Mormonism and Protestantism

[truthsave]

LivingWaters7:

What I’m saying is what I have already said: "There are many factors involved with whether one actually had a “fair chance” of accepting or rejecting the baptism, as well as the fact that others may not be aware of whether someone did have that chance in this life. Thus, the practice is done in the hope that that deceased person will have the chance to accept or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the next life

LW7 should be correct, and corrected and accept it; but I know mormons prefer not being correct, and he should specify that the Gospel he and they are talking about is not one of the four, but statement of Joseph Smith that they belive to be given by Jesus Christ .
**If he or any mormon don’t do it, they consciously choose to create confusion.
**

I am an Orthodox. And we define ourself to be Orthodox Catholic and we differe from Roman Catholics. Somebody here told me to use the term Catholic for Roman Catholic to avoid confusion of terms. I did it. Mormon should be clear whenthey use the term Gospel.
Gospels for the Christian world are four. Then we have the apocriphs (and we state them as apocriphs). Mormons have Joseph Smith one. All mormons should accept for the respect of others not to create confusion with therminology to refer to Joseph Smith “revelation” gospel as Gospel from Joseph Smith as we refer to Gospel of Thomas or Philippe and we know they are apochriphe. We don’t refer to them as Gospel without specifying from who. So Mormons they should specify from who too.

Then you are free to consider a certain gospel authentically refering to the real teaching and saying of Jesus Christ or not.
In Christianity we never say the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We refer to Gospels, or we say Gospel of…

 

[twopekinguys]

Why would my premise fail when it isn’t a premise, but how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understands its own sacred practice.

mormonnewsroom.org/article/baptism-for-the-dead
mormonnewsroom.org/article/background-explanation-of-temple-baptism
lds.org/study/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng
lds.org/liahona/2001/01/the-redemption-of-the-dead-and-the-testimony-of-jesus?lang=eng
Etc

It actually is quite clear in Latter-day Saint theology, as the fact of free agency and the fact of proxy ordinances being efficacious only if the deceased soul chooses to accept or reject the ordinance is clearly stated. It is also clear because a Google search even turns up critical and anti-LDS websites that criticize the practice, yet indicate in their description of it that we believe that the deceased can either accept or reject the baptism. This really is not debatable. There is no need to change the words of the ordinance (for whom?) when those who are performing and participating in the ordinance know that what they are doing is offering the deceased a chance to accept, or reject, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Again, the words are the same, saying that your “are” baptizing them. In no way do those words indicate that it is an offer that can, and should be refused. Again, big difference. You can put a PR spin all you want, but there is a big difference.

What I’m saying is what I have already said: “There are many factors involved with whether one actually had a “fair chance” of accepting or rejecting the baptism, as well as the fact that others may not be aware of whether someone did have that chance in this life. Thus, the practice is done in the hope that that deceased person will have the chance to accept or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the next life, and if they already have that chance in this life (as judged by God), then the point is moot.” Also, no, you do not “look like a mormon”. The records clearly indicate that the proxy ordinance was performed after death, it does not add one to the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ (at least the earthly Church, since they can freely choose to accept the baptism in the next life), etc.

But, as has been repeatedly demonstrated by the baptizing of Jewish Holocaust Victims, St. Damien, and many many others who have denied the mormon gospel, the mormon church doesn’t respect decisions made by an individual while living.

It even goes so far as ignoring their own rules about getting permission from the closest living relative, etc.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Again, the words are the same, saying that your “are” baptizing them. In no way do those words indicate that it is an offer that can, and should be refused. Again, big difference. You can put a PR spin all you want, but there is a big difference.

Again, you are ignoring the actual issue here, which is how Latter-day Saints, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, understands their own practice, regardless of your assumption of what the practice entails, which is incorrect. As has been demonstrated by the links provided (as well as scores of others by individual Latter-day Saints expounding on their own beliefs and practices), Latter-day Saints believe that proxy ordinances offer the deceased the opportunity to accept or reject that ordinance. Perhaps it would be best for you not to tell us what our own ordinances do, and instead listen to what those practicing the ordinance say it does. There is no argument as to the fact that Latter-day Saints believe proxy ordinances are an offer, and it has been demonstrated using LDS sources.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I have already accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I was baptized Catholic at Easter Vigil, 2008.

You are assuming that you have the Gospel of Jesus Christ but you do not. Because the Gospel of the Bible does not talk about proxy baptism for the dead as a way to change the final judgement.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that proxy baptism changes the final judgement.

 

[LivingWaters7]

So Mormons don’t believe Christ was the creator of the universe like Christians do.

Latter-day Saint Christians believe that Jesus Christ is The Creator of the Universe. We reject creation ex-nihilo, however we believe that Christ created everything (I already answered your repeated question of what did Christ create with “everything” before) in existence from pre-existing matter.

 

[twopekinguys]

Again, you are ignoring the actual issue here, which is how Latter-day Saints, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, understands their own practice, regardless of your assumption of what the practice entails, which is incorrect. As has been demonstrated by the links provided (as well as scores of others by individual Latter-day Saints expounding on their own beliefs and practices), Latter-day Saints believe that proxy ordinances offer the deceased the opportunity to accept or reject that ordinance. Perhaps it would be best for you not to tell us what our own ordinances do, and instead listen to what those practicing the ordinance say it does. There is no argument as to the fact that Latter-day Saints believe proxy ordinances are an offer, and it has been demonstrated using LDS sources.

What you are failing to realize is the difference between “offering” something, and actually “doing” something.

If I “offer” to give you $100.00, that is totally different than “giving” you $100.00

If I “offer” to give you a haircut, that is totally different than “performing” a haircut.

It is simple common sense.

Since this proxy baptism is an “offer” as you like to put it, that the deceased can accept it, or reject it, let me ask…How many acceptances have you gotten, and how many rejections?

 

[LivingWaters7]

What you are failing to realize is the difference between “offering” something, and actually “doing” something.

If I “offer” to give you $100.00, that is totally different than “giving” you $100.00

If I “offer” to give you a haircut, that is totally different than “performing” a haircut.

It is simple common sense.

This really is all irrelevant, since what you are failing to realize is how Latter-day Saints and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understands its practice. I don’t think I need to repeat it, so I’ll just say it is clear how we view our own practice, and that is what matters, not a misunderstanding of that practice. No matter how many times you insist that the words used in proxy ordinances do not show a choice does not change the fact that our theology is that proxy ordinances offer a choice.

Since this proxy baptism is an “offer” as you like to put it, that the deceased can accept it, or reject it, let me ask…How many acceptances have you gotten, and how many rejections?

Again, it isn’t how “* like to put it”, it is how the Church itself and its leaders put it (I hope I don’t have to repeat that again). And that is not something that can generally be known in this life.*

 

[batman1973]

LivingWaters7, as a word of advice, I’d caution you broad stroking the term “Latter-Day Saint” There are other Joseph Smith Restoration groups that also refer to themselves as “Latter-Day Saints” and would not appreciate you saying that “Latter-Day Saints” subscribe to Mormon theology. You never know who is lurking.
(Former member of the Utah Mormon, Re-organized LDS, Church of Jesus Christ Bickertonite, and the Remnant LDS churches)

 

[twopekinguys]

This really is all irrelevant, since what you are failing to realize is how Latter-day Saints and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understands its practice. I don’t think I need to repeat it, so I’ll just say it is clear how we view our own practice, and that is what matters, not a misunderstanding of that practice. No matter how many times you insist that the words used in proxy ordinances do not show a choice does not change the fact that our theology is that proxy ordinances offer a choice.

Again, it isn’t how “* like to put it”, it is how the Church itself and its leaders put it (I hope I don’t have to repeat that again). And that is not something that can generally be known in this life.*

This just illustrates how mormons like to redefine words to their liking as opposed to how a word is commonly used.

That is why it is extremely important to listen to what a mormon says, and find out what ***their ***definition to the word is, as opposed to what common sense would dictate.

Which unfortunately can be compared to a “bait and switch”.

 

[LivingWaters7]

This just illustrates how mormons like to redefine words to their liking as opposed to how a word is commonly used.

That is why it is extremely important to listen to what a mormon says, and find out what ***their ***definition to the word is, as opposed to what common sense would dictate.

Which unfortunately can be compared to a “bait and switch”.

No it isn’t (and it is interesting how your argument now changes). It is extremely important to listen to what a Latter-day Saint says about their own beliefs, just like how it’s extremely important to listen to a [insert religion] about their own beliefs. Also, I’ve heard the same thing said by Evangelicals in reference to Catholics. Odd.

Also, the Latter-day Saint view of this reminds me of Canon 987 of the Code of Canon Law. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but in reading this, it states that for the sacrament of penance to be efficacious, the individual must be properly disposed. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but the sacrament itself says “I absolve you from your sins…”. Now together, again correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that if one is not properly disposed, even though the priest states that he absolves you of your sins, you aren’t because to receive the salvific remedy, one must be properly disposed. Is this a “bait and switch”? Of course not. Similarly, even though the Latter-day Saint proxy baptism states “I baptize you for and in behalf of Name, who is dead…”, the deceased must choose to accept or reject that baptism. In both cases there is underlying theology that defines what actually happens.

 

[twopekinguys]

No it isn’t (and it is interesting how your argument now changes). It is extremely important to listen to what a Latter-day Saint says about their own beliefs, just like how it’s extremely important to listen to a [insert religion] about their own beliefs. Also, I’ve heard the same thing said by Evangelicals in reference to Catholics. Odd.

Also, the Latter-day Saint view of this reminds me of Canon 987 of the Code of Canon Law. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but in reading this, it states that for the sacrament of penance to be efficacious, the individual must be properly disposed. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but the sacrament itself says “I absolve you from your sins…”. Now together, again correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that if one is not properly disposed, even though the priest states that he absolves you of your sins, you aren’t because to receive the salvific remedy, one must be properly disposed. Is this a “bait and switch”? Of course not. Similarly, even though the Latter-day Saint proxy baptism states “I baptize you for and in behalf of Name, who is dead…”, the deceased must choose to accept or reject that baptism. In both cases there is underlying theology that defines what actually happens.

Can you say apples and oranges?..LOL

But unfortunately, you are not understanding it. In order for the Sacrament of Penance to be effective, both things have to happen. It’s not that hard to understand, and it is clearly described in the canon, but nice try. (the person confessing knows whether or not he/she is being truthful, etc)

With regard to your statement “I baptize you for and in behalf of Name, who is dead…”, point out where any mention is made of it being an offer that can be accepted or rejected. You are clearly stating you are baptizing the individual.

Again, apples and oranges, but nice try.

Again, mormons have their own definitions for things, and words that are clearly not in line with the rest of the world.

BTW, my argument hasn’t changed. It started off with how the words used are completely the same, but somehow, you see it as binding for a live person and an offer for a dead one.

 

[Jerusha]

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but in reading this, it states that for the sacrament of penance to be efficacious, the individual must be properly disposed. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but the sacrament itself says “I absolve you from your sins…”.

The individual goes voluntarily to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The individual knows that what he/she confesses will not be disclosed to another. These conditions practically guarantee proper disposition. It is not so in baptism for the dead.

Pekin, it is apples and red herrings, now.

 

[twopekinguys]

Pekin, it is apples and red herrings, now.

Thanks, I didn’t get that memo!!!

 

[LivingWaters7]

Can you say apples and oranges?..LOL

But unfortunately, you are not understanding it. In order for the Sacrament of Penance to be effective, both things have to happen. It’s not that hard to understand, and it is clearly described in the canon, but nice try. (the person confessing knows whether or not he/she is being truthful, etc)

Exactly, that’s the entire point, both things have to happen. If that is so, then it is not apples and oranges at all (and you do not explain what exactly I am not understanding, since I merely repeated what the canon itself stated, which is interesting in light of the discussion we are having).

This is what I’m talking about (one example):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=571898

According to one Catholic who says what I was saying succintly: “If you are not truly repentant then your sins are not forgiven. Your Confession and Absolution would not be valid.”. So, even though the priest says “I absolve you of your sins…”, you won’t really be absolved if you are not truly repentant. Similarly, even though the Latter-day Saint proxy baptism ordinance states “I baptize you for and behalf of Name, who is dead…”, that deceased person does not receive the effects unless they choose to. The comparison here is that there is underlying theology that nuances the actual words that are being used, and whether the effect of the sacrament/ordinance is there, despite the words of the sacrament/ordinance saying that something is being done.

With regard to your statement “I baptize you for and in behalf of Name, who is dead…”, point out where any mention is made of it being an offer that can be accepted or rejected. You are clearly stating you are baptizing the individual.

Oh my, did we not go through this already (we did). The theological understanding of the ordinance by the Church performing said ordinance is clear that an offer is being made, and this has been evidenced already by statements from The Church of Jesus Christ and some of its leaders. It need not be repeated yet again. And again, see above for an example of how a Catholic priest apparently can say “I absolve you of your sins”, but if a person is not repentant, they aren’t.

Again, apples and oranges, but nice try.

See above for why it isn’t.

Again, mormons have their own definitions for things, and words that are clearly not in line with the rest of the world.

And again, I have heard the same argument made against Catholics (and others) numerous times, so it does not carry weight, at least with me.

BTW, my argument hasn’t changed. It started off with how the words used are completely the same, but somehow, you see it as binding for a live person and an offer for a dead one.

Latter-day Saints believe that one must choose to receive an ordinance, whether in this life or the next. In both cases, a choice is made to accept the ordinance. In the next life, the baptism (or any other ordinance done by proxy), the effect is not there unless the deceased chooses to accept it, as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The individual goes voluntarily to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The individual knows that what he/she confesses will not be disclosed to another. These conditions practically guarantee proper disposition. It is not so in baptism for the dead.

Pekin, it is apples and red herrings, now.

See above. Also: “Please see my posts above and demonstrate how I am trying to take advantage of language difference.” speaking of red herrings.

 

[Jerusha]

See above. Also: “Please see my posts above and demonstrate how I am trying to take advantage of language difference.” speaking of red herrings.

That is the Catholic/LDS language difference, AS WELL as a very competent and knowledgeable debater whose native language is not English. Sheesh!!

Catholic baptism is for the removal of the stain of Original Sin. Mormons do not believe in original sin.

Catholic Baptism and Mormon baptism are vastly different from each other.

Mormon baptism is for the forgiveness of sin. Sorry, I was wrong.
WE do have a very fundamental language difference here.

A Mormon could equate the Sacrament of Reconciliation with baptism. Be best to do baptism for the dead, since by then the person is not going to sin anymore. Why do you baptize the living, who are going to sin again? Is there any forgiveness for a Mormon, once they have been baptized? After all, we all have sinful natures.

 

[James_Least]

I may have already said this somewhere on this thread: Joseph Smith Jr. is either a true prophet or a false prophet. If a true, then we should all be Mormons. If false, add them to the growing list of those who follow false prophets. LDS claims about 13 million followers–worldwide.

The word Christian is not used correctly–it is filled with ambiguity. A Christian is someone who does what Jesus says. He said, “Why do you call me Lord and do not what I say?” All this man-made stuff we do is not at the direction of Jesus. Selah.

The way to heaven is straight and narrow. Nobody finds it of themselves.
What is in your wallet? Will it get you past the gates of pearl. Are you sure?
Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,
James Least

 

[RebeccaJ]

Latter-day Saints do not believe that proxy baptism changes the final judgement.

Then why do it?

 

[Miriam1947]

Again, you are ignoring the actual issue here, which is how Latter-day Saints, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, understands their own practice, regardless of your assumption of what the practice entails, which is incorrect. As has been demonstrated by the links provided (as well as scores of others by individual Latter-day Saints expounding on their own beliefs and practices), Latter-day Saints believe that proxy ordinances offer the deceased the opportunity to accept or reject that ordinance. Perhaps it would be best for you not to tell us what our own ordinances do, and instead listen to what those practicing the ordinance say it does. There is no argument as to the fact that Latter-day Saints believe proxy ordinances are an offer, and it has been demonstrated using LDS sources.

And that is why your church has baptized Blessed John Paul II six times. A Pope.

Obviously the first 5 didn’t work!

It’s a joke.

 

[Miriam1947]

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that proxy baptism changes the final judgement.

Really? Then why do you baptize the dead?