LDS and becoming gods

[mtolympus]

Unfortunately, your assumption is wrong. Very wrong.

In a discussion/debate, it is important that all parties mean the same thing when they use a particular word, or phrase. That is called asking for clarification.

With that being said, one should not make statements that they refuse to back up, or explain. That is flirting with forum rules to say the least,

One of your posts, above this reply, you give reasons for not responding to certain posts. That tells me, you are not here for an honest, open, two way conversation. It tells me that you are here to make statements/opinions, and not be held accountable. That also is flirting with forum rules about proselytizing…

Just sayin.

Sorry, I don’t believe there is a Forum rule that says I must answer the way you want me to. Or, that I must answer ever question I am asked.

 

[twopekinguys]

Sorry, I don’t believe there is a Forum rule that says I must answer the way you want me to. Or, that I must answer ever question I am asked.

First of all, don’t twist what I said into something else. I never said you “must answer every question”. Although, I fail to understand why you can’t clarify a simple statement that you made, unless it has to do with the forum rule I am quoting below.

You might want to check out this forum rule. " Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda."

By not answering legitimate questions, i.e. clarification of what you posted, it can be construed as you using this as “single-mindedly promoting an agenda”.

If you look to the upper right of your screen, you will see a link for “forum rules”. You will find it there.

I will reiterate my earlier statement, based upon the response I am quoting. It doesn’t look like you are here for an honest, two-sided discussion. It looks like you want to present a position, and then not defend/explain it.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Buddhists, too.

Infact, when Mother Angelica was down in Bogota, the Child Jesus appeared to her and told her to build Him a temple.

So she did. It’s the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

The interior of that church is very beautiful!

 

[mtolympus]

When you say this, does this mean you don’t believe that you can possibly become a god yourself with your own worlds to populate? If you don’t believe you may become a god, what does exhaultation mean to you? Please delineate specifics. Thanks

What exhaultation means to me is to is to become like God (1 John 3:2) and to be joint heirs with Christ. (Romans 8:16-17) This means we inherit all that God has which is eternal and without end. Exactly what this means is hard to comprehend and is not the focus of my worship. My focus is to follow Christ and keep his commandments. That through the grace of Jesus Christ I and my family may return to live with our Father in Heaven.

Does this mean you believe that Heavenly Father (or God) has always, eternally been God, and that He does not have His own heavenly father? That Heavenly Father (God) as ALWAYS been god, as oppose to his progressing to the point of becoming God?

“Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.” (D&C 20:28)
Our worship is always and only focused on God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. OK, if you want me to talk about the law of eternal progression, here goes. Yes our Father in Heaven has progressed, and he has a Father before him who has also progressed.

In the Doctrine and Covenants we learn that there are two things about God that are eternal: 1- The glory of God. 2- The power and priesthood of God.

1- What is the glory of God? “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth.” (D&C 93:29) “The glory of God is intelligence or, in other words, light and truth.” (D&C 93:36)

2- The power and priesthood of God is also eternal: “Which (the Melchizedek) priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations and is without beginning of days or end of years” (D&C 84:17)

From the beginning there is only one truth (which is the glory of God), and one Melchizedek priesthood (which is the power of God) therefore from the beginning there is only one God. However, the personification and progress of God and man is an eternal process. This seems to explain how three persons can be one eternal God.

Thanks for you kindness and patience.

 

[gazelam]

Living Mormons are not baptized in the temple, why must the dead be baptized in the temple?

In D&C 124:29-33 Jesus Christ gave Joseph Smith instruction regarding vicarious ordinances stating that they always need to occur in a temple unless the poverty of the people prevent the building of a temple.

29* For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—
*
30 For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me.

31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;

I hope this helps…

 

[lax16]

Why thank you! . However, to be fair, I entered three posts on April 2 and nobody responded for over 36 hours.

That’s because 1) you answered for gazelam and 2) I was out of town for a week.

 

[lax16]

Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them? (1 Cor 15:29)

“They” are Christians who believed in the resurrection and therefore were being baptized for the dead. Paul used them as an example to show the truthfulness of the resurrection. Paul certainly would not use a false practice to demonstrate the truthfulness of the resurrection!

There was only one group of Christians at that time. They did not perform baptisms for the dead.

What group of Christians are you referring to?

 

[mtolympus]

There was only one group of Christians at that time. They did not perform baptisms for the dead.

How do you know? The study by Catholic and Protestant scholars (see post 111) clearly didn’t know who they were, what they were doing, or why? They were willing to accept any possibility except the LDS position.

 

[lax16]

How do you know? The study by Catholic and Protestant scholars (see post 111) clearly didn’t know who they were, what they were doing, or why? They were willing to accept any possibility except the LDS position.

Because there no evidence of it. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would still be doing it.

The LDS position is relatively new.

 

[mtolympus]

Because there no evidence of it. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would still be doing it.

The LDS position is relatively new.

1 Corinthians 15:29 says otherwise.

 

[iepuras]

1 Corinthians 15:29 says otherwise.

No it doesn’t.

We don’t know exactly what Paul meant by when he wrote, “Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29)

St. Francis de Sales lived after the start of the protestant revolt. He wrote Catholic Controversies as a defense of Catholic doctrine. In chapter 5 about purgatory, he refers to 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, where Judas Maccabee gives two thousand drachmas of silver as an offering for the sins of the dead. Judas concludes with, Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. While Protestants reject the apocryphal books, Francis says, “But if, in the very last resort, we would take it as the testimony of a simple but great historian- which cannot be refused us- we must at least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray for the departed.”

Francis says, “And truly we have marks of this devotion in other Scriptures which ought to make easier to us the reception of the passage which we have just adduced. In Tobias, chap. iv.[Tobias 4:18]: Lay out thy bread and thy wine on the burial of a just man; and do not eat or drink thereof with the wicked.”

Francis says, “And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the 1st of Corinthians chap xv.[1 Corinthians 15:29], appealing to it as praiseworthy and right. What shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why then are they baptized for them? This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed.”
Francis continues, “in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in S. Luke, chap xii.[Luke 12:50], where Our Lord speaking of his Passion says: I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized and how am I straitened until it be accomplished!-and in S. Mark. chap x.[Mark 10:38], he says : Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of; or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? -in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism. This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of S. Paul resembles that of Machabees quoted above: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. They may twist and transform this text with as many interpretations as they like, and there will be none to properly fit into the Holy Letter except this.
But [secondly] it must not be said that the baptism of which S. Paul speaks is only a baptism of grief and tears, and not of fasts, prayers, and other works. For thus understood his conclusion would be very false. The conclusion he means to draw is that if the dead rise not again, and if the soul is mortal, in vain do we afflict ourselves for the dead. But, I pray you, should we not have more occasion to afflict ourselves by sadness for the death of friends if they rise no more - losing all hope of ever seeing them again - than if they do rise? He refers then to the voluntary afflictions which they undertook to impetrate the repose of the departed, which, questionless, would be undergone in vain if souls were mortal and the dead rose not again. Wherein we must keep in mind what was said above, that the article of the resurrection of the dead and that of the immortality of the soul were so joined together in the belief of the Jews that he who acknowledged the one acknowledged the other, and he who denied the one denied the other. It appears then by these words of S. Paul that prayer, fasting, and other holy afflictions were practiced for the departed. Now it was not for those in Paradise, who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did S. Ephrem expound it twelve hundred years ago, and so did the Fathers who disputed against the Petrobusians.”

So instead of restoring the ancient belief in purgatory and prayers that are given for the souls there, Joseph Smith invented proxy water baptism on behalf of the dead. A practice never used by Christians. Mormonism is an invention not a restoration.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11796980&postcount=157

 

[mtolympus]

No it doesn’t.

Again a lot of verbiage to prove the LDS position on 1 Cor. 15:29 wrong. Summed up in the first three words, “We don’t know”.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

Again a lot of verbiage to prove the LDS position on 1 Cor. 15:29 wrong. Summed up in the first three words, “We don’t know”.

There was a pagan religion found just north of Corinth in a city called Eleusis where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. (it was mentioned in the Hymn to Demeter 478-79, by Homer) This is probably what Paul was talking about.

Paul’s was saying that resurrection was a popular belief even among pagans and he pointed out the pagan practices in Eleusis and simply said something like, “Resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection; why else would they practice baptism for the dead?”

It is likely that Joseph Smith wanted a way for his brother to get into heaven and the Presbyterians of his day didn’t have a way so after not really understanding what Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 15:29; Joseph Smith interpreted the passage incorrectly and established baptism for the dead in the LDS church see:

When Alvin died, the family asked a Presbyterian minister in Palmyra, New York, to officiate at his funeral. As Alvin had not been a member of the minister’s congregation, the clergyman asserted in his sermon that Alvin could not be saved. William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother, recalled: “[The minister] … intimated very strongly that [Alvin] had gone to hell, for Alvin was not a church member, but he was a good boy and my father did not like it.”

In January 1836, many years after Alvin’s death, Joseph Smith received a vision of the celestial kingdom, in which he saw that Alvin, as well as his mother and father, would someday inherit that kingdom. Joseph “marveled how it was that [Alvin] had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins” (D&C 137:6). The voice of the Lord then came to Joseph, declaring:

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts” (D&C 137:7–9).

On August 15, 1840, the Prophet Joseph Smith preached at a funeral in Nauvoo and, for the first time in public, taught the doctrine of salvation for the dead. According to Simon Baker, who was present, the Prophet began by testifying that the “gospel of Jesus Christ brought glad tidings of great joy.” He read most of 1 Corinthians 15 and explained that “the Apostle was talking to a people who understood baptism for the dead, for it was practiced among them.” He then declared that “people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and that the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God.”

Reference: lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-35?lang=eng

Somethings the simple reasons are the right ones.

The more I read about Joseph Smith, the more I understand why he made the religion he did. It doesn’t make the religion correct, but I can understand his motivation more.

Just more unfortunate outcomes from the second reformation in America.

Note that in the Catholic Church, even if Alvin never knew the true teachings of Christ he could still get into heaven; even if he was never baptized with a Christian baptism (and he may have been); there is no need for a ‘baptism for the dead’ ceremony.

 

[mtolympus]

There was a pagan religion found just north of Corinth in a city called Eleusis where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. (it was mentioned in the Hymn to Demeter 478-79, by Homer) This is probably what Paul was talking about.

Sounds like a lot of speculation going on here. It doesn’t even claim they were doing baptism for the dead.

Paul’s was saying that resurrection was a popular belief even among pagans and he pointed out the pagan practices in Eleusis and simply said something like, “Resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection; why else would they practice baptism for the dead?”

Is this what Paul was teaching???

Otherwise, what will people accomplish (by the pagans) by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are (the pagans) having themselves baptized for them? (1 Cor 15:29)

In other words you think Paul was saying, "You may not believe what the Christian apostles teach, but if the pagans do it, it has to be true!!!

It is likely that Joseph Smith wanted a way for his brother to get into heaven and the Presbyterians of his day didn’t have a way so after not really understanding what Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 15:29; Joseph Smith interpreted the passage incorrectly and established baptism for the dead in the LDS church see:

When Alvin died, the family asked a Presbyterian minister in Palmyra, New York, to officiate at his funeral. As Alvin had not been a member of the minister’s congregation, the clergyman asserted in his sermon that Alvin could not be saved. William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother, recalled: “[The minister] … intimated very strongly that [Alvin] had gone to hell, for Alvin was not a church member, but he was a good boy and my father did not like it.”

In January 1836, many years after Alvin’s death, Joseph Smith received a vision of the celestial kingdom, in which he saw that Alvin, as well as his mother and father, would someday inherit that kingdom. Joseph “marveled how it was that [Alvin] had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins” (D&C 137:6). The voice of the Lord then came to Joseph, declaring:

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts” (D&C 137:7–9).

On August 15, 1840, the Prophet Joseph Smith preached at a funeral in Nauvoo and, for the first time in public, taught the doctrine of salvation for the dead. According to Simon Baker, who was present, the Prophet began by testifying that the “gospel of Jesus Christ brought glad tidings of great joy.” He read most of 1 Corinthians 15 and explained that “the Apostle was talking to a people who understood baptism for the dead, for it was practiced among them.” He then declared that “people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and that the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God.”
​

Thank you for sharing this. Isn’t it wonderful that the knowledge has now been restored how all of God’s children who have ever lived on the earth may be saved through the gospel of Jesus Christ!​

 

[zaffiroborant]

Thank you for sharing this. Isn’t it wonderful that the knowledge has now been restored how all of God’s children who have ever lived on the earth may be saved through the gospel of Jesus Christ!

I prefer the Catholic view that all God’s children who have ever lived can be save through Christ, without depending on the vagaries inherent in the actions of men. God’s saving work is not circumscribed by His gift of the Sacraments to us.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Mormonism posits several intermediate states before the “final judgement”, and those intermediate states (Spirit Kingdom, the Millennial Earth) will be further opportunities to choose to make Celestial decisions.

Note the expression “choose to make”. The Latter-Day Saints are very big on free choice. Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Father Damien, et. al. may have had proxy work done on their behalf: but in the Afterlife, they are cfree to accept the gift of such proxy ordinances or not.

By the same token, I am free to earn indulgences for myself, or on behalf of souls on Purgatory. My departed grandparenta may presumably accept the indulgences I earn for them or may decline those indulgences.

John Paul II, if Mormon soteriology is true, is free to accept any ordinances performed on his behalf or decline them.

Whether those ordinances are being performed in violation of LDS Temple policy or not, I don’t know. If someone can establish to the satisfaction of LDS temple authorities that JPII is related to them, then the ordinances presumably are within bounds of Mormon church policies.

Are you the same Flameburns623 who is posting on MD&D about returning to the LDS church?

 

[mtolympus]

I prefer the Catholic view that all God’s children who have ever lived can be save through Christ, without depending on the vagaries inherent in the actions of men. God’s saving work is not circumscribed by His gift of the Sacraments to us.

I thought the Catholic Church believed baptism was a necessary Sacrament. Do you believe John 3:5 is referring to baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.” (John 3:5)

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

Joseph Smith was a genius in story telling, public speaking, group organization, and a lot of other ways. But, it is pretty obvious, that he was a bad historian and biblical historian. He really didn’t know what was going in around Corinth and what Paul was referring to. That isn’t his fault; he wasn’t exposed to books that would give him that history and was exposed to books that misled him. In many ways he was a product of his times. But in the case of baptism for the dead being necessary for someone who is not a member of a particular church, it is not necessary and not historically a Christian or Jewish teaching. Had he known this, he probably would not have instituted it when he created his own religion. In fact, he may have stayed a Presbyterian if they had believed his brother would be in heaven. A lot of bad things happened in Joseph’s family after his brother died and this just added to the trouble.

Again, just bad fruit from the American second reformation.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

I thought the Catholic Church believed baptism was a necessary Sacrament. Do you believe John 3:5 is referring to baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.” (John 3:5)

God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. For salvation outside the church, see:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

I prefer the Catholic view that all God’s children who have ever lived can be save through Christ, without depending on the vagaries inherent in the actions of men. God’s saving work is not circumscribed by His gift of the Sacraments to us.

I tend to agree. That men on earth have to do something, in a certain way, in a certain place, to allow someone who previously lived a righteous life to get into heaven makes God into a bureaucrat. I simply don’t see God as a bureaucrat.