JPII now baptised by proxy by LDS

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What? Is that so? Catholics accept Protestant baptisms but not Mormon baptisms because they have a disagreement about the Trinity? That’s not very nice. The Catholics & Protestants disagree on so many other things but this one is a show stopper? Really?

Actually, as far as I can tell, the doctrine of the Trinity is the only doctrine that all true Christians share in common. Without this bare minimum, the church in question is simply out of the loop so to speak. There’s simply no questioning this part.

 

[Megatron]

We could start another thread on that but frankly I’m not that interested. Maybe if you promise to invite us into the Christian fellowship…

Look, in this entire discussion we have to make a lot of assumptions about what happens in the afterlife. Some of it is based on our church teachings and is therefore a matter of faith.

I am saying that the scripture in Alma about there being no repentance in the afterlife does not contradict the requirement of baptism. Is the gospel only for the living? Who knows? But even if you understand the gospel, you still need to make a decision to accept it.

I think you’re still missing the point that the salvation of the dead is one of the three principle missions of the LDS church (along with perfecting the saints and proclaiming the gospel). This isn’t something we can just sweep under the rug in the hope of finding another commonality between Catholicism and Mormonism.

 

[majick275]

I think it of note that the BoM explains why baptism for the dead is of no avail:

*Moroni 8:
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.
25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins; *

You see, those who didn’t have the gospel don’t need baptism.in fact this denounces dead works and calls it a mockery to baptize those who are without the law. If anything this justifies the Catholic position on baptism of desire.

(Catholic answers)
*In the case of those who have not yet heard the gospel or learned of God, but who nevertheless seek to follow the truth as they understand it, they have an implicit desire for God since they desire to follow the truth. They simply do not know that God is the truth. Consequently, they also can be saved through baptism of desire; therefore, a proxy baptism is superfluous, either before their death or after it. They are already united to God, even if they are not fully aware of it in this life (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848, 1257-1260). *

 

[GrandpaD]

That makes no sense at all considering the title of this thread. Not only did John Paul II hear the gospel, he memorized it and taught it. So then please explain the purpose of the Mormons baptising him again. Obviously it is not as you say, because he never heard the gospel. Try again. And by the way which gospel? The one according to Christ or the one according to Joe Smith? Which of course brings us back to the point I made earlier- the mormons parody or satirize the Catholic Church with their Mormon rituals which of course means that Joe Smith was in opposition to most of Christianity. The Gospel can only be delivered in it’s unadulterated form by a Catholic Christian. So this makes Joe Smith a what? not a who.

I am Catholic and confused, which of our Catholic Bibles is the truth? They are all different by a little bit, are these personal translations as Joseph Smith did, just a little bit of clarification of the true original Bible. I have the Douay-Rheims version of the Catholic Bible with was revised by Bishop Richard Challoner between AD 1749-1752. Is he like Joseph Smith and just did some little changes to suit his whims? I notice that his version is differing substantially from other Catholic versions of the Bible. So how is he different that Joe Smith?
Grandpa Don

 

[Karin]

I am Catholic and confused, which of our Catholic Bibles is the truth? They are all different by a little bit, are these personal translations as Joseph Smith did, just a little bit of clarification of the true original Bible. I have the Douay-Rheims version of the Catholic Bible with was revised by Bishop Richard Challoner between AD 1749-1752. Is he like Joseph Smith and just did some little changes to suit his whims? I notice that his version is differing substantially from other Catholic versions of the Bible. So how is he different that Joe Smith?
Grandpa Don

Joe Smith…was a con man who made his own book that is the Book of Mormon…the BoM is not a Bible!

 

[rmcmullan]

I think it of note that the BoM explains why baptism for the dead is of no avail:

*Moroni 8:
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.
25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins; *

Huh? Are you serious? You know the dead works he is talking about is infant baptism. He is talking about why baptism is not appropriate for infants, because it’s for repentance (or acceptance in the case of baptism for the dead.) Pretty much the same argument you’d get from Anabaptists.

 

[rmcmullan]

I think you’re still missing the point that the salvation of the dead is one of the three principle missions of the LDS church (along with perfecting the saints and proclaiming the gospel). This isn’t something we can just sweep under the rug in the hope of finding another commonality between Catholicism and Mormonism.

Well I’m not sure when that became the point!

 

[majick275]

Huh? Are you serious? You know the dead works he is talking about is infant baptism. He is talking about why baptism is not appropriate for infants, because it’s for repentance (or acceptance in the case of baptism for the dead.) Pretty much the same argument you’d get from Anabaptists.

yes I am very serious. This part not only speaks about infants , it goes specifically into those “without the law”. it equates the two. the explanation is that repentance is only for broken laws. Think in scriptural terms. the “law” is the covenant(s). those who have never entered into any covenants (you can assume that doesn’t include those who CHOOSE not to) are without the law. read what it says. The same reason why infants are not included applies to those who never had the chance to receive the gospel on earth.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Well I’m not sure when that became the point!

When did the Trinity become a way of distinguishing Christians from non-Christians?
At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, I’d say.

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick275, that’s pretty darn good. I might even give that one up.

The score so far:

Majick275: 1
rmcmullan: 0

 

[rmcmullan]

I move that we edit catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp and replace that lame Alma 34:35-36 with Majick275’s stumper.

My wife has pointed out that Moroni might have only been discussing the law as it pertains to the living and so it’s not a 100% bulletproof stumper. But it’s pretty darn good and better than the Alma one.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’d also like a promotion from the Non-Christian Religions List to the Christian Religions List but since I don’t seem to be getting anywhere on this one!

Sorry friend, but Mormonism is a non-Christian religion. You will never convince any Christian, once they know what Mormonism teaches, that it has anything in common with Christianity.

Besides, you know (don’t you?) that it is only very recently that the LDS have wanted to be considered Christian. They have always despised the word and did not want it applied to them. Read your former prophets (especially BY) on the subject. You may understand why we who know raise an eyebrow at your sudden wish to be numbered among the flock.

God bless you,
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

So true. We pray to the Father in Jesus’ name. But it’s not like we’re praying to Vishnu or Allah.

Actually it is. You are praying to a non-God. The LDS Elohim is just some guy, like you, only more advanced. Other religions would call your god an “ascended master”, a human being who gains enough arcane knowledge (secret handshakes and passwords?) to ascend to the highest levels of humanity and be accepted among the “gods”.

Your god did not (and could not) create the universe, and in fact is a product of the universe. Your god did not create you (Joseph Smith said “God never did have the power to create spirits”), and according to Mormon doctrine, would stop being god if his downline stopped sustaining him (see quote below). Why would you lower yourself to worship such a being? You may as well worship Vishnu.

God (the real God) bless you,
Paul

W. Cleon Skousen, a former BYU professor, wrote:

Through modern revelation we learn that the universe is filled with vast numbers of intelligences, and we further learn that Elohim is God simply because all of these intelligences honor and sustain Him as such… But since God ‘acquired’ the honor and sustaining influence of ‘all things’ it follows as a corollary that if He should ever do anything to violate the confidence or sense of justice’ of these intelligences, they would promptly withdraw their support, and the ‘power’ of God would disintegrate… ‘He would cease to be God.’ Our Heavenly Father can do only those things which the intelligences under Him are voluntarily willing to support Him in accomplishing (The First 2000 Years, pp. 355-356).

 

[tequilamac]

Sorry friend, but Mormonism is a non-Christian religion. You will never convince any Christian, once they know what Mormonism teaches, that it has anything in common with Christianity.

Besides, you know (don’t you?) that it is only very recently that the LDS have wanted to be considered Christian. They have always despised the word and did not want it applied to them. Read your former prophets (especially BY) on the subject. You may understand why we who know raise an eyebrow at your sudden wish to be numbered among the flock.

God bless you,
Paul

It’s a bit more of a problem than you state. I think it is the anti ness of it all.

Christians: God is the First Cause of all things.
Mormons: God had a father actually many fathers. Before God existed there were intelligences.

Christians:
God was always God but for our sake became man
Mormons: God was a man first who for his own sake became God.

A little to oppositional for my taste.

 

[majick275]

I move that we edit catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp and replace that lame Alma 34:35-36 with Majick275’s stumper.

My wife has pointed out that Moroni might have only been discussing the law as it pertains to the living and so it’s not a 100% bulletproof stumper. But it’s pretty darn good and better than the Alma one.

well let’s continue down that path and look at Mosiah 15:

• 23 They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death.
  24 And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord.
  25 And little children also have eternal life. * notice the comparison of little children to those who who were “ignorant” of the gospel. look at what it says about the process by which they are saved. The LORD redeems them himself just like children.

But wait that’s not all

we have 2 Nephi 9:

*25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no claw given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.
26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel. * is that in any way unclear? those who died without the law are automatically saved. those who could have had the law but chose not to accept it are dealt with in those same scriptures (other verses) . They don’t get a second chance. Don’t procrastinate the day of your salvation…??? nowhere does the BoM seem compatible with baptism for the dead.

 

[PaulDupre]

yes I am very serious. This part not only speaks about infants , it goes specifically into those “without the law”. it equates the two. the explanation is that repentance is only for broken laws. Think in scriptural terms. the “law” is the covenant(s). those who have never entered into any covenants (you can assume that doesn’t include those who CHOOSE not to) are without the law. read what it says. The same reason why infants are not included applies to those who never had the chance to receive the gospel on earth.

You’re right again majick. That passage from Moroni is a paraphrase of Romans 2:12-16

12 When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God’s written law. And the Jews, who do have God’s law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it. 13 For merely listening to the law doesn’t make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight.

14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

16 And this is the message I proclaim—that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone’s secret life.

, which is one the greatest passages against the Calvinist Protestant idea that everyone who dies without the opportunity to know Jesus is damned to hell. It is also a great refutation of the necessity of ordinances for the dead and LDS missionaries in the afterlife.

Paul

 

[rmcmullan]

If you want to have a serious discussion that praying to the Father in the name of the Son is like praying to Vishnu or Allah, go ahead but it’s really another thread. You ex-Mormons know that that Adam God theory has never been official doctrine and unless you quote Orson Pratt or Journal of Discourses or some other non-scriptural source, it has no endorsement. I would advise you to stick to the scriptures if you are interested in credibility. Having read the post on Powers of the Pope, especially the opening one on Papal infallability, I would think this would be a familiar appeal.

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick275, in this you have a very credible point and I appreciate it. You’ve studied it out and can make a reasonable arguement. I hope you haven’t made the leap to “well, since that can’t be, I’m out of here” but if you have and sincerely believe what you are doing is right, I must respect that. I think your point is at least as good as 1 Cor 15:29 is for the Mormon side. So I can offer some weak other possibilities but ultimately it’s a personal decision.

I would say that from the scriptures you & PaulDupree offered, it looks as though the Nephites did not practise baptism for the dead, even though they were a temple building people. Or at least that the passages did not include them. But the Moroni 8 scripture is really the best because it ties salvation of those without the law directly to baptism.

 

[majick275]

If you want to have a serious discussion that praying to the Father in the name of the Son is like praying to Vishnu or Allah, go ahead but it’s really another thread. You ex-Mormons know that that Adam God theory has never been official doctrine and unless you quote Orson Pratt or Journal of Discourses or some other non-scriptural source, it has no endorsement. I would advise you to stick to the scriptures if you are interested in credibility. Having read the post on Powers of the Pope, especially the opening one on Papal infallability, I would think this would be a familiar appeal.

I don’t see the Adam-God link to what I said on this. I was speaking about Elohim and Joseph Smith’s teachings on eternal progression that have stayed consistent throughout the history of the LDS church. Primarily that God has a father who has a father, etc. and that each was once a man as we are and “attained” exaltation though the same process that we are in now. THAT is why I believe my point valid on this.

 

[majick275]

Majick275, in this you have a very credible point and I appreciate it. You’ve studied it out and can make a reasonable arguement. I hope you haven’t made the leap to “well, since that can’t be, I’m out of here” but if you have and sincerely believe what you are doing is right, I must respect that. I think your point is at least as good as 1 Cor 15:29 is for the Mormon side. So I can offer some weak other possibilities but ultimately it’s a personal decision.

I would say that from the scriptures you & PaulDupree offered, it looks as though the Nephites did not practise baptism for the dead, even though they were a temple building people. Or at least that the passages did not include them. But the Moroni 8 scripture is really the best because it ties salvation of those without the law directly to baptism.

Hmmm. Actually there were parallel paths to my departure from mormonism. On one path I went through a similar process to this baptism for the dead with each and every “unique” mormon doctrine/practice/scripture to see if it was from God. (I had similar results for all of them) At the same time I felt called to God and was searching for his church. I went to the Temple 2-3 times a week to find hi min the LDS church. I studied the history of Christianity to try and see the “restoration” or at least the apostasy for myself. What I found instead was the Catholic Church. I began to study it and see if it was of God. I am convinced through, study, prayer and personal revelation that the Catholic church IS the one that Christ founded and that he guides it still today. I am also convinced through the same methods that Joseph Smith was a womanizing con man and that he created a scam which was later developed into an ongoing cult. somewhere along the line it’s origins were forgotten (or suppressed) and it tried to become a “church”. Recent events have made it clear to me though that the LDS leaders know if for what it is but continue to press forward anyway.