Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

that is a VERY common rite BUT…it is always performed in LDS temples by temple worthy mormons. usually it is done by youth and in large numbers. a line of kids will go through the font, each one doing about 25 names in rapid succession. a computer monitor is there for the person doing the baptizing to read the names off of. it is nit communicating with the dead in any sense. it is just performing an ordinance by proxy. Mormons have misinterpreted that one scripture as a REQUIREMENT to baptize those who are dead and didn’t receive a mormon baptism on earth.

If I were to die, would a Mormon try to do that to me? My husband is Mormon, and I am Catholic, but I have already been baptized in my Catholic faith, you think they would try and do that to me? This is absurd! You are God’s only when you die. You do not listen to anyone else on earth, right?

 

[Jerusha]

I figure it is either an empty ritual, or the spirits of those so proxy baptized are so pissed off they will take care of the situation.

No need to be angry now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I was watching “Big Love” last night, and they did a baptism for the dead. Is this a common Mormon practice? I thought we were not supposed to communicate with the dead. Once people die it is up to God, Right? I was reading in 1 Corin 15:29, and in that Paul is clearly asking why they are Baptizing for the dead, when there was clearly a resurrection. It talks about baptizing everywhere in the bible, why wouldn’t the bible clearly state that we should also baptize for the dead as well? This sent chills down my spine when I watched that. For those of you who don’t know what Big Love is, it is a show on HBO about Mormons (polygamy practicing Mormons)

Big Love is about Mormon fundamentalists. They perform their own ordinances wherever they may be. The LDS Mormons (what your husband is) don’t allow Mormon polygamists to be a part of their church.

Big Love is pretty good at portraying Mormonism, it gets a few things wrong, but 99% of the time, it’s right on the money.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Big Love is about Mormon fundamentalists. They perform their own ordinances wherever they may be. The LDS Mormons (what your husband is) don’t allow Mormon polygamists to be a part of their church.

Big Love is pretty good at portraying Mormonism, it gets a few things wrong, but 99% of the time, it’s right on the money.

The baptizing of the dead isn’t something the LDS Mormons do, or only in the temples? We were watching it last night, and I said “Oh my goodness, what are they doing?”(I usually never say a thing, but that was shocking) and he said, “Baptism for the dead.” I said, “Why in the world would they do that?” He said, “it’s in the bible Alisha.” I said, “No it isn’t,” He said “yes, it is in 1 Corith.” I then read it last night before I went to sleep, and I just kept rereading it. I do not think that he was referring that we should baptize the dead, but I think he was referring that why would we do that if Christ was resurrected. Why would you need to baptize for the dead. That’s what I got out of it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The baptizing of the dead isn’t something the LDS Mormons do, or only in the temples?

As majick described, in the temples.

We were watching it last night, and I said “Oh my goodness, what are they doing?”(I usually never say a thing, but that was shocking) and he said, “Baptism for the dead.” I said, “Why in the world would they do that?” He said, “it’s in the bible Alisha.” I said, “No it isn’t,” He said “yes, it is in 1 Corith.” I then read it last night before I went to sleep, and I just kept rereading it. I do not think that he was referring that we should baptize the dead, but I think he was referring that why would we do that if Christ was resurrected. Why would you need to baptize for the dead. That’s what I got out of it.

It is a comment on what some people were doing, it is not a commandment to actually do it. Also, there is no belief behind it that the dead are preached the gospel in the after life, and finding belief, need baptism. It was done by people who hoped their deceased loved ones would find heaven. There was also a practice of actually baptizing the corpse.

While all of this has good intentions, Christ teached to the living and taught that all who believe should be baptized. He never indicated, not once, that this was done anytime but this life.

What you’ll run into, is that Mormons will make up stories, and insert them into the Bible. Not literally, but they’ll claim things happened that are not related on the Bible. And of course, they aren’t in the Bible because evil Catholics removed them.

Mormons believe that those who did not accept their religion in this life, can be taught it the next. So, those who accept Mormonism in the next life need to be baptized, but for whatever reason, someone in this life has to do the baptizing for them. Standing as a proxy. In Big Love, Barb was being baptized for Margene’s deceased mother.

The act is harmless, it doesn’t do anything to you or your soul. The belief itself has issues, most of which, we are judged for what we do in this life, not the next. It makes this life pointless, altogether, if you believe someone is going to preach to you “the truth” you never heard in this life. I mean really, what sort of faith would be required for that? You’re dead!

It would be like giving an exam, where the answers are already filled in. “Oh my, how am I ever going pass??”

God is Merciful, AND Just. This belief seems to leave the “Just” part out, entirely.

 

[mfbukowski]

As majick described, in the temples.

It is a comment on what some people were doing, it is not a commandment to actually do it. Also, there is no belief behind it that the dead are preached the gospel in the after life, and finding belief, need baptism. It was done by people who hoped their deceased loved ones would find heaven. There was also a practice of actually baptizing the corpse.

While all of this has good intentions, Christ teached to the living and taught that all who believe should be baptized. He never indicated, not once, that this was done anytime but this life.

What you’ll run into, is that Mormons will make up stories, and insert them into the Bible. Not literally, but they’ll claim things happened that are not related on the Bible. And of course, they aren’t in the Bible because evil Catholics removed them.

Mormons believe that those who did not accept their religion in this life, can be taught it the next. So, those who accept Mormonism in the next life need to be baptized, but for whatever reason, someone in this life has to do the baptizing for them. Standing as a proxy. In Big Love, Barb was being baptized for Margene’s deceased mother.

The act is harmless, it doesn’t do anything to you or your soul. The belief itself has issues, most of which, we are judged for what we do in this life, not the next. It makes this life pointless, altogether, if you believe someone is going to preach to you “the truth” you never heard in this life. I mean really, what sort of faith would be required for that? You’re dead!

It would be like giving an exam, where the answers are already filled in. “Oh my, how am I ever going pass??”

God is Merciful, AND Just. This belief seems to leave the “Just” part out, entirely.

Catholics get judged on what they would have gotten on the test if they had studied. Takes away responsibility altogether.

What makes life pointless is “baptism of desire” or whatever you call it. God judges us by what we WOULD have done if we had known about Jesus.

At least we give those spirits who have passed on a choice. You give them predestination.

Judging us by what we “would have done” if we had known something makes no sense whatsoever, and indeed does make this life worthless.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholics get judged on what they would have gotten on the test if they had studied. Takes away responsibility altogether.

What? You have some kind of strange ideas, and I have no idea what you are talking about.

What makes life pointless is “baptism of desire” or whatever you call it. God judges us by what we WOULD have done if we had known about Jesus.

At least we give those spirits who have passed on a choice. You give them predestination.

Judging us by what we “would have done” if we had known something makes no sense whatsoever, and indeed does make this life worthless.

John 15

21 And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me also hates my Father.

God doesn’t judge us for what we would have done, He judges us for what we do. Those who sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism. They will be judged for what they know and how they live according to what they know. Jesus teaches this very clearly.

Being born into circumstances where you never hear the Truth, is not a sin and no one will be judged as sinning for it.

It is not predestination, as the Church does not judge them saved, only that they CAN be saved. All will be judged and will find both God’s Mercy and His Justice.

 

[dianaiad]

If I were to die, would a Mormon try to do that to me? My husband is Mormon, and I am Catholic, but I have already been baptized in my Catholic faith, you think they would try and do that to me? This is absurd! You are God’s only when you die. You do not listen to anyone else on earth, right?

How devout a Mormon is your husband? How about your kids, if any?

The thing is, if you have children who are LDS, or grandchildren who are, then yes, they will probably “do that to you.”

However, think about it for a minute; this is a black and white issue here, and no matter what, YOU win.

If you are correct, then those baptisms that they perform in your behalf are not valid; they won’t work. In fact, you won’t even know that they have been done. It won’t matter to you in any way. You win.

If you are not correct, and if those baptisms ARE valid (and the only way that they could be so is if we are RIGHT…) then you still win. Why? Because you will have one last chance to say yes, thank you.

And please remember this: we, who are the ones actually DOING this and having faith in their validity, believe implicitly that you have the absolute right, and ability, to say “stuff it” (or if you are more polite, “no thank you”) at the time the ordinance is done…just like a final closing of the door in the face of a pesky missionary.

Again, you win.

It has been mentioned, several times, that Catholics do not recognize LDS baptisms. If they don’t recognize the baptisms of those who willingly participate it HERE, why do you think God would recognize, or enforce, baptisms done without your consent or acceptance? Even WE do not think He will, and we’re the ones DOING them.

By the way, if your husband is LDS, I believe that your ‘shock’ at this issue is a little much. You know about this stuff already.

 

[dianaiad]

Big Love is about Mormon fundamentalists. They perform their own ordinances wherever they may be. The LDS Mormons (what your husband is) don’t allow Mormon polygamists to be a part of their church.

Big Love is pretty good at portraying Mormonism, it gets a few things wrong, but 99% of the time, it’s right on the money.

I don’t watch “Big Love.”

However, given your own portrayal of our faith, if you think that they are ‘right on the money,’ I figure that they are probably right, oh, 20% of the time.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t watch “Big Love.”

However, given your own portrayal of our faith, if you think that they are ‘right on the money,’ I figure that they are probably right, oh, 20% of the time.

yes, i understand you run on what you think and not facts

 

[MEgus]

MEgus,
Now, I must tell you. I still do not see how, in reading Genesis, you come up with the idea that the first chapter is a spiritual account of creation, while the second is physical. That is exclusive to Mormon theology and the idea comes from the Pearl of Great Price not Genesis.

Peace to you,
Tami

Tami,

Actually, it’s not just a mormon point of view. I have several friends who are Jewish and they all agree that there was a spiritual creation before the physical one.

And if you look at it, it makes much more sense. The Spiritual one took 7 days. The physical one does not say how long it took, and so all archeological information works just fine with it. Dinosaurs and all.

So, just go back and read it again. From start to finish and see what it says. God did not put in something that didn’t need to be there. Two creations, one spiritual and one physical.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

Hi Me,

I am a 64 year old Combat-disabled Male Nam Vet who will tear your tongue out if you call me “She” again! Got It?

Which one of you should I believe???

Both are correct, as stated! Do you want to know the truth? Click on: The Truth!. You will read factual things there ! unlike here: Click on: Lies No One Could Believe! Any one can see that significant portions of the Pearl of Great Price are texts taken from the Bible and then rearranged to support your false beliefs. The Pearl of Great Price is not inspired by God, it is not a reliable historical document! It was created to solely give support to the false doctrines of the Mormon Church.

OK my friend, do you care to answer two “fair” questions?

1). How do you account for the stunning parallels in both content and order between the B of M and the “View of the Hebrews” by Ethan Smith? Published in 1823 (7 years before the B of M) less than 100 miles from the Joseph Smith’s parents home?

2). Why is about 1/8th of the B of M copied directly from the KJV (1611AD) when “it was alleged” to have been written some 1200-2000 years before the KJV existed?

First off Real, I also served in 69, so I’m not afraid. And I won’t say any more about that.

Second, from your posts, you sound like a girl. I can’t help that. Sorry I called you one.

Next, there is one thing that does seem obvious, and that is that you don’t read much. When was the last time you read the scriptures? I tell you what, here’s a short refresher course, only 5 short chapters long. Read the book of James in the New Testament and tell me if you think what you post is in keeping with that taught there.

Oh, and as to the View of the Hebrews? I see you have not read that either. About the only thing close is the word Hebrew between that and the Book of Mormon.

And as to the Bible verses in the Book of Mormon. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon quote from earlier scriptures given by Isaiah. And so if they do, they should be the same. The Book of Mormon has several variations of the verses in some and some the same. Not a big deal at all. And if you will actually do some research, you will find thing listed in the Book of Mormon account that are not in the King James account, but are in other accounts that were not available at the time Joseph Smith was alive. Proof that it came from an early account of Isaiah and not from the King James.

MEgus

 

[ricko]

The word, “Epistle” is used in 3 Nephi 3:5. But this word is a transliteration of the Greek epistolos, and was unknown to the Book of Mormon people. They would have used words such as “letter” or “message.”

The word “Bible” is used in 2 Nephi 29:3, 4, 6 and 10 in the same way as it was used in Joseph Smith’s time, i.e. to denote the completed canon of scriptures, including both Old and New Testaments. But the word “Bible” is not of Hebrew or even Egyptian derivation. It is an anglicization of the Greek word “bibilia,”

The word “Adieu”
Jacob 7:27 uses the French word, “adieu”. But the French language only evolved from Latin in about 700 A.D; long after the Book of Mormon was recorded.

Judea
Alma 56:9 and 15 mention the Nephite city of Judea. But Judea is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, “Judah.”

The name “Jonas” is mentioned several times 3 Nephi 19:4. But Jonas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Jonah,” and it would not have been known, let alone used by the Book of Mormon people.

Joseph Smith declared that: “There was no ***Greek or Latin ***upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon.” His statement is reiterated in History of the Church, Volume 5, page 399. But there is not only Greek in his book but French also!

 

[MEgus]

The word, “Epistle” is used in 3 Nephi 3:5. But this word is a transliteration of the Greek epistolos, and was unknown to the Book of Mormon people. They would have used words such as “letter” or “message.”

The word “Bible” is used in 2 Nephi 29:3, 4, 6 and 10 in the same way as it was used in Joseph Smith’s time, i.e. to denote the completed canon of scriptures, including both Old and New Testaments. But the word “Bible” is not of Hebrew or even Egyptian derivation. It is an anglicization of the Greek word “bibilia,”

The word “Adieu”
Jacob 7:27 uses the French word, “adieu”. But the French language only evolved from Latin in about 700 A.D; long after the Book of Mormon was recorded.

Judea
Alma 56:9 and 15 mention the Nephite city of Judea. But Judea is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, “Judah.”

The name “Jonas” is mentioned several times 3 Nephi 19:4. But Jonas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Jonah,” and it would not have been known, let alone used by the Book of Mormon people.

Joseph Smith declared that: “There was no ***Greek or Latin ***upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon.” His statement is reiterated in History of the Church, Volume 5, page 399. But there is not only Greek in his book but French also!

Ricko,

You are forgetting something. That is, this is a “Translation” from one language to another. A translation into words that are common in the day and time it was translated into.

For instance, the word “God” does not appear in any of the Hebrew scriptures of the old Testament. Does that mean your bible is wrong when it uses the word “God”? Or is it a translation from words that were common in that language that the word God is most closely related too?

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

What? You have some kind of strange ideas, and I have no idea what you are talking about.

Rebecca,

The funny thing is, I can say the exact same thing about you here.

It would take me weeks to try to show you all the wrong things you say here, and I just don’t have the time.

MEgus

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,

The funny thing is, I can say the exact same thing about you here.

It would take me weeks to try to show you all the wrong things you say here, and I just don’t have the time.

MEgus

You mean to spin it to the latest Mormon version, post endless amounts of quasi-research and mix it all into a large serving of cognitive dissonance.

I’m glad you don’t have the time for such nonsense.

 

[Jerusha]

The only Mormon humorists are at the far liberal wing of Mormonism and Mormon culture. Orson Scott Card, for one. They do get hilarious.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

What does this mean? This is unreal that someone believes this. I thought Sarah commanded Abraham to take Hagar. God did not command Abraham to take Hagar. Why is God soooo different in the BOM compared to the Bible? God is loving, I can’t believe that he would destroy the women who send against a man. When i read these book (D&C) i felt the weirdest feeling, the feeling of, “I feel like I have never met God after I read that”, It was not a good feeling, but a feeling of disloyalty to God when i read this!

D&C 132
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

I’m sorry I mispelled sinned, I spelled it send… LOL I’m on my phone typing and didn’t proof read…

 

[mfbukowski]

The word, “Epistle” is used in 3 Nephi 3:5. But this word is a transliteration of the Greek epistolos, and was unknown to the Book of Mormon people. They would have used words such as “letter” or “message.”

The word “Bible” is used in 2 Nephi 29:3, 4, 6 and 10 in the same way as it was used in Joseph Smith’s time, i.e. to denote the completed canon of scriptures, including both Old and New Testaments. But the word “Bible” is not of Hebrew or even Egyptian derivation. It is an anglicization of the Greek word “bibilia,”

The word “Adieu”
Jacob 7:27 uses the French word, “adieu”. But the French language only evolved from Latin in about 700 A.D; long after the Book of Mormon was recorded.

Judea
Alma 56:9 and 15 mention the Nephite city of Judea. But Judea is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, “Judah.”

The name “Jonas” is mentioned several times 3 Nephi 19:4. But Jonas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Jonah,” and it would not have been known, let alone used by the Book of Mormon people.

Joseph Smith declared that: “There was no ***Greek or Latin ***upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon.” His statement is reiterated in History of the Church, Volume 5, page 399. But there is not only Greek in his book but French also!

What is your problem? Did you really not understand MEgus?

ME, how can you stand this idiocy?

Ricko, let me make it very simple ok?

The BOM is a translation. Translation means to write the words in a different language. Joseph could translate and use words like “adieu” as part of the TRANSLATION.

Dude, you couldn’t really be this stupid. You seem to be able to read and write. So please engage the brain before you start writing next time ok, or you will show that I am wrong about you not being really really stupid. This has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read in my life-- and you have said the same thing more than once.

The BOM is a translation that Joseph wrote, not the original text. Ok? get it now? Joseph wrote it. Using the language Joseph chose to translate it with. Get it? The plates were not written in English. Get it now? Unbelievable.