I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
The idea seem’s totally inconceivable to me that if Christ had a widower she would not be clearly depicted or described within the gospels or the vast traditions of the church at all.
- Status
C
campeador
Guest
No problem, Zulfiqar. Seems you’ve come a long way on your spiritual journey.Don’t ask me!I said I was a Mormon. That doesn’t mean I understood any of it! lol I was a kid . . . And I am so grateful that my family is not Mormon anymore. It’s crazy, man. And when you’re so brainwashed into it, you don’t realize how ridiculous it is until you look at it from an outside perspective.
May God lead you along the paths of Righteousness and Truth.
J
Janderich
Guest
No doubt some LDS member feels strongly about something. After all, there are over 14 million on record. However, because some member may have submitted bogus information with incorrect dates and names indicates almost nothing.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
And of course Jesus never broke custom at anytime during his time on earth, time he spent as just another Rabbi.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
And not to mention “Heavenly Mother” after all one CAN NOT BE EXALTED UNLESS ONE IS MARRIED. Men and women can only obtain “godhood” of they are married to a suitable spouse. One can talk about God the Father, Christ, God the Son and, the Holy Spirit all they want, but in LDS “theology” God the Father would not exist without “God the Mother” he could not be “an exalted man” without her. LDS theology requires four people in the “godhead”.Again, where does the Holy spirit fit in? He couldn’t have become a god because by definition he has no body and can’t be married.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Alot of these stories in Mormon thought are forms of modern day Gnosticism.
It is very hard to understand Mormon understanding of Christ because He made a mistake with us. So He had to start all over again, 1800 years later with no witnesses to His new revelation, except one person, Joseph Smith.
If Christ failed setting up His Church with 12 apostles, you would think atleast the next time around He would pick 24 apostles, and they would be like the Servite Friar founders…who had atleast the same basic vision of inspiration, although they were in different locales, who came together with the same vision and aim.
I mean, Christ can do anything, except start His Church 1800 after the event.
It is very hard to understand Mormon understanding of Christ because He made a mistake with us. So He had to start all over again, 1800 years later with no witnesses to His new revelation, except one person, Joseph Smith.
If Christ failed setting up His Church with 12 apostles, you would think atleast the next time around He would pick 24 apostles, and they would be like the Servite Friar founders…who had atleast the same basic vision of inspiration, although they were in different locales, who came together with the same vision and aim.
I mean, Christ can do anything, except start His Church 1800 after the event.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I am really not sure about this but I think that at least some of them do think He was married but of course, He was not. He was celibate His entire life.
L
lax16
Guest
Hi Janderich - Yes, that is probably true. However, of the 14 million on record, how many are able to perform these rituals of baptizing/sealing the dead?
Aren’t only those in good standing (or temple worthy) allowed access to this?
C
CAROLOFTHEBELLS
Guest
I have just been learning about LDS and Joseph Smith over the past few days. Even though I have been friends with a few Mormons, nothing has been shared with me except their faith in Jesus (which I assumed was not any different than other Christians). My curiosity was aroused after reading a news story about Mitt Romney (which was actually not about his religion) and finding links on Google about Mormonism.
Earlier in the thread there was a phrase in one of the posts that went something like this, “we did not just pull this out of a hat”. I thought that was ironic. It kind of gave me a giggle.
Earlier in the thread there was a phrase in one of the posts that went something like this, “we did not just pull this out of a hat”. I thought that was ironic. It kind of gave me a giggle.
J
Janderich
Guest
I believe you simply have to be baptized in order to access and edit the “New FamilySearch”. However, to actually do the baptizing, sealing etc. you have to be temple worthy. This represents a much smaller portion of members, though probably still in the millions. However, someone can add a name to the FamilySearch site and have others do the temple work. In this case the person finding the names is separate from those performing the ordinances.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
As to the marriage feast at Cana - it could not have been Jesus’ wedding. The gospel according to John states:
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Who has to be invited to his own wedding?
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
E
EllieH
Guest
I knew somebody would catch the humorous illusion…well done.
E
EllieH
Guest
I apologize for being a bit behind in the conversation, those pesky extenuating circumstances you know…I am working on a response to your post…You gave quite a bit to consider…as well your post is very well done, nicely thought out and sincere and thoughtful. I appreciate that very much. I’ll be sending something out is a bit…
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
LDS baptism for the dead would be a lot less disrespectful if your last sentence wasn’t the case for all most all post humus LDS baptisms.
E
EllieH
Guest
Has anyone here done the actual research to Paul’s reference in Corinthians. Has anyone determined when the practice of baptism for the dead ceased and upon what principle was it stopped ?
Once again I think we would / could do better to be informed. It is inconsistent in my opinion to think that Paul would find it necessary to borrow upon an unacceptable practice to defend his teachings on the resurrection. I can’t find a place in scripture to my knowledge where the writer try’s to sustain the truths of God by a submission to Satanic ritual or commentary as a supporting piece of evidence for the truth. It is counter to the economy of heaven to do so.
It seems to me that we could rather expect that it would be like the story around Acts 16 and the soothsayer. Even though her message seems appropriate when she states, “These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation” nonetheless as the origin of the sustaining words she spoke was not the proper element of righteous Godly support for spiritual matters of God’s Kingdom, Paul turns after putting up with her “support” for several days and cast the demon out of her that caused her to act in such manner. God and his servants do not borrow upon evil activities or events to sustain righteousness and Paul would not reference a practice of baptism for the dead if he did not support it. It was a proper support of a truthful principle which the resurrection gave meaning. Paul simply would not choose a lie to explain principles of truth.
Now our job as seekers of truth it to discover why it is there in scripture in the first place. Doesn’t that just make some sort of reasonable sense? Again I repeat … we did not pull this stuff out of a hat…
R
router123
Guest
Mormonism and catholic bible are two different things. and they talk about another person. for them Jesus is married.
T
twf
Guest
You’re quite right. I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever for St. Paul to use an invalid practice as an argument in favor of the resurrection. Catholics do perform baptisms for the dead; we just don’t perform baptism of water on their behalf. Catholics offer the holy sacrifice of the mass, prayers, alms, fasting, and various other forms of penance on behalf of the dead. These acts of penance could be considered a form of spiritual baptisms in the same sense that Our Lord refers to His passion as a “baptism”. Consider Our Blessed Lord’s words in Luke 12:50:
*There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished! *(NAB)
Clearly this “baptism” refers to His passion and death on the cross. Baptism isn’t always used in the literal “of water” sense in Scripture.
My interpretation of this verse has never, to my knowledge, been formally taught by the Church, but it is hardly a unique position among Catholics and I believe it has a lot of merit. Outside of this one obscure verse in the Pauline Corpus, I am aware of no reference to baptisms on behalf of the dead; however, it is clear from the Fathers that th early Christians did pray and offer penances for the dead…so which interpretation seems more likely? Based on the larger context of Christian tradition, it makes much more sense to me that St. Paul is using “baptisms” in the same sense that Our Lord does in the above verse - penance offered on behalf of sinners.
C
campeador
Guest
Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition:
1 Corinthians 15
Ver. 29. Who are baptized for the dead.[1] He still brings other proofs of the resurrection. This is a hard place, and the words are differently expounded.
- Several late interpreters understand a metaphorical baptism, and that to be baptized for the dead, is to undertake self-denials, mortifications, and works of penance, in hopes of a happy resurrection; and this exposition agrees with what follows, of being exposed to dangers every hour, of dying daily, &c. But if this had been the apostle’s meaning, he would rather have said, Who baptize themselves. Besides, this exposition is not so much as mentioned in any of the ancient interpreters.
- Some think that St. Paul tells the Corinthians that they ought not to question the resurrection of the dead, who had a custom among them, if any one died without baptism, to baptize another that was living for him; and this they did, fancying that such a baptism would be profitable to the dead person, in order to a happy resurrection. Tertullian mentions this custom in one or two places, and also St. Chrysostom on this place. But it does not seem probable that St. Paul would bring any argument of the resurrection from a custom which he himself could not approve, nor was ever approved in the Church.
- St. Chrysostom and the Greek interpreters, who generally follow him, expound these words, who are baptized for the dead, as if it were the same as to say, who receive baptism with hopes that they themselves, and all the dead, will rise again; and therefore make a profession, when they are baptized, that they believe the resurrection. So that St. Paul here brings this proof among others, that they who have been made Christians, and continue Christians, cannot call in question the resurrection, which they professed to believe in their creed at their baptism, the creed being always repeated before they were baptized.
- Others, by being baptized for the dead, understand those who begged and called for baptism when they were in danger of death, and would by no means go out of this world without being baptized, hoping thereby to have a happy resurrection of their bodies; so that to be baptized for the dead is the same as on the account of the state of the dead, which they were entering into. See St. Epiphanius, hær. viii. p. 114. Edit Petavii. (Witham) Some think the apostle here alludes to a ceremony then in use: but others, more probably, to the prayers and penitential labours performed by the primitive Christians for the souls of the faithful departed: or to the baptism of afflictions and sufferings undergone for sinners spiritually dead. (Challoner)
M
MJE
Guest
PRICELESS!! Painfully polite Hilariously hostile should go into everyone’s quote book.
C
Callvenus
Guest
In the lower two levels of the celestial kingdom, people only exist as angels and not as fully exalted gods. Mormon doctrine clearly states that Christ is a god and achieved godhood and therefore he would need to be married in order to be exalted.
- Status