Mormons baptize the popes

[RebeccaJ]

If you’ve never attended mass at the cathedral in Salt Lake, just a few blocks up from the temple, I would highly recommend it. One of the most beautiful masses I’ve ever seen.

I have been to mass several times at the Cathedral. It is very beautiful.

 

[why_me]

Yeah, they keep necro-dunking Jews who were murdered during WWII. “Rape of the soul” is how Jews describe what they feel about this practice, and they keep asking the mormons to stop already.

They have also “baptized” Hitler and his girlfriend Eva.

Everyone should have the possbility to repent if not in this life then in the next. And everyone should have an equal chance to hear the gospel. No problem with this at all. Let mormons be mormons and catholics be catholics.

 

[why_me]

In the case of the “necro-dunking” I think it is more about them being able to pad their baptism stats rather than any real concern for the souls of the dead.

Not really. They are concerned about the souls of the dead. The whole principle centers on that fact. It has nothing to do with baptismal records.

And lets face it, wouldn’t it be a surprise if the mormons were correct! I see nothing wrong in the lds wanting to baptise for the dead. Mormons have such a doctrine and do it out of love for god and for the people they are baptizing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Everyone should have the possbility to repent if not in this life then in the next. And everyone should have an equal chance to hear the gospel. No problem with this at all. Let mormons be mormons and catholics be catholics.

Only problem is whyme, they aren’t letting people be who they are. In the case of Judaism, this practice is very offensive.

And, the idea is nonsensical. This life, now, is when we make our choices.

 

[why_me]

Only problem is whyme, they aren’t letting people be who they are. In the case of Judaism, this practice is very offensive.

And, the idea is nonsensical. This life, now, is when we make our choices.

The teachings of Christ were offensive to many Jews during Christ’s time on earth. And he didn’t seem to care. The purpose of Christ’s message was to proclaim himself as savior or messiah. He also taught a way to live life complete with a newness of doctrine.

In terms of this life now, many on this earth have not heard the gospel nor have they been raised in the Christian tradition. Nor have many been taught correct principles. Can they be accountable for their actions based on their own limited knowledge?

 

[zerinus]

Dear Chewchoo and Jeanette,

Thanks for your comments. It is time to hear from our Mormon brothers/sisters regarding this interesting posthumous baptism.

swariffin;3148993:

Dear Chewchoo and Jeanette,

Thanks for your comments. It is time to hear from our Mormon brothers/sisters regarding this interesting posthumous baptism.

(Former Mormon)

Hi, I am a Mormon. I have only just read through this thread for the first time. The LDS practice of baptisms for the dead seems to be well understood, even if not believed. What would you like me to tell you more about LDS practice of posthumous baptisms?

zerinus

 

[pismopal]

Hi, I am a Mormon. I have only just read through this thread for the first time. The LDS practice of baptisms for the dead seems to be well understood, even if not believed. What would you like me to tell you more about LDS practice of posthumous baptisms?

zerinus

Speaking for myself I am not intersted in Mormon baptism. Let LDS do what they want as long as it doesn’t effect me and their baptisms will not harm me or any person dead or alive in imo so I don’t get offended by it. If I thought it was effective I would be offended.
PS Thanks for asking though…have a nice day:thumbsup:

 

[Michael96]

If they believe their posthumous babptisms get people into heaven, then I think they almost have a duty to carry on with it.

I don’t believe it, but I’m very happy to recognise their good intent. I’d think poorly of them if they they believed posthumous babptism worked and then they withheld it.

 

[zerinus]

Speaking for myself I am not intersted in Mormon baptism. Let LDS do what they want as long as it doesn’t effect me and their baptisms will not harm me or any person dead or alive in imo so I don’t get offended by it.

Thank you. That sounds like an intelligent comment.

If I thought it was effective I would be offended.

What? You mean that if you believed that our posthumous baptisms actually saved you, you would be offended?!

zerinus

 

[why_me]

If they believe their posthumous babptisms get people into heaven, then I think they almost have a duty to carry on with it.

I don’t believe it, but I’m very happy to recognise their good intent. I’d think poorly of them if they they believed posthumous babptism worked and then they withheld it.

Good post! I agree with you. And if such a practice is not true (Cant’t be proved or disproved except through an interpretation of the scripture where baptism for the dead is mentioned) and yet mormons believe that it is, I am sure that god understands the lds intent. It also makes sense. A loving god, would not deny people his glory if they remained in ignorance on earth.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The teachings of Christ were offensive to many Jews during Christ’s time on earth. And he didn’t seem to care. The purpose of Christ’s message was to proclaim himself as savior or messiah. He also taught a way to live life complete with a newness of doctrine.

In terms of this life now, many on this earth have not heard the gospel nor have they been raised in the Christian tradition. Nor have many been taught correct principles. Can they be accountable for their actions based on their own limited knowledge?

The difference is whyme, Christ was teaching the Truth. To the living. Telling us what we do in this life, not the next.

I also reject paganism, the occult, atheism, new age mysticism, etc. People who practice are certain that it is the truth, and love is left out of none of these.

However, just because someone says it is right or true, doesn’t mean that it is.

Of course people are not held accountable for things they do not know. Don’t you believe that God is merciful and takes into account not only our actions but what is in our heart? If you believed this, then why baptize those who are already done with this life?

Though whyme, I am certain that people do this sort of thing out of love and they do believe that they are following God. I believe that they are misguided. I believe that God will take into account their actions and what is in their hearts.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Good post! I agree with you. And if such a practice is not true (Cant’t be proved or disproved except through an interpretation of the scripture where baptism for the dead is mentioned) and yet mormons believe that it is, I am sure that god understands the lds intent. It also makes sense. A loving god, would not deny people his glory if they remained in ignorance on earth

.]

Well, no, whyme, we [Christians who do NOT recognize a “living Prophet” or sundry “gospels” of addenda to Scripture.] have the Church instituted by Christ upon the head of His Apostles: the Catholic Church.

Dance around that with all the pablum you choose, but it is either correct or incorrect. You cannot pick and choose what you think is ‘righteous’ or what you think is apostate.

When it comes to the teachings, the ORAL teachings, of Jesus, Son of the ONE, TRUE GOD (no multiple LDS gods here!) as passed on and then codified (into what many non-Cs think magically appeared) into *tou biblia *or ‘the Books.’

A loving God? Of course! A merciful God? That’s perfect!

But one who winks and looks the other way when given the choice of how to follow Him? Hhmmmmm…

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

What? You mean that if you believed that our posthumous baptisms actually saved you, you would be offended?!

zerinus

Again, our resident mormon stumper is without a clue about the Sacrament of Baptism.

Remember, Zerinus, ALL Christian denominations and mainstream Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) DO NOT recognize the LDS church (i.e., Mormons) as being a Christian denomination.

Again you ask; why not?

Maybe its those multiple gods? that goofy ‘eternal progression’? Jesus and Lucifer as brothers? the BoM as 'scripture? Polygamy? The Curse of Cain upon black people? Claiming certain apostles lived for centuries passed their historical deaths? That pesky planet Kolob?

Or just ‘baptism of the dead?’

Pick your favorite, Z, its all unChristian to us.

Robert

 

[zerinus]

If they believe their posthumous babptisms get people into heaven, then I think they almost have a duty to carry on with it.

I don’t believe it, but I’m very happy to recognise their good intent. I’d think poorly of them if they they believed posthumous babptism worked and then they withheld it.

Thank you. However, I should add that we don’t think that vicarious baptisms for the dead will automatically get anyone into heaven. They will still have the choice in the next life to accept or reject it.

We perform vicarious baptisms for the dead because the Lord has commanded us to do it. But if you are interested in the theological explanation of it, it has to do with the necessity of baptism for salvation. I think that Catholics (unlike Protestants) would agree with Mormons that baptism is a necessary rite for salvation. Jesus stated: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Again He declared: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). In this Catholics and Mormons agree. The question therefore arises: What happens to those who die without having had the opportunity to accept the gospel and be baptized in this life? The Catholic Church has a partial solution to that problem. The partial solution is that it has waved the Priesthood requirement for baptism, and teaches that anyone (even a non-Catholic) can perform a valid baptism in an emergency, so that someone at the point of death can ask anyone at hand to perform the baptism, and it will be considered valid by the Catholic Church. There are two problems with that. Firstly, by what right has the Catholic Church waved the Priesthood requirement for performing a valid baptism? All sacraments require priesthood authority to be performed, and baptism is no exception. Secondly, that only provides a partial solution, even if it was correct. What about someone who dies in an accident? What about those who have never heard of the gospel in the first place, to be able to accept or reject it? Historically and traditionally, the Catholic Church would confine such unlucky folks to damnation! Nowadays it has softened its tone on that, but that has been its historical position. That doctrine, if true, would make God an unjust God, for damning people who have not done anything wrong, except not having heard of the gospel through no fault of their own. The LDS doctrine of vicarious baptisms for the dead, however, provides a perfect solution to that problem, for the following reasons:

1. It preserves the theological necessity of baptism for salvation.
2. It preserves the necessity of priesthood authority for baptism.
3. It accounts for all situations where one dies without baptism.
4. It is taught in the scriptures:

1 Corinthians 15:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?​

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

And lets face it, wouldn’t it be a surprise if the mormons were correct!

Indeed it would be a surprise, considering that nothing in the Book of Mormon can be shown to be true on any objective basis.

 

[talter]

A loving god, would not deny people his glory if they remained in ignorance on earth.

That’s what Catholic’s believe and is a belief of the church. So if that is the case why bother with the ceremony? If the ceremony mattered wouldn’t there be more in the Bible about it instead of one line which references the practice in condemning an illogical mindset. Keep in mind that the only reference to baptism of the dead is in reference to people who do not believe the dead will rise in the first place. It is an arguable point only because Paul doesn’t come right out and say stop doing it. However it is clear from the fact they he says “some of you” and “what shall they do” that it is not widespread. If it was to be a practice of the church why was he not including himself in the statement “-]some of /-]you…” and “what shall -]they/-] we do…”? Also if baptism was required for the dead, who were ignorant of God, to join in his glory what about all the people who died before records were kept of their existance? There are tribes in the amazon to this day who do not have birth or death certificates. Or how about all the Inuit or Apache? It’s illogical.

 

[talter]

All sacraments require priesthood authority to be performed, and baptism is no exception.

That would be illogical. When was Jesus baptized? In the very early part of his ministry. When did John the Baptist die? A little while later (Mathew chapter 14) Who conferred the keys of heaven/priesthood? Jesus. Who did he confer them to? Peter and the apostles. When did he confer them? Some time after being baptized by John and after John had already been beheaded(Mathew chapter 18). John did not have the priesthood. Even if by some stretch you grant him the priesthood by his conversation with Jesus when he said “I should be baptized by you instead” then what about all of the baptisms before Christ got there, we see in the beginning of the chapter that he was baptizing others when Jesus arrives. Why didn’t Christ rebuke him for performing a Sacrament without the proper authority? Again it’s illogical.

 

[zerinus]

That’s what Catholic’s believe and is a belief of the church. So if that is the case why bother with the ceremony?

Actually, that is not “the case”. The historical position of the Catholic Church has been that the unbaptized will go to hell, regardless of the circumstances. I have already discussed that subject in the following posts. These all relate to the fate of unbaptized children; but the theology of it is equally applicable to unbaptized adults, meaning those who have not had the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel in this life:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2969455&postcount=62
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2972974&postcount=69
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2974155&postcount=88

If the ceremony mattered wouldn’t there be more in the Bible about it instead of one line which references the practice in condemning an illogical mindset. Keep in mind that the only reference to baptism of the dead is in reference to people who do not believe the dead will rise in the first place. It is an arguable point only because Paul doesn’t come right out and say stop doing it. However it is clear from the fact they he says “some of you” and “what shall they do” that it is not widespread. If it was to be a practice of the church why was he not including himself in the statement “-]some of /-]you…” and “what shall -]they/-] we do…”?

That “one line” makes all the difference. It takes an awful lot of twisting around to interpret that scripture in the way you have done.

Also if baptism was required for the dead, who were ignorant of God, to join in his glory what about all the people who died before records were kept of their existance? There are tribes in the amazon to this day who do not have birth or death certificates. Or how about all the Inuit or Apache? It’s illogical.

It is perfectly logical. We believe that eventually baptisms for the dead will be performed for all the dead. Where records do not exist, information will be provided by revelation as necessary.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

That would be illogical. When was Jesus baptized? In the very early part of his ministry. When did John the Baptist die? A little while later (Mathew chapter 14) Who conferred the keys of heaven/priesthood? Jesus. Who did he confer them to? Peter and the apostles. When did he confer them? Some time after being baptized by John and after John had already been beheaded (Mathew chapter 18). John did not have the priesthood. Even if by some stretch you grant him the priesthood by his conversation with Jesus when he said “I should be baptized by you instead” then what about all of the baptisms before Christ got there, we see in the beginning of the chapter that he was baptizing others when Jesus arrives. Why didn’t Christ rebuke him for performing a Sacrament without the proper authority? Again it’s illogical.

John certainly did have the priesthood. His father Zechariah was a priest of the Aaronic order, and that was transferred by right to his son John. Here is an extract from a Wikipedia article about John the Baptist:

Birth and infancy

The Gospel of Luke includes an account of John’s infancy, introducing him as the son of St. Zachary/Zachariah and St. Elizabeth, who previously “had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years” (Luke 1:7). His birth, name, and office were foretold by the angel Gabriel to Zachariah, while Zachariah was performing his functions as a priest in the temple of Jerusalem. According to Luke, Zachariah was a priest of the course of Abijah, and his wife, Elizabeth, was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1:5); consequently John automatically held the priesthood of Aaron. Source.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Being married to a Mormon who wants to “necro-dunk” (love the euphimism) my recently deceased highly-devout catholic relatives I think I have a unique perspective. I was at least asked if it could be done for them (which I am very grateful for and more than many other get) and I basically said no. Not because I believe it has any effect, being Catholic and moderately well catechized (Thanks Sister Rose-Mary :nun2 I know it doesn’t. Nor do I have a problem with the LDS praying for my relatives again I don’t think it will do much good given their heretical views and all. It’s because of the fact it will be recorded in their church records and made public on their genealogy website that I have a problem with it. It’s kind of like a form of libel. My family were not nor have ever been associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints[sup]TM[/sup]. And having it listed on their “vital records” is not something I want for them. 100 years from now (if their website still exists) I do not want some distant cousin looking up my family’s information and seeing that they were baptized as Mormon. Granted an astute reader would see that the date shows they were baptized posthumously but then what does it say about me or any other relative in that we “allowed” it to happen. If they want to do baptisms for the dead then go right ahead just don’t publish that information for all to see or at the very least annotate it so that it shows that the baptism occurred without their consent and who it was that submitted the name for “work” to be done.

You mean that if the names were not “published,” you would allow it? How hypocritical of you!

zerinus