds church is really silly. In reality this is a speech made by St Peter, the first Pope, talking about what Jesus had done and how it had been spoken of by Moses. St Peter was really working at ensuring the start of the One, Holy, & Apostolic, Church. This is shortly after Pentecost, maybe days, maybe weeks, why would they be talking about a restoration?

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.

 

[poche]

Why worry about this? When we die if we are not in Heaven then hopefully our time in Purgatory will be a short one. There is nothing that they can do that will hurt us after we die.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Something rarely brought up in these discussions is the fact that any single one of us do not own the legacy of our ancestors and the number of distant cousins each of us have increases exponentially each generation we go back. When I was a Mormon I was “baptized” on behalf of dozens of my Catholic ancestors and I’m sure if this was known to my thousands of presumably Catholic distant cousins whom I don’t know, they would be just as upset as you are.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I agree that in the end it has no real meaning to either the believer or non-believer. I do think there is one tangible factor to consider. If a faith says person X is a part of that faith (despite not choosing to be baptized in it) or that faith says we have Y members, not stating that it includes those who were baptized unknowingly then in a way there is an association that they may not want. It could even be said that such associations bolster a faith they don’t partake in.

 

[Blackm]

Cor 15:29 (GNT) Now, what about those people who are baptized for the dead? What do they hope to accomplish? If it is true, as some claim, that the dead are not raised to life, why are those people being baptized for the dead?

Yes that is the scripture my LDS friend used for baptism

 

[William]

You cannot baptize the dead. Baptism imprints a character on the soul, but upon death the soul is (temporarily) separated from the body, and so immersing the body in water does not transfer to the soul.

In reality, this is nothing but a desecration and a sacrilege. Considering Mormonism is non-trinitarian, it does not believe in the Trinity, which is to say the One True (and Triune) God. Mormonism worships a false god, all of which, so Sacred Scripture informs us, “are devils” (Ps. 95:5). Invoking this false god over the body of the dead is not fundamentally much different from cursing the body of the dead.

It is truly a sacrilege, blasphemy, and desecration.

 

[poche]

Yes, but why waste your time.

 

[fredystairs]

Glowacki:

How then can the LDS Church doctrines, and the contradictions of them that have been admitted to…

Again, what are they?

glazelam: I have questions about the following two passages:

From the Book of Mormon: (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)
Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon his son.
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

From the Doctrine and Covenants (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)
132: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines –
132: 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that
covenant, then are ye damned, for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
132: 38 – 39 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not from me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife ; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord

continued

 

[fredystairs]

This second passage seems to directly contradict the first passage.

In the book of Jacob, the wives and concubines are “abominable before me(The Lord)” while in the Doctrine and Covenant, David’s wives and concubines “were given unto him of me”(Again, the Lord). How does Mormon Church reconcile the two passages? Does it teach that the Lord gave an abomination to David?
Second, in the Doctrine and Covenants, there is a passage (132:4) that says that if the Mormon Church does not follow the “new and everlasting covenant” that it will be “damned”. The Mormon Church does not currently follow the statutes concerning wives and concubines as outlined in Chapter 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter that contains the warning to follow the covenant or be “damned”. What is the Mormon Church’s teaching about why it does not follow the principle and doctrine concerning wives and concubines contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Chapter 132?

Pax

 

[gazelam]

This second passage seems to directly contradict the first passage.

In the book of Jacob, the wives and concubines are “abominable before me(The Lord)” while in the Doctrine and Covenant, David’s wives and concubines “were given unto him of me”(Again, the Lord). How does Mormon Church reconcile the two passages? Does it teach that the Lord gave an abomination to David?

FAIRMormon answers this question better than I could.

Second, in the Doctrine and Covenants, there is a passage (132:4) that says that if the Mormon Church does not follow the “new and everlasting covenant” that it will be “damned”.

D&C 132:4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

First, the phrase “a new and everlasting covenant” is different from “the new and everlasting covenant” which is used later in verse 6. The former refers to eternal marriage and the latter being the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Eternal marriage is a covenant within the overall Gospel covenant.

The Mormon Church does not currently follow the statutes concerning wives and concubines as outlined in Chapter 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter that contains the warning to follow the covenant or be “damned”.

Nowhere does D&C 132:4 state that a man must be married to multiple wives in order to receive Eternal Life. Note that in the same section verses 15, 18, 19, and 26 all say “if a man marry a wife”…

Verse 32 states that we’ll be saved by doing the “works of Abraham”.

D&C 132:32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

Verses 34-36 state that Abraham received a commandment to take a second wife Hagar, which he did. They also say that God commanded Abraham to take Isaac to be sacrificed, which he did. In both cases these were accounted to Abraham for righteousness because he kept the commandments of God.

The works of Abraham are to keep the commandments of God. None of us today have been commanded to take additional spouses, nor to take children to be sacrificed. And if we did either it would incur the wrath of God because He has given no such commandment. We do the “works of Abraham” by keeping the commandments that God has given to us in our time.

What is the Mormon Church’s teaching about why it does not follow the principle and doctrine concerning wives and concubines contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Chapter 132?

The Church of Jesus Christ does follow the teachings in D&C 132 as I have explained.

Pax

I hope this helps… Take care and God bless you.

 

[brigidsalem]

I was guilty of this myself. In my early twenties, as a zealous convert to Mormonism, I gathered up all the names I could find of my dead Catholic and Protestant relatives and sent them to Salt Lakes City so they could be baptized, confirmed, and sealed to their families.

I left Mormonism years ago and now regret that I ever did this. I didn’t tell my living relatives that I wanted genealogical information for the sake of baptizing their already baptized loved ones. But Mormonism had indoctrinated me to believe that only Mormon baptisms are accepted by God. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing, but I was actually performing an invasion. It’s not right to keep Family History records declaring someone baptized to a religion they never believed in.

 

[RuthAnne]

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto these things.

Please tell us about Joseph’s seed. I’m dying to hear.

Then you have Brigham who had something like 55 wives and only 56 children. Really? This is about seed?

 

[RuthAnne]

FAIRMormon answers this question better than I could.

That’s not saying much.

 

[RuthAnne]

Don’t get too hung up on Section 132. Joe didn’t believe it or even live it. Section 132 came out as official Doctrine long after Joe was dead. The official position of the church before then was that a man could only have one wife and a woman only one husband.

The economy of the Mormonite heaven doesn’t work anyway since there are more men in the Celestial kingdom than women.

 

[RuthAnne]

FAIRmormonite has got to be a tough place to work. You’re always having to defend the indefensible.

 

[gazelam]

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto these things.

Please tell us about Joseph’s seed. I’m dying to hear.

Then you have Brigham who had something like 55 wives and only 56 children. Really? This is about seed?

Um, Joseph Smith was murdered when he was 38. It’s just silly to ask where the seed is of someone who was killed so young. Brigham Young according to the New York Times had 1000 descendants in 1902.

If only Superman had it as easy as FAIRMormon and I do…

 

[RuthAnne]

Um, Joseph Smith was murdered when he was 38. It’s just silly to ask where the seed is of someone who was killed so young

No it’s not silly at all. Joe had at least 8 years of womanizing before he got taken out in that gun fight. That’s plenty of time to produce seed. Your answer is typical…it’s no answer.

Brigham married about 55 women. The statistic you gave is not very impressive for that many women. And again, if it was about seed, why did he only produce seed from 16 of them.

He was nothing but a sleazy womanizer.

By their fruits … Warren Jeffs comes to mind.