JPII now baptised by proxy by LDS

  • Thread starter Thread starter flameburns623
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zerinus said:
When LDS President Harold B Lee died around 30 years ago, I was informed by an acquaintance that the then Pope (it wouldn’t have been JP2) sent his widow a letter of condolence. Is that common? Do Popes generally do that?

zerinus
Click to expand...
Yes, they do. It was Pope Paul VI at that time.
Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
The LDS do not recognize as valid any other Church’s baptism. So if a baptised person joins the LDS Church, he must be re-baptised. Also, if a Mormon gets excommunicated, then wants to come back into the LDS Church, he must be re-baptised.
Paul
Click to expand...
Thank you Paul. For once you have given correct unbiased information about the Church.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Actually, he does “approve”. He uses that custom to prove the truth of the doctrine of the resurrection. It would seem odd to say the least to use a false doctrine to prove the validity of a true one. :rolleyes:

zerinus
Click to expand...
Z,
Notice that St. Paul says “they” baptise for the dead, not “we”. He also quoted heathen poets to make a point. That one verse does not necessarily imply a Christian practice of baptism for the dead. Though perhaps one or more of the gnostic Christian splinter groups (who also believed in the resurrection) practiced baptism for the dead. It is a very gnostic thing to do.
God love you,
Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
Z,
Notice that St. Paul says “they” baptise for the dead, not “we”. . . .
Paul
Click to expand...
You are far out Paul, this time round. The seripture says that they "are baptized for the dead," not that they "baptize for the dead".

zerinus
 
Eden said:
Seriously, though. I’m really interested in learning about the magic in “magic underwear”. I’m not making fun. It just sounds intriguing but the website doesn’t really explain because, I suppose, they assume a knowledge by the reader as to what this is. I looked “magic underwear” up on Wikipedia.org but the subject is not in their encyclopedia. The article with the highest relevance (8%) was “Granny panties”. I don’t think that’s what we are talking about here. Can anyone help me with this? Or should I just start a new thread?
Click to expand...
Hi Eden,
Try this link.
 
40.png
Eden:
Are you?

wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=fox2&id=I140415&style=TABLE
No, I made an assumption. That was clear.

zerinus
 
Z, ah I notice you ignoring the question. If we must follow what they did in Corinth then speaking in tongues would be the practice in your ward. So how often do you speak in tongues?
 
Do the dead at least get a momento or majic underwear or some type of token from this ritual?

Or the living “family” members that ask for this ritual? Do they get something?

I am intrigued by the prospect of a lasting momento.
 
Z, nuts? I don’t baptize the dead which is pretty nuts. You take one practice of a church that was full of problems and base your whole theology on it. That is nuts. But when I point out another practice in Corinth, tongues, suddenly you shy away. Can’t blame you. Wouldn’t want to face a “court of love”, would you?
 
zerinus said:
You are far out Paul, this time round. The seripture says that they "are baptized for the dead," not that they "baptize for the dead".

zerinus
Click to expand...
Quit straining out gnats. Whether the verb is active or passive, it remains that he says “they” not “we” or “you”. St. Paul was writing to Christians. If he was citing an ordinance practiced by them, he would have said “why are we then baptised for the dead…” or “why are you then baptised for the dead…”.

The fact that he said “why are they then baptised for the dead…” indicates that it was someone else, not the true Christian Church, who performed this ritual. This verse is simply not good evidence of a Christian practice.

Paul
 
Hey, lets not pick on Z.

I think his magic underwear might be too tight. It makes people speak not only in tongues but in falsehoods. Z, I wonder if there is a possibility that you end up baptizing someone who died in a state of mortal sin.

Does this create any dillemma for you?

You may be doing services on those who not only are cursing God eternally but of course, your faith and founder.

I dont think it would bother me personally if I were a mormon, just curious how you think on it.
 
Oh no! What will God think of someone who is baptizing a dead person who is hell bound? Oh no!

I missed that one. I forgot about the God aspect here. Whoops.

He might not approve of this…:confused:

Is this bypassing God somehow here guys? I mean, If the dead in question is hell bound---- or is that a non-issue?
 
PaulDupre said:
Quit straining out gnats. Whether the verb is active or passive, it remains that he says “they” not “we” or “you”. St. Paul was writing to Christians. If he was citing an ordinance practiced by them, he would have said “why are we then baptised for the dead…” or “why are you then baptised for the dead…”.

The fact that he said “why are they then baptised for the dead…” indicates that it was someone else, not the true Christian Church, who performed this ritual. This verse is simply not good evidence of a Christian practice.

Paul
Click to expand...
Yes, and they means they of the church who are baptized for the dead; not they (outside the church) who baptize for the dead.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Yes, and they means they of the church who are baptized for the dead; not they (outside the church) who baptize for the dead.

zerinus
Click to expand...
CHAP.X.–DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY
Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours. But we will not be wanting (in some defence of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. “What,” asks he, “shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?” Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining “but one baptism.” To be “baptized for the dead” therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body; for, as we have shown, it is the 450

Tertullian: Five Books Against Marcion
 
zerinus said:
Certainly it is true that all false, dead, and apostate religions are offended at true ones. That is a valid observation: “… And they were offended at him” (Mark 6:3).

zerinus
Click to expand...
Ah I knew it. So the Mormon belief than is backwards to christ. For my post #70 stated that Elijah was offended by Ahab and the worship of Baal. Are we to infer from your reply that Mormons consider Baal the true God and Elihah’s God the apostate? That would certainly answer why Mormons are contrary to all other Christian religions and the Jews, yes.
 
Valke2 said:
the baptizing of our dead IS an insult to our religion. That their intent may be otherwise doesn’t change that. And it is not true (by a longshot) that they can’t practice their religion without “baptizing” people who have nothing to do with their religion. The LDS Church has agreed to stop the practice. On paper,. In reality, it continues.
Click to expand...
OH no, someone call the ADL! :rolleyes:
Seriously, Valke, get over it. The Mormons shouldn’t have to change their religious practices to appease the Jews…if we Catholics had changed our religious practices to appease you, you people would not have commited deicide by having Christ put to death and killing His Apostles. Your Talmud insults Christ and Mary but I don’t the Catholic League going after you and I don’t see you rewriting your Talmud to appease Christians.

I don’t want to give the impression that the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead is doctrinally OK, I’m just sick of Jews using the Holocaust as an excuse to push everyone around. If the state of Israel is going to make the Mormons change their practice of baptizing the dead so they can have religious freedom there, the state of Utah ought to at least put some restrictions on the practice of Judaism. Anyway, from what I know about Mormonism, the Mormon Church does not choose who they will baptize–individual Mormons just bring in a list of names they have collected of dead people to the temple and they are baptized for them. Usually the dead to be baptized include the person’s own ancestors (and they don’t do it as an insult to their ancestors either). They also don’t target Jews specifically to be baptized, so you can get over yourselves. Do you make such an uproar when Mormons baptize Catholics or Protestants or Jehovah’s Witnesses who were killed in the Holocaust, or are Jews the only ones who are off-limits? Never mind, I already know the answer to that one…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top