M
Milliardo
Guest
And yet it contradicts what you said; is that a double standard I see somewhere?
- Status
T
tequilamac
Guest
Well that depends. Are we discussing Kolob or Kulub? Is it moroni or moronu? I really can’t tell any more especially since Z just told us democrats go to purgatory. I didn’t even know mormons believed in purgatory. In fact, I thought they denied purgatory. Wow.you sure it is not “hypocrat”…lets make sure we are all chatting in the same language
And then this part I don’t get- they cannot baptise a child under 8 years. But they can baptise the dead. So does that mean a child under 8 can be baptised if he is dead?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The Book of Mormon denies the possibility of changing one’s eternal fate after death. This is because at the time of the writing and publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph and Sidney had not yet created their sci-fi religion of multiple gods and missionaries in a spirit world. The Book of Mormon reflects the prevailing Protestant religious view of the 1820s. The Book of Mormon says:
God have mercy on the Mormons,
Paul
The Book of Mormon does not teach or support current Mormon doctrine. According to the Book of Mormon, baptism for the dead is of no avail.
God have mercy on the Mormons,
Paul
Z
Zooey
Guest
Can I say that, I’d rather be nuts than be Mormon?? I’m sorry, but that is the truth!!
Z
zerinus
Guest
So obeying the commandments of God is not logical enough for you? Sorry, for me it is.
That depends on who is talking. I don’t think so.
For answer see this post, and surrounding discussions.
I am not a Jew.
Baptism is not the same as circumcision. The theology of baptism is vastly different from the theology of circumcision.
The answer still remains the same—because the Lord has commanded us not to.
zerinus
Z
Zooey
Guest
Nay, laddy, we’re using our minds…A practice which I can highly recommend to all!!
Z
Zooey
Guest
Nay, laddy, we’re using our minds…A practice which I can highly recommend to all!!Okay, I was typing too fast; so what?
You are both going our of your minds!
zerinus
E
Eden
Guest
Now you are a prophet, too? You can change the Word of God in the New Testament? Paul tells us that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
Where in the Bible does the Lord tell us not to baptize infants?
Z
Zooey
Guest
Lunch!!Hey zerinus- if hypocrits go to Kolob, and hypocrats go to Kulub, where do Democrats go?
E
Eden
Guest
I’ve never seen a date set for the great apostasy of the Catholic Church, according to Mormons. I mean, how early exactly did this apostasy occur? You see Church Fathers recording the practice of infant baptism from the earliest days:
Look at all of the early Church testimony as to the practice of infant baptism here:
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-II
It is noteworthy that Mormons are not generally aware of the Early Church Fathers.
Look at all of the early Church testimony as to the practice of infant baptism here:
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#tradition-II
It is noteworthy that Mormons are not generally aware of the Early Church Fathers.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Sure I am!
Paul is speaking in figurative terms. Baptism is not the same thing as circumcision.
So you like going round and round in circles, do you? You think it is some kind of merry-go-round? Start here and work your way down.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Z
zerinus
Guest
E
Eden
Guest
I didn’t realize that all Mormons believe they have the authority to alter the Word of God. False prophets all.
Why is he figuratively using something that was performed on infants? Baptism replaces circumcision as the initiation into Christian life - and the initiation still includes infants. Remember when Jesus was presented to the temple as an infant?
and work your way down.
The evidence you have provided so far did not support your claim. No where in the Bible does God command us not to baptize infants. Further, the Bible explicity states that “entire households” are baptized. That means everyone - of all ages.
I noticed you didn’t have an answer for the date of the great apostasy.
Still searching, still can’t find it:
Patrick Madrid:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp
M
Milliardo
Guest
That’s right–you said that for baptism to be valid, then there must be repentance and remission of sins. How can there be repentance and remission for the dead?
Z
zerinus
Guest
M
Milliardo
Guest
Please expound on it.
Z
zerinus
Guest
We believe it is possible for the spirits in the spirit world to repent. We know that because the Lord has revealed it to us in modern LDS scripture. If you want a biblical proof, here is one:
1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
This tells us that Jesus visited the ancient sinners in the spirit world after His death, before His resurrection, who had died in the Flood in the days of Noah, and preached the gospel to them. Why would He preach the gospel to them, unless they had the opportunity to repent and accept it? Verses 18 and 21 also imply that the atonement of Christ offered redemption to them, on the condition of repentance, as it is offered to those who are alive on earth.
zerinus
K
Karin
Guest
I see Z skipped over this with no comment
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Obeying the commandments of the Lord to baptise entire nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is logical.
Inferring that Jesus commanded people to not baptize children when he said to let the little children come to him, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these is not logical.
Furthermore, baptism isn’t entirely about being cleansed from original sin. As a sign of the Lord’s covenant, baptism is also about being adopted into God’s family, entering into his Church. This is very similar to the value of circumcision under the era of the Israelites…
Genesis 17:11:
Consequently, if the Israelite males were not circumcised, they were not considered part of God’s covenant…
Genesis 17:14:
Furthermore, baptism under the Christian era is the equivalent of circumcision under the era of the Israelites…
Mark 16:16:
Notice the similarity between the value of circumcision and the value of baptism when contrasted between the Isrealite and Christian covenents?
In the Christian covenent, we are buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Unlike the Israelite’s covenant, however, in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. And we have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
In him we were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
continued…
- Status