Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[MEgus]

Come on we all know you are hiding I dare you right now take the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 and give us all a compelling, persuasive, apologetic reply to why you feel that Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically. There are over 3,000 people reading this thread. Here’s your opportunity.

Alan,

Maybe if you would read all of John 6 it might sink in. One thing I have been able to learn quickly on this board, is that I could spend the 2 or 3 hours to write a comprehensive argument on this subject, and you would just brush through it and brush it off and totally ignore it.

So, why should I bother?

I have studied it, And I have prayed about it. I know, for me, what Christ was trying to convey when he said it. But there is nothing I could say that would change your mind. Nothing.

In fact, If Jesus were to tell you himself, it would not change your mind. You have decided what it means and could care less what others say about it. Just as Jesus tried to get those who were there to understand and they would not, you would not.

Go read ALL of John 6, not just the part your trying to pick and choose out of. Read it in context. See what it was Jesus was trying to convey to the multitude. If you truly do, and humble yourself to be willing to accept what Jesus is telling you, you can find it too.

You should also read Matt. 26 and Luke 22 to come to an understanding.

MEgus

 

[alanjeddy]

Alan,

Maybe if you would read all of John 6 it might sink in. One thing I have been able to learn quickly on this board, is that I could spend the 2 or 3 hours to write a comprehensive argument on this subject, and you would just brush through it and brush it off and totally ignore it.

So, why should I bother?

I have studied it, And I have prayed about it. I know, for me, what Christ was trying to convey when he said it. But there is nothing I could say that would change your mind. Nothing.

In fact, If Jesus were to tell you himself, it would not change your mind. You have decided what it means and could care less what others say about it. Just as Jesus tried to get those who were there to understand and they would not, you would not.

Go read ALL of John 6, not just the part your trying to pick and choose out of. Read it in context. See what it was Jesus was trying to convey to the multitude. If you truly do, and humble yourself to be willing to accept what Jesus is telling you, you can find it too.

You should also read Matt. 26 and Luke 22 to come to an understanding.

MEgus

Thank you MEgus for your well-meaning post. But really show me where i am wrong? Show me how Jesus is talking about a symbolic presence. There are Eucharistic miracles happening in Italy and around the world where a host has turned into real human heart tissue. Some miracles show the host bleeding. some of the Eucharistic miracles of God happened cenuries ago and the flesh and blood from the host is alive and viable. Incorruptible. I really am finihed with this thread. I don’t want to leave with anger.
I am sorry for any unkind words to you MEgus and your other mormon friends. In the end we love the same God and if there were more people like you our world would be a safer, kinder, gentler place.
May God continue to bless and guide and protect you.
May the peace of our Risen Lord be with you always!

Alan

 

[dianaiad]

Which mormon? You, or who? Brigham Young? Orson Pratt?

I accept that you believe as you do. I am also aware of what your church leaders have taught. That mormons cannot answer this somehow becomes an insult against you. Go figure.

Yes, I know, you are very fond of telling us how much of a high road person you are.

LIke this. High road indeed, and always looking down from that high road and ready to pronounce everyone as beneath you.

I actually thought that was a pretty mild reaction to what you wrote there, Rebecca. The thing is, the only way that one could call me “telling us how much of a high road person you are” in such a disparaging way is if one was feeling guilty about not taking that road oneself. Is that the problem? You have the feeling that the way you approach this is, just perhaps, not the best way?

Eh? You need to do some searches. Zerinus has some doozies.

Then he shouldn’t do that.

I never said you were proseltying.

Yes, you have; every time you respond to ME with complaints about how Mormons all come in here for no other purpose.

I have also told you what happens when Mormons ask someone else what their beliefs are; we don’t get told. Most of us gave up a considerably long time ago.

Try it out yourself. Invent an “LDS persona.” Don’t try to get too detailed, because if you do some Mormon will ‘out’ you, but just present yourself as a Mormon asking a question about someone else’s belief in a forum dedicated to the discussion of that other belief: alt.religion.christian.baptist, for instance, or alt.religion.christian.roman.catholic, or just alt.religion.christian. Only two things are required: just say “I’m LDS,” or “I’m Mormon” and “what do you believe about…???”

If you come back here after a week and can tell me that you have NOT been treated to post after post after post attacking Mormonism, and if you can show me even one post out of ten that actually explains their belief without them referencing Mormonism and telling you how wrong it is…or that their beliefs on the topic are whatever Mormons DON’T believe, I’ll apologize to you. You will have managed to do something I haven’t in forty years.

What we ARE told is “well, Mormons believe this or that and we don’t…and you aren’t Christian/you’re going to hell.”

Rebecca, you’ve never told a Mormon that Mormons aren’t Christian? Really? …and WHERE do non-Christians go?

You don’t believe it. I accept that. I can go to MADB this very minute and find a mormon who does.

Ok. please do. (continued…)

 

[dianaiad]

(continued )

You still have not addressed the issue. Mormons have these beliefs because it is your church who taught them. You think that “anti-mormons” just made this stuff up, when the truth is, it is your church that has taught it. You may not believe it now. Your church may have backed on the teachings. It doesn’t change the fact that they are still around and there are still mormons who believe AND teach them.

There are still Catholics who believe in and official limbo–an actual place in hell devoted to unbaptized infants. Thomas Aquinus, Peter Abelard…lots of folks taught it. Yet it is not official doctrine. Should I insist that YOU ‘really believe’ that unbaptized infants are sent to the outermost (or first) circle of hell because some very important people in it have taught exactly that?

Even if it is NOT official doctrine? I understand that 'official doctrine" lies somewhere around unbaptized infants being denied ‘eternal beatitude’ but because they are personally sinless, are in a state of permanent ‘natural happiness,’ unaware of the ultimate joy that is denied them because of original sin.

It is a far more comforting idea than that of some Protestant faiths, that consign unbaptized infants to the fires of hell. After all, permanent natural happiness is a whale of a lot better than what we have HERE.

Still, one could, if one were going to be picky, point out the similarities here; you, as a Catholic, being bound to something that a great many of your leaders have actually taught–even though you may not believe it and know that it is NOT official doctrine. Is it fair to you? Is it fair to the church? I’d say no…but if this isn’t fair to you or your faith, why is it fair of you to do it to me?

<snip explanation of the necessity of baptism in Catholicism, only for space. Thank you for posting it.>

It only is valid if the person doing the baptizing has the same intent as that of the Church. As the Church has ruled that LDS baptisms are invalid, I would not think that a baptism performed by an LDS person is valid.

I understand that the actual words spoken are vital: the person must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: that the names of all three Persons must be mentioned separately–that being baptized in the name of the Trinity, for instance, is not valid (from the Catholic Encyclopedia).

Yet this prayer: "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; is NOT valid? "

I don’t get it. I understand why we do not accept Catholic baptisms; we really do believe that it’s more than just immersion, the words and intent. We believe that the person doing it has to have the authority TO do it…and we don’t believe that you guys have it any more. But according to the Catholic encyclopedia, anyone who has the desire to baptize may do so, as long as there is water (no other liquid), that it ‘flows’ and actually touches some part of the skin, and that the following is also true:

"In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us (On Baptism 13): “The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” St. Justin Martyr (First Apology 1) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries 4) declares: “Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins,” St. Cyprian (Epistle 72), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen (De Principiis I.2), St. Athanasius (Against the Arians, Oration 4), St. Augustine (On Baptism 6.25). It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: “I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity”, would be of more than doubtful validity.

The singular form “In the name”, not “names”, is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature. When, through ignorance, an accidental, not substantial, change has been made in the form (as In nomine patriâ for Patris), the baptism is to be held valid. "

…so it seems that the LDS form is acceptable, right down to the use of the word “name” as a singular rather than plural form. Since Catholicism has (also according to this source) accepted the validity of baptisms performed using this form even when their beliefs are far more heretical than OURS are, I don’t get it.

I understand that you don’t accept our baptisms. Turn about is more than fair play–but I can’t help but think that the reason you don’t isn’t the reason you claim. (“you” being Catholicism in general, not ‘you,’ Rebecca)

However, the Church recognizes the intent and would consider this a “baptism of desire”. The desire being that of the parents. The same for an adult catechumen who died before being baptized.

Which is why the Catholic church does accept it, I imagine…and the only reason why one of us would do it; it is the faith of the parent at work here.

 

[PaulDupre]

Bruce R. McConkie

He believed in the virgin birth

McConkie believed in using the term “virgin birth”, but qualified the term:

“For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466)

Here, McConkie says that he only calls Mary a virgin because the man she had sex with was an immortal man (as if that doesn’t count). He explains (as did Orson Pratt) that Jesus was conceived in the same way that mortal men are conceived by mortal fathers (i.e.: through sexual intercourse).

This is the common Mormon tactic of saying two completely different and opposing things and trying to harmonize them by changing the definition of one of the words - in this case the word “virgin”.

It won’t fly here.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Which is why the Catholic church does accept it, I imagine…and the only reason why one of us would do it; it is the faith of the parent at work here.

As was the case with the circumcision of Hebrew infant males. The baby had not reached an “age of accountability” or made a statement of faith. It was the faith of the parents that made the ordinance effacacious and the child became part of the family of Israel.

St. Paul draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism (see Col 2:11-12). Circumcision was performed mainly on infants. if Paul had meant to exclude infants from baptism, it is strange that he did not say so while discussing this parallel.

Paul

 

[dianaiad]

McConkie believed in using the term “virgin birth”, but qualified the term:

Here, McConkie says that he only calls Mary a virgin because the man she had sex with was an immortal man (as if that doesn’t count). He explains (as did Orson Pratt) that Jesus was conceived in the same way that mortal men are conceived by mortal fathers (i.e.: through sexual intercourse).

This is the common Mormon tactic of saying two completely different and opposing things and trying to harmonize them by changing the definition of one of the words - in this case the word “virgin”.

It won’t fly here.

Paul

Paul, I’m going to write this one more time and then I will leave it, because you are more interested in the National Enquirer version of Mormonism than the real thing:

The Book of Mormon uses the word ‘Virgin’ in the ENGLISH sense; that is, ‘a woman who has never had sex.’

Other Christian groups, in their translations of the bible, might have an excuse for thinking that “virgin’ may have originally meant 'young marriageable woman” or “woman of noble birth,” but WE DO NOT HAVE THAT EXCUSE.

Every single quote anybody has ever come up with, in context, shows that discussion of the paternity of Jesus is about WHO the Father is, not the mechanics of getting Mary pregnant.

Now me…if it turned out that God the Father DID have sex with Mary, it wouldn’t bother me. However, the fact is He did not. He is God–He certainly didn’t have to have sex with Mary in order to cause Jesus to be born of her womb; shoot WE can do that–you think that God could NOT?

The point is, the bible says she was a virgin. The Book of Mormon says she was a virgin. She was a virgin. That’s it. Your problem is that the bit about God having sex with Mary is actually ‘sexier’ for you–sounds more ‘cultish,’ or further away from orthodoxy than what is really being addressed in all those quotes, which is a strictly Trinitarian issue about the separation of Persons in Trinity.

It is underhanded, it is deceitful, and it is disingenuous. the thing you might think about is this: if, in order to defeat or discredit a belief system, you have to lie about it, then you are probably going down the wrong path; the Trinitarian nature of this debate is also a departure from your orthodoxy–but it doesn’t sound as titillating as God having sex with Mary.

Shame on you.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul, I’m going to write this one more time and then I will leave it, because you are more interested in the National Enquirer version of Mormonism than the real thing:

The Book of Mormon uses the word ‘Virgin’ in the ENGLISH sense; that is, ‘a woman who has never had sex.’

I never said anything about the BOM position on Mary’s virginity.

We all know that the LDS church does not base it’s teachings on the BOM. They only use the BOM as a gateway to suck people into Joseph Smith and the LDS cult. The scandalous LDS teachings on Mary were created by Joseph Smith and his successors long after the publication of the BOM.

I wrote about - and quoted - modern LDS prophets, seers and revelators about LDS teachings, not BOM teachings.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Now me…if it turned out that God the Father DID have sex with Mary, it wouldn’t bother me.

Well, there you have it. That is one thing that blows our minds about Mormons - the cavalier attitude they have about the almighty God.

Shame on you.

 

[dianaiad]

As was the case with the circumcision of Hebrew infant males. The baby had not reached an “age of accountability” or made a statement of faith. It was the faith of the parents that made the ordinance effacacious and the child became part of the family of Israel.

St. Paul draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism (see Col 2:11-12). Circumcision was performed mainly on infants. if Paul had meant to exclude infants from baptism, it is strange that he did not say so while discussing this parallel.

Paul

I understand why Catholics believe that infants need to be baptized. You don’t need to defend it. I disagree with it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t ‘get’ it, Paul.

We believe that it is not required because we believe that Jesus Christ took away all hint of any original sin that Adam and Eve may have left us, and He took it for all humans. He paid that price, period. Therefore, as do Catholics, we believe that infants are born sinless–and more importantly, they are born utterly innocent. Baptism IS necessary–but not until a child is actually old enough to make choices that would result in sin–and to understand what sin actually is.

So for us it isn’t a matter of ‘allowing’ children to come to Him…for us, they haven’t any of them LEFT Him yet. He has them, every one.

I am talking here about why a Mormon would do this for an infant if nobody else were around and the parents wanted it done; it’s more along the lines of Paul’s words in Romans 14: if one person believes something this strongly, so much so that refusing it would be a stumbling block to his or her faith or ability to find comfort, then it would be,* I *think, a grave sin and disservice to refuse because WE might understand that baptism for infants is not required.

That’s it. I’m not going to argue with you about whether it is required. You already know that we believe it is not, and I hope you understand why. I already know that you believe it is, and I have read the reasoning behind that(shrug) Do you think debating the issue will change the mind of either one of us?

 

[dianaiad]

Well, there you have it. That is one thing that blows our minds about Mormons - the cavalier attitude they have about the almighty God.

Shame on you.

It is not a ‘cavalier attitude.’ It is an attitude of acceptance; I will not refuse to believe that which is true just because I might want to dictate something else.

However, I don’t HAVE to accept the idea that God had sex with Mary, because He did not do so; there is nothing anywhere to indicate that He did, and all indications, scriptures and statements about it claim that she was a virgin when He was born.

But you know what?

I don’t believe that she stayed that way. I believe that she was married to Joseph and had other children–there is certainly nothing in scripture to make it important that she remain a virgin, or remain childless after Him. Her position as His mother and as the very special woman that she was is not diminished in any way by that; marriage and family (and yes, sex between married people) is NOT a sin, or a problem, or in any way detrimental to sanctity or to being as God would have us be.

Just as I don’t know whether Jesus Himself was married–I honestly do not know; some days I lean one way, some the other–but it is not important either way. His teachings remain the same, as does His life and His purpose. I figure that I’ll be told the truth about that eventually, and whatever it is, I will accept because, well–it is what it is.

I believe that Mary was a virgin because the Bible says she was, because the Book of Mormon says she was, and because church doctrine says she was. That’s the situation I believe existed; I don’t see any reason why it HAD to be that way, but God did–and so it was. I’m just not going to argue with Him about it.

So either you accept this belief as it is or not, it’s up to you; just realize that if you continue to insist that I believe that God had sex with Mary, you are arguing against a straw Mormonism that has no connection to the one I believe in and practice.

 

[Francesca24]

I Just Was Talking To Two Mormon That Said They Are The True Church Of Jesus Christ , What Do You Think About This Statement

How can it be the true church of Jesus Christ? Did Jesus EVER preach that we can become gods and end up on other planets of our own!!! This statement is just preposterous. We are God’s creatures and are on this earth to know Him to love Him and the praise Him, not to become Gods ourselves!! Just preposterous!!!

 

[dianaiad]

How can it be the true church of Jesus Christ? Did Jesus EVER preach that we can become gods and end up on other planets of our own!!! This statement is just preposterous. We are God’s creatures and are on this earth to know Him to love Him and the praise Him, not to become Gods ourselves!! Just preposterous!!!

Well, I wouldn’t believe that a church that claimed that Christ said we would can become gods and end up on other planets of our own is the ‘true church of Christ,’ either. Good thing, then, that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which doesn’t teach that, isn’t it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

(continued )

There are still Catholics who believe in and official limbo–an actual place in hell devoted to unbaptized infants. Thomas Aquinus, Peter Abelard…lots of folks taught it. Yet it is not official doctrine. Should I insist that YOU ‘really believe’ that unbaptized infants are sent to the outermost (or first) circle of hell because some very important people in it have taught exactly that?

Even if it is NOT official doctrine? I understand that 'official doctrine" lies somewhere around unbaptized infants being denied ‘eternal beatitude’ but because they are personally sinless, are in a state of permanent ‘natural happiness,’ unaware of the ultimate joy that is denied them because of original sin.

It is a far more comforting idea than that of some Protestant faiths, that consign unbaptized infants to the fires of hell. After all, permanent natural happiness is a whale of a lot better than what we have HERE.

Still, one could, if one were going to be picky, point out the similarities here; you, as a Catholic, being bound to something that a great many of your leaders have actually taught–even though you may not believe it and know that it is NOT official doctrine. Is it fair to you? Is it fair to the church? I’d say no…but if this isn’t fair to you or your faith, why is it fair of you to do it to me?

It hasn’t changed, actually. The Church’s stance is, we don’t know. Some people, very smart people, used reason, philosophy and theology to state what might be probable. They don’t agree. There are many, many subjects within Catholicism where this occurs.

The stance is, we don’t know, never have. God has not revealed it.

I understand that the actual words spoken are vital: the person must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: that the names of all three Persons must be mentioned separately–that being baptized in the name of the Trinity, for instance, is not valid (from the Catholic Encyclopedia).

Yet this prayer: "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; is NOT valid? "

Belief informs intent. The Mormon belief about God, non-Triune, the Father is an exalted man, informs the intent of your baptisms. Which is the cause of your baptisms not being invalid.

I don’t get it. I understand why we do not accept Catholic baptisms; we really do believe that it’s more than just immersion, the words and intent. We believe that the person doing it has to have the authority TO do it…and we don’t believe that you guys have it any more. But according to the Catholic encyclopedia, anyone who has the desire to baptize may do so, as long as there is water (no other liquid), that it ‘flows’ and actually touches some part of the skin, and that the following is also true:

"In addition to the necessary word “baptize”,…]

…so it seems that the LDS form is acceptable, right down to the use of the word “name” as a singular rather than plural form. Since Catholicism has (also according to this source) accepted the validity of baptisms performed using this form even when their beliefs are far more heretical than OURS are, I don’t get it.

If you are using the old encyclopedia, I’ll just say that it is a very good resource. But you should be aware that it is over 100 year old.

That being the case, the Church is a living Church. The response on the validity of LDS baptism was given in June of 2001.

I understand that you don’t accept our baptisms. Turn about is more than fair play–but I can’t help but think that the reason you don’t isn’t the reason you claim. (“you” being Catholicism in general, not ‘you,’ Rebecca)

The reason is exactly what it is. You do not believe in the One True God. The belief informs the intent.

Which is why the Catholic church does accept it, I imagine…and the only reason why one of us would do it; it is the faith of the parent at work here.

The parent of the child could do it themselves. I’m not following why they would ask a non-Catholic to perform a baptism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Now me…if it turned out that God the Father DID have sex with Mary, it wouldn’t bother me. However, the fact is He did not. He is God–He certainly didn’t have to have sex with Mary in order to cause Jesus to be born of her womb; shoot WE can do that–you think that God could NOT?

The point is, the bible says she was a virgin. The Book of Mormon says she was a virgin. She was a virgin. That’s it. Your problem is that the bit about God having sex with Mary is actually ‘sexier’ for you–sounds more ‘cultish,’ or further away from orthodoxy than what is really being addressed in all those quotes, which is a strictly Trinitarian issue about the separation of Persons in Trinity.

It is underhanded, it is deceitful, and it is disingenuous. the thing you might think about is this: if, in order to defeat or discredit a belief system, you have to lie about it, then you are probably going down the wrong path; the Trinitarian nature of this debate is also a departure from your orthodoxy–but it doesn’t sound as titillating as God having sex with Mary.

Shame on you.

There is nothing titillating about it!

Do you believe that it is ok that God, your Creator, would have sexual intercourse with that which He created? Really and seriously? You cannot see the evil in this belief?

It isn’t about sex being good or bad.

And no, it is not a Trinitarian issue. That is your spin on it. Clear statements that God, the MAN, conceived His Son just as any man conceives a son. I don’t know how you can read these statements and pretend your prophets and apostles were saying anything but what they were saying.

 

[dianaiad]

The parent of the child could do it themselves. I’m not following why they would ask a non-Catholic to perform a baptism.

Rebecca…a mother under anesthesia, having just given birth to a child in immediate danger of death, could do it herself? It is for this reason that sometimes a child is baptized while still in its mother’s womb, before the umbilical cord is cut, thus ensuring that the child is alive for the sacrament. It would be quite a woman who could do this for her own child.

I realize that I am talking about something that doesn’t often happen…but ‘doesn’t often’ doesn’t mean ‘never.’

The nurse I know who has done this has had to do it once or twice a year, at least. Usually there is someone else who can, but not always.

 

[Stephen168]

For instance:

Rebecca. what do you believe about, say…the need for baptism and who does it? Why is it so important to baptize an infant that you will accept one performed by a Mormon nurse baptizing a baby who is in immediate danger of death?

…and yes, an LDS nurse will do this for the parents if the child is in that desperate a situation, even though he or she does not believe that the infant is in need of such. And yes, I am well aware that such an action does indeed ‘count’ in your faith.

Rebecca…a mother under anesthesia, having just given birth to a child in immediate danger of death, could do it herself? It is for this reason that sometimes a child is baptized while still in its mother’s womb, before the umbilical cord is cut, thus ensuring that the child is alive for the sacrament. It would be quite a woman who could do this for her own child.

Interesting

 

[Arandur]

Perhaps it is not an accident that God is seen as a feudal lord in a church that was so strong in the middle ages.

No, He is seen as sovereign, and Christ a Davidic King. God Himself designed it this way; we did not.

I think the analogy of children is better than servents.

We use them both. It is easier to use the kingdom analogies when talking about roles and offices, things to do. Catholics are all about the family imagery.

Perhaps that is the difference. Our concept of God is that he shares with us. Your concept is that we share with him. Two sides of the same coin, but a small difference.

Where do you get that? My last post was all about God sharing with us. It was in response to a post of yours saying that our “progression” into godhood “adds to God’s glory”–THAT is US sharing with HIM. I had it right the first time, mski

If you want to agree with my terminology and my way of explaining things (God sharing with us), please do. You keep sounding more Catholic, and that’s great! (Just in case you were tempted, don’t go and say that I’m sounding more Mormon; I’ve never heard a Mormon espouse the ideas you have, and we Catholics held and taught all of these beliefs first ).

I know you are into physics. What does it mean that the universe is expanding? Into what? Does it have an end? How can it expand?

Many different possibilities for each of them are debated, including the premise that the universe is expanding. As for change and perfection and all that, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, how you are relating that to this eschatalogical discussion. I expect that in eternal life we humans, still created as we are within time and with both physical and material definition, will always fundamentally exist within time and have the capacity for change in some respect. That’s consistent with how God created us. If He wants to transform us, He could, but that would make us something other than human, it would seem to me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Interesting

C-Sections, the anesthesia can be epidural, spinal or general. Only general puts you out completely. The other 2 are regional, and block pain, and all sensation, to a the lower portion of your body. You are completely conscious. But no, baptizing your own child would not be possible.

 

[dianaiad]

C-Sections, the anesthesia can be epidural, spinal or general. Only general puts you out completely. The other 2 are regional, and block pain, and all sensation, to a the lower portion of your body. You are completely conscious. But no, baptizing your own child would not be possible.

This is true. When a baby is in the sort of distress that requires getting him out NOW, however, general anesthesia is used, since regional anesthesia takes too long. I haven’t actually asked my friend this, but I don’t get the feeling that women who have had time to get regional anesthesia would require the services of a Mormon nurse to baptize their infants. If there is time for a regional, there is time to get the hospital Catholic chaplain in on it, or at least a Catholic doctor, nurse or orderly.

But as I have mentioned, this doesn’t happen all that often. My friend, to whom I have been referring, is a very busy maternity delivery nurse/midwife who is trained in high risk deliveries. Even so, she handles several deliveries every day, and most of them work out fine. When things go wrong, however, they can do so very, very quickly…and as I have also mentioned, this sort of thing happens to her perhaps once a year, if that often. I brought it up only as an example/'for instance…" (I can’t think of any other instance where it would be required, can you?)

She also mentioned a couple of other religious preferences that she has been trained to respect; the folks in the hospital where she works take their patient’s religious faith very seriously–and so does she.