LDS Baptizes and Seals St. Damien to a "wife"

[Anna_Scott]

Actually, you’ve been talking to both of us. (no, it isn’t a medication issue

Both of us share the same view on this issue, as well as many others that have been discussed on here.

Well, whatever works for you. And some say Catholics and Protestants don’t get along.

Anna

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
We think Abraham had that knowledge, but that what he wrote as scripture was lost from the common records passed on by the Jews.

Would that be similar to the whole “Bible is corrupted” stance that the Muslims take?

You would want to re-read all of the verses in the book of Revelation where the words “he that overcometh” are used, since each of them specify promises that relate to becoming like Jesus Christ. John always uses the phrase after those passages, “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Conversely, he that doesn’t have “ears to hear”, won’t “hear”–meaning they won’t understand even though the words are plainly written.

To look up all those verses quickly, you could go to lds.org and pull up Scriptures online and type in the phrase and the search would find all the passages with that phrase. It would be the King James Version of the Bible online that was being “searched”.

As far as “Early Church Fathers,” I can’t speak for anyone but myself and I have read a couple of things on this website but that’s all. I think what John wrote and what Christ taught take much more significant precedent than anything any subsequent writer attempted to tell about what Christ and the apostles taught (or what they were told by others who said what they themselves understood to have been taught in the original church). In other words, go to the source. The source is the Bible, coupled with inspiration from the Holy Spirit that you yourself can receive.

That is exactly my point. I don’t believe that the LDS position is what Jesus or St. John wrote or intended in the Bible. If it was, then other disciples and Early Church Fathers (those who were students of the Apostles and lived back them, i.e. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, Polycarp) would have been teaching this interpretation from the beginning. That was why I asked if anyone was teaching these concepts prior to Joseph Smith. I would trust the interpretation of those who directly followed Jesus and their immediate students before I would take the word of someone who lived 1800 years later (or even 600 years later as in the case of Muhammad.)

 

[ParkerD]

Would that be similar to the whole “Bible is corrupted” stance that the Muslims take?

Jay,
Not in the slightest. I said only that records that Abraham wrote on were not passed on to the Jews generally. That has nothing to do with the Bible per se.

As to your other comment, Paul gave a good explanation of his beliefs regarding the verses in the book of Revelation, on the Book of Mormon thread. Obviously, there is no way that Catholics could even consider believing that humankind could become like God, because to them God is a Spirit and not a resurrected Person, and He can appear in whatever form He likes, besides which they teach that Adam had the audacity to believe he could become like God and that’s what caused His fall when he partook of the forbidden fruit.

Of course, then, any early “church father” who was starting to teach the Trinity doctrine and the “prideful fall of Adam” doctrine would back away from what the Savior and John taught about gaining the joy of the Lord and inheriting a throne in heaven jointly with Christ. They would have had to put some consistency into their writing to lay the groundwork for everyone accepting the more palatable doctrine (in human thinking) and the more mysterious doctrine of the Trinity.

It all works for the good of Heavenly Father’s plan, because clearly to inherit what Christ received from the Father would put a great deal of responsibility on someone’s shoulders, and only those who can be trusted absolutely and intimately could be qualified to receive that kind of responsibility; hence the need for a sifting process and the allowance for changed teachings to get into the belief system so that only those who seek the Holy Spirit and seek sanctification truly, purely, deeply would prepare themselves through faith, hope, and continual repentance and growth, to qualify. Christ stands at the door and knocks, but only those who open that door to Him will receive personal revelation about this kind of inheritance that is promised to be granted to the faithful. Others will not “hear”. That is what John meant about “ears to hear.”

 

[Jay53]

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Perhaps it is because I am Catholic and have never heard any of these interpretations before.

Jay,
Not in the slightest. I said only that records that Abraham wrote on were not passed on to the Jews generally. That has nothing to do with the Bible per se.

As to your other comment, Paul gave a good explanation of his beliefs regarding the verses in the book of Revelation, on the Book of Mormon thread. Obviously, there is no way that Catholics could even consider believing that humankind could become like God, because to them God is a Spirit and not a resurrected Person, and He can appear in whatever form He likes, besides which they teach that Adam had the audacity to believe he could become like God and that’s what caused His fall when he partook of the forbidden fruit.

Of course Catholics wouldn’t believe that (that humankind would become gods), the Jews didn’t either. That is not what Jesus (nor any of the OT prophets) taught! That’s what I don’t understand about the LDS position. Was Jesus a complete failure in His ministry that no one from that time period got the right message and everyone had to wait 1800 years to be corrected? That makes absolutely no sense to me!

Of course, then, any early “church father” who was starting to teach the Trinity doctrine and the “prideful fall of Adam” doctrine would back away from what the Savior and John taught about gaining the joy of the Lord and inheriting a throne in heaven jointly with Christ. They would have had to put some consistency into their writing to lay the groundwork for everyone accepting the more palatable doctrine (in human thinking) and the more mysterious doctrine of the Trinity.

Why in the world would they back away from teaching what Jesus actually intended? They had no problem teaching that Jesus is God and that He gave us His Body and Blood. I’m sure that seemed radical at the time to the Jewish people - in fact many disciples turned away when Jesus said this.

This also leads me to the fact that Jesus established His church on earth and told us that the gates of hell would not prevail (I’m sure Mormons have heard this argument before.) For Jesus’ Apostles and their immediate students to get the teachings and messages so completely wrong in the way that you’re suggesting is simply mind-boggling to me.

It all works for the good of Heavenly Father’s plan, because clearly to inherit what Christ
received from the Father would put a great deal of responsibility on someone’s shoulders, and only those who can be trusted absolutely and intimately could be qualified to receive that kind of responsibility; hence the need for a sifting process and the allowance for changed teachings to get into the belief system so that only those who seek the Holy Spirit and seek sanctification truly, purely, deeply would prepare themselves through faith, hope, and continual repentance and growth, to qualify. Christ stands at the door and knocks, but only those who open that door to Him will receive personal revelation about this kind of inheritance that is promised to be granted to the faithful. Others will not “hear”. That is what John meant about “ears to hear.”

Does this actually mean that Mormons believe that everyone from the time of Christ to the 1800s went to hell unless they were baptized by proxy by Mormon descendants and that currently everyone but Mormons go to hell now?!?

How do Mormon beliefs even reconcile with the 1st Commandment?

I truly appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on all of my questions. I honestly and truly had absolutely no idea Catholics and Mormons were so separated in basic beliefs.

 

[TheosisM]

It is clear that Catholics (and Orthodox) believe in deification (also called “theosis” by Eastern Catholics and Orthodox), however our concept of partaking in the divine nature, and becoming like God (joint-heirs in Christ) is different from the Mormon concept, especially because of our differences on who and what God is. The ECF’s taught theosis, and Catholics believe in this as well.

A great Catholic book on this topic is Deification and Grace.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Perhaps it is because I am Catholic and have never heard any of these interpretations before.

Jay,
I think TheosisM has given a great explanation about the beliefs of the Orthodox church and the ECF. (Thanks!)

The LDS believe every good, honorable person will receive the just “reward” for their righteousness and especially for their sincere repentance for things done wrong. But as you have pointed out, many people don’t even want to think about the possibility of “deification” to the extent of having the kind of responsibility it entails to really be “like Christ” since Christ created this earth and is omnipotent. So the LDS belief is not that they receive “Hell” as a punishment, but that they achieve exactly what they want–a joyful place in the second heaven, with Jesus Christ to visit there so they will feel His love and be able to express personal gratitude to Him.

It just means they didn’t want to pursue finding out about what the Spirit was willing to teach as John said, and what “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man” as Paul taught.

The “early fathers” as they wrote their letters and other writings needed to establish their authority because the apostles had died (except John) and there were obvious questions about authority–who had it, who had the Holy Spirit, who had the correct doctrines. John was aware of the changes in doctrinal beliefs when he had his vision on the isle of Patmos. Remember that at that point he was the last living apostle, hence was the Lord’s mouthpiece on earth–one who would be chosen by God to receive the vision he received. Yet at that very time, others in the church were saying they had the leading authority, thus by-passing John’s role as the clearly established leader of the church on earth with Christ as the head of the Church and the Rock that the Jews had rejected.

Jesus is still “prevailing”, and will prevail, and the gates of Hell will not prevail. One of the ways Jesus will do that prevailing is that even those who do go to Hell will be rescued from their suffering, after a very long time. Jesus taught that as He said He was going to fulfill Isaiah 61:1, and rescue prisoners out of their prison.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
I think TheosisM has given a great explanation about the beliefs of the Orthodox church and the ECF. (Thanks!)

The LDS believe every good, honorable person will receive the just “reward” for their righteousness and especially for their sincere repentance for things done wrong. But as you have pointed out, many people don’t even want to think about the possibility of “deification” to the extent of having the kind of responsibility it entails to really be “like Christ” since Christ created this earth and is omnipotent. So the LDS belief is not that they receive “Hell” as a punishment, but that they achieve exactly what they want–a joyful place in the second heaven, with Jesus Christ to visit there so they will feel His love and be able to express personal gratitude to Him.

If possible, can you give me the specific scriptural reference to this “second heaven”? I’m not sure where to look specifically and at the moment don’t have time to research. Thanks.

It just means they didn’t want to pursue finding out about what the Spirit was willing to teach as John said, and what “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the heart of man” as Paul taught.

The “early fathers” as they wrote their letters and other writings needed to establish their authority because the apostles had died (except John) and there were obvious questions about authority–who had it, who had the Holy Spirit, who had the correct doctrines. John was aware of the changes in doctrinal beliefs when he had his vision on the isle of Patmos. Remember that at that point he was the last living apostle, hence was the Lord’s mouthpiece on earth–one who would be chosen by God to receive the vision he received. Yet at that very time, others in the church were saying they had the leading authority, thus by-passing John’s role as the clearly established leader of the church on earth with Christ as the head of the Church and the Rock that the Jews had rejected.

Do you have a non-Mormon source for any of this?

Jesus is still “prevailing”, and will prevail, and the gates of Hell will not prevail. One of the ways Jesus will do that prevailing is that even those who do go to Hell will be rescued from their suffering, after a very long time. Jesus taught that as He said He was going to fulfill Isaiah 61:1, and rescue prisoners out of their prison.

If Jesus is still “prevailing” then the Catholic Church is correct, because that is the Church He founded with St. Peter as the First Pope. I haven’t seen anything of St. Peter or his teachings that would indicate that he was teaching what is current Mormon doctrine.

If you have time, can you also give me the source or reference for the belief that Hell is not eternal fire and that Jesus will “rescue” people from there. Thank you again.

I thought Jesus “rescued prisoners out of their prison” when He was crucified and rose from the dead.

 

[ParkerD]

1–If possible, can you give me the specific scriptural reference to this “second heaven”? I’m not sure where to look specifically and at the moment don’t have time to research. Thanks.

2–

The “early fathers” as they wrote their letters and other writings needed to establish their authority because the apostles had died (except John) and there were obvious questions about authority–who had it, who had the Holy Spirit, who had the correct doctrines. John was aware of the changes in doctrinal beliefs when he had his vision on the isle of Patmos. Remember that at that point he was the last living apostle, hence was the Lord’s mouthpiece on earth–one who would be chosen by God to receive the vision he received. Yet at that very time, others in the church were saying they had the leading authority, thus by-passing John’s role as the clearly established leader of the church on earth with Christ as the head of the Church and the Rock that the Jews had rejected.

Hi, Jay,

1–Paul used the words “third heaven” as though it was a commonly known term for the Corinthian members of the church, in 2 Corinthians 12:2. He also wrote about different “glories” in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42. The second heaven would be likened to the “glory of the moon”, or in other words have a difference in glory from the sun based on the degree of light that emanates from them using our perspective here on earth. A resurrected body that receives the glory of the second heaven has glory like the light of the moon, and a resurrected body that receives the glory of the third heaven has glory like the light of the sun. You could look at Matthew 25:1-13 (parable of the ten virgins), and think about the five foolish virgins for whom the door to the marriage was shut because they were not prepared with enough oil. They were not “bad people”–they just fell asleep and disregarded the need to be ready for the marriage. They would be like people who receive the “glory of the moon,” or the second heaven.

You can also look up Doctrine and Covenants section 76 to read a vision of the degrees of glory and who qualifies for each kind of glory.

2–John had his vision on the Isle of Patmos in about 90-95 AD. If you google or look up a source talking about the second and third “popes” (although they were not referred to as “popes” at the time–that came later), you will find that those men are listed as “popes” before 90 AD. Peter was never referred to as “Pope” by anyone during his ministry. He was also never a bishop, so he could not possibly be the “first bishop of Rome”.

The early church father writings assert authority and explain why, because as I noted there would have been a predictable power struggle or uncertainty when the apostles had died without having been replaced by newly called apostles. The apostles all had the power to “bind on earth and in heaven”, meaning they had priesthood keys necessary for that to be said of them.

3–Peter taught about a teaching process in the spirit world/spirit prison in 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6. Revelation 1:18 shows that Christ has the keys of death and hell. Isaiah 61:1 shows use of the same term as 1 Peter 3:19, “prison” and “spirits in prison” which would be Hell, so the reason Christ teaches those spirits is to rescue them out of prison using His keys of hell to finally rescue them.

The atonement did indeed make the rescue possible, so your last sentence was partially correct but He also needed and wanted to teach the spirits of the dead in spirit prison so they could be rescued because Christ has the power to do that, and loves them enough to do it after they have suffered for their own sins because they didn’t repent in life.

 

[Jay53]

Hi, Jay,

1–Paul used the words “third heaven” as though it was a commonly known term for the Corinthian members of the church, in 2 Corinthians 12:2. He also wrote about different “glories” in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42. The second heaven would be likened to the “glory of the moon”, or in other words have a difference in glory from the sun based on the degree of light that emanates from them using our perspective here on earth. A resurrected body that receives the glory of the second heaven has glory like the light of the moon, and a resurrected body that receives the glory of the third heaven has glory like the light of the sun. You could look at Matthew 25:1-13 (parable of the ten virgins), and think about the five foolish virgins for whom the door to the marriage was shut because they were not prepared with enough oil. They were not “bad people”–they just fell asleep and disregarded the need to be ready for the marriage. They would be like people who receive the “glory of the moon,” or the second heaven.

You can also look up Doctrine and Covenants section 76 to read a vision of the degrees of glory and who qualifies for each kind of glory.

2–John had his vision on the Isle of Patmos in about 90-95 AD. If you google or look up a source talking about the second and third “popes” (although they were not referred to as “popes” at the time–that came later), you will find that those men are listed as “popes” before 90 AD. Peter was never referred to as “Pope” by anyone during his ministry. He was also never a bishop, so he could not possibly be the “first bishop of Rome”.

The early church father writings assert authority and explain why, because as I noted there would have been a predictable power struggle or uncertainty when the apostles had died without having been replaced by newly called apostles. The apostles all had the power to “bind on earth and in heaven”, meaning they had priesthood keys necessary for that to be said of them.

3–Peter taught about a teaching process in the spirit world/spirit prison in 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6. Revelation 1:18 shows that Christ has the keys of death and hell. Isaiah 61:1 shows use of the same term as 1 Peter 3:19, “prison” and “spirits in prison” which would be Hell, so the reason Christ teaches those spirits is to rescue them out of prison using His keys of hell to finally rescue them.

The atonement did indeed make the rescue possible, so your last sentence was partially correct but He also needed and wanted to teach the spirits of the dead in spirit prison so they could be rescued because Christ has the power to do that, and loves them enough to do it after they have suffered for their own sins because they didn’t repent in life.

Thank you, Parker.

Is there anything in the 4 Gospels of the Bible that support any of this, or is it just the writings of St. Paul and the Book of Revelation?

 

[Jay53]

Hi, Jay,

1–Paul used the words “third heaven” as though it was a commonly known term for the Corinthian members of the church, in 2 Corinthians 12:2. He also wrote about different “glories” in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42. The second heaven would be likened to the “glory of the moon”, or in other words have a difference in glory from the sun based on the degree of light that emanates from them using our perspective here on earth. A resurrected body that receives the glory of the second heaven has glory like the light of the moon, and a resurrected body that receives the glory of the third heaven has glory like the light of the sun. You could look at Matthew 25:1-13 (parable of the ten virgins), and think about the five foolish virgins for whom the door to the marriage was shut because they were not prepared with enough oil. They were not “bad people”–they just fell asleep and disregarded the need to be ready for the marriage. They would be like people who receive the “glory of the moon,” or the second heaven.

You can also look up Doctrine and Covenants section 76 to read a vision of the degrees of glory and who qualifies for each kind of glory.

2–John had his vision on the Isle of Patmos in about 90-95 AD. If you google or look up a source talking about the second and third “popes” (although they were not referred to as “popes” at the time–that came later), you will find that those men are listed as “popes” before 90 AD. Peter was never referred to as “Pope” by anyone during his ministry. He was also never a bishop, so he could not possibly be the “first bishop of Rome”.

The early church father writings assert authority and explain why, because as I noted there would have been a predictable power struggle or uncertainty when the apostles had died without having been replaced by newly called apostles. The apostles all had the power to “bind on earth and in heaven”, meaning they had priesthood keys necessary for that to be said of them.

3–Peter taught about a teaching process in the spirit world/spirit prison in 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6. Revelation 1:18 shows that Christ has the keys of death and hell. Isaiah 61:1 shows use of the same term as 1 Peter 3:19, “prison” and “spirits in prison” which would be Hell, so the reason Christ teaches those spirits is to rescue them out of prison using His keys of hell to finally rescue them.

The atonement did indeed make the rescue possible, so your last sentence was partially correct but He also needed and wanted to teach the spirits of the dead in spirit prison so they could be rescued because Christ has the power to do that, and loves them enough to do it after they have suffered for their own sins because they didn’t repent in life.

Ok, I just looked up the passages in Corinthians that you cited, and I could see how the LDS might come up with their interpretation, but again I question this interpretation in that no one else before Joseph Smith came up with this; so it creates doubt that this is what St. Paul intended. Those around St. Paul certainly didn’t interpret his words this way. And if St. Paul was contradicting the rest of the Apostles, then that would make his words suspect, not the Apostles.

I’m also curious as to what the LDS interpretation of the Gospels is - i.e. the institution of the Eucharist - do Mormons have any such celebration in their services?

 

[ParkerD]

Ok, I just looked up the passages in Corinthians that you cited, and I could see how the LDS might come up with their interpretation, but again I question this interpretation in that no one else before Joseph Smith came up with this; so it creates doubt that this is what St. Paul intended. Those around St. Paul certainly didn’t interpret his words this way. And if St. Paul was contradicting the rest of the Apostles, then that would make his words suspect, not the Apostles.

I’m also curious as to what the LDS interpretation of the Gospels is - i.e. the institution of the Eucharist - do Mormons have any such celebration in their services?

Jay,
Good morning. In answer to your last question here, the LDS certainly do have a representation of the “Last Supper” or “communion” in their services, but it is not referred to as the Eucharist, and the communion “sacrament” uses bread and water rather than bread and grape juice (or wine). There also is not any teaching that the substance changes to the body and blood of Christ although the internal spiritual connection of each one who “partakes” is taught that each should feel that the bread “represents” the body of Christ (His broken body, given for us that we might live), and the water “represents” the blood of Christ (His spilt blood, given for us that we might receive remission of sins through the atonement where He bled from every pore of His body as He suffered for the sins of all humankind). So the LDS are thinking of the atonement and the crucifixion and the resurrection during the communion “sacrament” ordinance, and it is done each Sunday and anyone who has not dealt repentantly with their own serious sin has been taught that they should not partake of this sacrament.

I don’t think you have evidence that shows what “those around St. Paul” interpreted his words to mean. Peter certainly taught what I cited, in his epistle, but you ought to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit guides prophets to not divulge more than what God wants revealed to the people generally as the prophets receive revelation, so this particular subject was spoken about in a limited way, as directed by the Holy Spirit. God wants each person to gain spiritual understanding directly from the Holy Spirit, not by physically reading for every detail of revealed knowledge that He wants people to know about. “Spiritual life” means literally to have the Holy Spirit as a teacher as well as a guide in life. So since you personally have the promised opportunity to have the Holy Spirit as your teacher, I suggest you could pray and ask God specifically if Christ will someday after their own personal agony and suffering, rescue the spirits from Hell and if you have prayed without doubting whether you will get an answer, you will get an answer if you are familiar with spiritual answers through the Holy Spirit. They come as a peaceful assurance filled with light and joy.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you, Parker.

Is there anything in the 4 Gospels of the Bible that support any of this, or is it just the writings of St. Paul and the Book of Revelation?

Jay,
If I were you, I would look up Matthew 20:15 and think about the implications deeply that God and Christ are “good” and will “do what I will with mine own.” Then really think deeply about Isaiah 61:1 and that Christ read this verse standing in the synagogue at the beginning of His ministry, and that He loves all humankind–not just a certain segment of humankind. Think deeply also about John 5:25 and 28-29, and think about that “resurrection of damnation” is not synonymous with “Hell”. “Resurrection of life” means “resurrection of fullness of eternal life” and “resurrection of damnation” means “resurrection of everlasting punishment” which punishment is to not have a fullness of eternal life in the presence of God. Both conditions are conditions of the resurrection and are based on their “works” which includes their decisions and choices.

 

[TheosisM]

Ok, I just looked up the passages in Corinthians that you cited, and I could see how the LDS might come up with their interpretation, but again I question this interpretation in that no one else before Joseph Smith came up with this; so it creates doubt that this is what St. Paul intended. Those around St. Paul certainly didn’t interpret his words this way. And if St. Paul was contradicting the rest of the Apostles, then that would make his words suspect, not the Apostles.

Actually, Emanuel Swedenborg (Swedenborgian Church), wrote about a similar interpretation of those Corinthians passages. In his book “Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen”, Swedenborg states that there is a general division of Heaven into two Kingdoms, the Celestial Kingdom (the Lord’s priestly kingdom, His dwelling place, which also has three divisions itself), and the Spiritual Kingdom (the Lord’s royal kingdom, His throne, which also has three divisions itself), as well as a specific division of Heaven into Three Heavens, the highest of which is the Celestial. He also states that one in a lower Heaven cannot go to a higher Heaven (and vice versa), a correspondence with the sun, moon, and stars (perhaps drawing on 1 Corinthians), etc.

There are a number of other interesting similarities between the two theologies, including celestial marriage, an apostasy of the original church, a spirit world, etc. There are of course major differences as well.

swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
Good morning. In answer to your last question here, the LDS certainly do have a representation of the “Last Supper” or “communion” in their services, but it is not referred to as the Eucharist, and the communion “sacrament” uses bread and water rather than bread and grape juice (or wine). There also is not any teaching that the substance changes to the body and blood of Christ although the internal spiritual connection of each one who “partakes” is taught that each should feel that the bread “represents” the body of Christ (His broken body, given for us that we might live), and the water “represents” the blood of Christ (His spilt blood, given for us that we might receive remission of sins through the atonement where He bled from every pore of His body as He suffered for the sins of all humankind). So the LDS are thinking of the atonement and the crucifixion and the resurrection during the communion “sacrament” ordinance, and it is done each Sunday and anyone who has not dealt repentantly with their own serious sin has been taught that they should not partake of this sacrament.

I don’t think you have evidence that shows what “those around St. Paul” interpreted his words to mean. Peter certainly taught what I cited, in his epistle, but you ought to keep in mind that the Holy Spirit guides prophets to not divulge more than what God wants revealed to the people generally as the prophets receive revelation, so this particular subject was spoken about in a limited way, as directed by the Holy Spirit. God wants each person to gain spiritual understanding directly from the Holy Spirit, not by physically reading for every detail of revealed knowledge that He wants people to know about. “Spiritual life” means literally to have the Holy Spirit as a teacher as well as a guide in life. So since you personally have the promised opportunity to have the Holy Spirit as your teacher, I suggest you could pray and ask God specifically if Christ will someday after their own personal agony and suffering, rescue the spirits from Hell and if you have prayed without doubting whether you will get an answer, you will get an answer if you are familiar with spiritual answers through the Holy Spirit. They come as a peaceful assurance filled with light and joy.

Good afternoon to you, Parker.

I don’t think St. Peter taught at all what you are claiming. Here is the passage you cited:

1 Peter 3:19-20
Put to death indeed in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit, in which also he went and preached to those spirits that were in prison.

Jesus did release all those people who had died before Christ’s death and resurrection.

Maybe this will help clarify my belief:

The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.477 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.478

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.479 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:480 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."481 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.482 vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm

In addition, Jesus and all of the Apostles taught that Hell is eternal.
catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp

I appreciate your suggestion to pray and I do, in fact, pray for deceased people all the time; but Jesus and His Church are clear in their teachings on this matter. I think I will leave it entirely up to God.

Thank you for the info. on your communion service. I find that very fascinating. Obviously I don’t agree with the whole “represents” factor, but I don’t agree with the Protestants on this issue either. Jesus is emphatic about this point and actually mentions it 7 or 8 times in John’s Gospel (Chapter 6, I think). He doesn’t say “this is a symbol”, “this represents” etc. He is clear that He gives us His Body and Blood. No one will ever convince me different on that point.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
If I were you, I would look up Matthew 20:15 and think about the implications deeply that God and Christ are “good” and will “do what I will with mine own.” Then really think deeply about Isaiah 61:1 and that Christ read this verse standing in the synagogue at the beginning of His ministry, and that He loves all humankind–not just a certain segment of humankind. Think deeply also about John 5:25 and 28-29, and think about that “resurrection of damnation” is not synonymous with “Hell”. “Resurrection of life” means “resurrection of fullness of eternal life” and “resurrection of damnation” means “resurrection of everlasting punishment” which punishment is to not have a fullness of eternal life in the presence of God. Both conditions are conditions of the resurrection and are based on their “works” which includes their decisions and choices.

I’m not sure what your point is here - just that God can do what He wills? Obviously I would agree with that. And God may decide to rescue souls from hell at some point in the future - I certainly cannot speak for God; but that is not what Jesus or His Church taught us, (see the link in my last post) so I certainly wouldn’t bet my eternal soul on that or teach others to do so. That would be rather presumptuous of God’s mercy. (Kind of like kids who walk all over their parents because there is no follow through on punishments. I have no indication from Jesus that Hell is not eternal and that He means it.)

I also don’t understand your citation of John 5:28-29
“And they who have done good shall come forth unto resurrection of life; but they who have done evil unto resurrection of judgment.”

Just on face value I would take that to mean that good shall inherit Heaven and the evil will go to Hell. I’m not sure if that is what you are trying to say not.

 

[Jay53]

Actually, Emanuel Swedenborg (Swedenborgian Church), wrote about a similar interpretation of those Corinthians passages. In his book “Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen”, Swedenborg states that there is a general division of Heaven into two Kingdoms, the Celestial Kingdom (the Lord’s priestly kingdom, His dwelling place, which also has three divisions itself), and the Spiritual Kingdom (the Lord’s royal kingdom, His throne, which also has three divisions itself), as well as a specific division of Heaven into Three Heavens, the highest of which is the Celestial. He also states that one in a lower Heaven cannot go to a higher Heaven (and vice versa), a correspondence with the sun, moon, and stars (perhaps drawing on 1 Corinthians), etc.

There are a number of other interesting similarities between the two theologies, including celestial marriage, an apostasy of the original church, a spirit world, etc. There are of course major differences as well.

swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/

What was this man’s relationship to the Catholic Church? Was he a practicing Catholic?

 

[TheosisM]

What was this man’s relationship to the Catholic Church? Was he a practicing Catholic?

No, he had no relationship with the Catholic Church. His unique writings form the basis for “Swedenborgianism”. He was a “seer” of sorts. Many of his beliefs are incompatible with Catholicism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg

 

[Jay53]

No, he had no relationship with the Catholic Church. His unique writings form the basis for “Swedenborgianism”. He was a “seer” of sorts. Many of his beliefs are incompatible with Catholicism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg

I just read that on wikipedia after I had posted. Thanks for the link, though.

 

[zerinus]

Bump

Is there a separate/specific part of a Mormon baptism (of the living) where the person being baptized formally accepts Mormonism and all of its teachings?

You asked that question three days in the other thread on Mormon baptisms for the dead, to which I gave the following reply:

Jay53;5853613:

Is there a part of the Mormon baptism (of a living person) where the person being baptized formally accepts the baptism and explicitly declares that they believe/accept all of Mormonism?

That takes place during the conversion process, while they are being taught by the missionaries. They are baptized when they come to a realization of its truth and want to be baptized.

But you never followed it up there. Why didn’t you?

Thank you, Parker. So what exactly does a baptism (of the living) entail and how does it make someone a Mormon or does it even bind them to the Mormon faith?

It certainly does. Baptism is the gateway by which we enter into the Church of God, and become a member of His kingdom on earth (and in heaven). Through it we covenant to take upon us the name of Jesus Christ, and to always keep His commandments. It is also the sacrament by which we receive a remission of our sins.

I’m trying to figure out if a baptism of a live Mormon person is also simply an “offer” that the living person then has to accept or reject. If they don’t have to do that (accept the offer) as part of the rite/sacrament/ordinance, but the baptism still makes them a member of the Mormon community, then wouldn’t the baptism by proxy do the same thing?

The baptism itself (of the living person) is not an “offer”. It makes them literally a member of the Church. The “offer,” if you want to call it that, is made before baptism. If they accept the “offer” (of believing in the gospel and abiding by its precepts), then they are baptized and become members of the Church. In the case of the dead, however, that offer is made to them in the spirit world where the gospel can be preached to the dead. It obviously cannot be made here on earth. But the baptism can only be performed here on earth, because that is how God as decreed it. Therefore we do the baptism for everyone regardless (because we cannot know who has accepted the gospel there and who hasn’t). If they accept the gospel in the spirit world, it will be as though they had been baptized here on earth. But if they don’t accept the gospel in the spirit world, then the ordinance performed on earth will not be of any benefit to them.

So it is the “interview process” that is skipped when a baptism by proxy is done - and this interview process is done before the baptism?

If the baptism of a living Mormon makes them a “member”, why doesn’t it make a “non-Mormon” a member through baptism by proxy? I’m trying to figure out what exactly is different about the ritual that makes it only an “offer” to a dead non-Mormon, but a full sacrament to the living person.

The difference is that the living person has the gospel preached to him/her here on earth, while the dead person has the gospel preached to him/her in the spirit world. The other difference is that here on earth we baptize them only if they accept the gospel. In the case of the dead, however, since we cannot know if they have accepted the gospel or not, we baptize all of our ancestors regardless, but it will only benefit those who do accept the gospel in the spirit world and not those who don’t.

I still don’t understand why not. What is different between the two ceremonies that makes the living person a “member”, but the dead one not a “member”? Normally I would agree with you about the acceptance, (and we wouldn’t know if the dead person accepted or not) but if the living person doesn’t make a formal acceptance when the baptism occurs, then what makes him a member?

There is no such thing as the “Mormon Church” as such, on earth or in the spirit world. There is one and only one true Church of Jesus Christ on earth, which has its equivalent in the spirit world. Baptism for the living makes them members of the one and only true Church of Christ her on earth, following their acceptance of the gospel here on earth. Baptism for the dead makes them members of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ in the spirit world, provided that they have accepted the gospel that is preached to them in the spirit world. If they don’t accept the gospel in the spirit world, then the baptism that is done for them here on earth will not do them any good.

Continued … /

 

[zerinus]

/… Continued

Is this “informal acceptance” required in order to be baptized?

I still just trying to figure out how the baptism of a living person is a religious sacrament that makes them a Mormon, but a baptism by proxy is only an “offer” to a deceased person that they can accept or reject.

I’m getting the impression that that through the interview process, a living soon-to-be Mormon expresses a desire to be baptized and the actual baptism solidifies that desire and declares before God that this person believes in the Mormon faith etc. It doesn’t seem that there is any “offer” stage of the baptismal rite where during or afterward the person being baptized expresses their acceptance.

They are baptized only after they accept the gospel that is preached to them, and declare belief in it and a desire to be baptized.

Deceased people, however, obviously don’t have the interview process and in many cases may have openly rejected Mormonism during their lives - so what does the baptism do for them? - it would appear that the descendant declares for them (thus “by proxy”) before God that this deceased person accepts the Mormon faith.

Absolutely not! The deceased have the gospel preached to them in the spirit world. If they accept the gospel there, the proxy baptism makes them members of the true Church of God in the spirit world. If they don’t, it won’t do them any good.

I guess that’s what I am asking - is there some part of the “baptism by proxy” that explicitly states that this is only an offer and that the deceased person is free to accept or reject such baptism - although the descendant would obviously hope that their relative accepts? Or is the wording and ritual the same in both cases?

No, the proxy baptism is conducted exactly the same as the one for the living. But it is understood that if they reject the gospel in the spirit world it will not be beneficial to them.

Do Mormons believe that God will not accept a person if they have not gone through a baptism either on earth or by proxy on earth?

That is correct!

Somehow I find that position to limit the power and mercy of God. Or maybe the Mormon view of God is so vastly different from my view that I will never be able to make comparisons and reconcile the two.

Believe it or not, that is also the Catholic position!—although they have something called “baptism by desire,” which means that if someone wanted to be baptized but didn’t get the chance to, God will accept it of him.

If you will separate the decision about “being a Mormon” from the decision about “covenanting with Jesus Christ”, then I think perhaps you will be closer to understanding the perspective.

There is no such thing as “being a Mormon” in the strict sense of the term. By that we mean being a member of the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ.

So then the baptism of a person is NOT what makes a person a Mormon? A person can be a Mormon without undergoing a baptism? Sorry, but you’ve totally lost me here. As a Catholic, I have a relationship/covenant with Jesus Christ. Why, when I am dead would I then need another one through a “baptism by proxy”?

It is baptism that makes one a Mormon—a member of the true Church of Christ. The reason why you need to be baptized (dead or alive!) is because baptism is a sacrament that requires the true priesthood to be performed; and we believe that the early Church apostatized and los that priesthood, and therefore nobody else’s baptism is valid except that performed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.