Mormons baptize the popes

[psyche23]

I am atheist and find that someone telling me they’re praying for me to be arrogant and ignorant. Same goes for the muslim who claimed all children are born muslim and then get corrupted their parents and the world into belleving something different.

It is correct they are trying to influence ur behaviour and trying to force someone on u, or at least tthey’re trying to annoy. If it makes them feel good for ruining someone’s day - makes me wonder if they really are as good as they claim.

It also makes think whether all religion rely on brainwashing or behavioural influence of some sort for conversion, as believers can’t allow people to reach their own conclusion on what they believe, w/o their interference.

For these reasons, if someone tells me they are praying for me, I automatical assume they are only responding to me from the depth of their ignorance and inability to accept freedom of belief.

Which says a lot for religion.

If I pray for someone it’s because I care about them. Not out of arrogance. If I truly believe what I believe and want to see my loved ones in heaven, wouldn’t I do everything I could to make sure I met them there??? If they ask me not to, then I won’t and leave it all in God’s hands. Not everyone thinks this way, but not because of arrogance, but out of love and hope for the other person. I think the Mormons are just doing the same. And if we ask them not to, they should grant our request the same as I would if I were asked to stop for someone. You have every right to believe what you do, but don’t call us arrogant because we believe what we believe. And yes, not believing in God IS a belief.

 

[psyche23]

I think the point of the thread is that posthumous baptism is an interesting fact about the Mormon faith, something most of us don’t know about, and being Catholic, it was further interesting to know that they particularly single out the popes in this rite.

Oh definately! Very interesting!!!

 

[talter]

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

Limbo is not hell, hell is hell. Also here is what the church teaches.

260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

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.

What twisting? It is clear from the beginning that he is referring to a limited number of people . 1 Corinthians 15:12 “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

Then when referring to the specific practice 1 Corinthians 15:29 reads: “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?” He speaks in the 3rd person which by definition does not include him. Take chapter as a whole not one verse out of context. Even as a singular it is obvious that it is a logic statement concerning the resurrection and their (again 3rd person which excludes Paul who is undoubtedly a believer in the resurrection) lack of belief in the resurrection.

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

Just so we’re clear logical is agreeing with logic. Logic is valid reasoning. If one does not know the vital information for an individual (Name, DOB, DOD, paternity) you believe that God will reveal to your prophet the vital information on every human who has ever lived. Interesting. Just wondering though if God can reveal all the names so that they can be baptized why can’t He in His infinite grace and power grant them the ability partake in his grace regardless of whether or not they were baptized?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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

zerinus

You really have a hard time understanding expository prose, Zman!

ANYTHING that is made a record of (on paper or electronically) is considered ‘published.’

Thus, a priori, the whole baptism of the dead thing is something she would NEVER approve of; her tone was being ‘nice’ and polite to you.

Quit reading things into what posters write, but hey, you being a nice guy and all (I really do believe this); maybe this is the natural result and effect of falling for that goofy moroni angel and Profit Joseph Smith stuff.

Oh well, one can never accuse you of being an *inconsistent *mormon!

[was that superfluously redundant???]

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Limbo is not hell, hell is hell. Also here is what the church teaches.

Just so we’re clear logical is agreeing with logic. Logic is valid reasoning. If one does not know the vital information for an individual (Name, DOB, DOD, paternity) you believe that God will reveal to your prophet the vital information on every human who has ever lived. Interesting. Just wondering though if God can reveal all the names so that they can be baptized why can’t He in His infinite grace and power grant them the ability partake in his grace regardless of whether or not they were baptized?

talter:

Good work. However, it is wasted on Zman.

His whole approach is what he thinks Scripture says in light of -]moronic/-] mormon teaching.

Isn’t it endlessly fascinating how we can quote from some mormon document which embarrasses the heck out of most people (the Curse of Cain for example) and he blithely ignores it.

Yet, whenever he wants to shore up his mormonism, he attacks Christianity (i.e. the Church) with HIS comments or some other poster’s edited prose.

This is why many of us (Paul D, hosemonkey, myself) think Zerinus to be VERY young and impressionable. He flies into rages and flings personal attacks (witness his “child flipping the finger” image to my comments a few days ago: an image that tells more of Zerinus’ mind than it does his feeble attempt at wit).

Mormons by and by are great people, great friends and great Americans (by my experience). Most do not know what their religion teaches and after the initial shock either delve more into its sordid history and goofy teaching and leave for greener pastures or cut off all social and work interaction with those who they have been told to avoid.

Being logical to Zerinus is like teaching a pig to sing (that old bromide!): it’s a waste of time and it just irritates the pig.

Robert

 

[talter]

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

zerinus

What hypocrisy? Did you miss the part where I said that do not believe it means anything? Did I say I would never allow it period? Did I say one thing and do another? I have always said it doesn’t mean anything. And my biggest concern about it, is that it is recorded for all to see. It does not explicitly say in your records that the baptism was not by the choice of the baptized. Thus being a lie by omission. I then went on to say why I don’t believe it’s valid in a subsequent post. I don’t believe wishing on a star is valid for as a source of income but if people feel the need to do so they can go right ahead and do so. But when some one says they are going to which on a star for me or for my family and write down in their book that we wished on a star for our income without saying it was done without my or my family’s consent and make that book available for all to see you bet I will have an issue with it.

 

[zerinus]

I think the point of the thread is that posthumous baptism is an interesting fact about the Mormon faith, something most of us don’t know about, and being Catholic, it was further interesting to know that they particularly single out the popes in this rite.

We don’t “single out the Popes”! We perform vicarious baptisms for all people, especially good people; and we have no reasons to suppose that the Popes were not good people!

Actually, the primary responsibility of searching out names and submitting them for vicarious baptisms rests with the ordinary members of the Church, who have a divinely appointed duty to search out the names of their own ancestors, and submit them for baptism. The Church also does some name extraction independently of the members for that purpose; but the primary responsibility for that rests with the ordinary members of the Church; whose primary responsibility is for their own ancestors. Those Popes who were posthumously baptized, their names were almost certainly submitted by ordinary members, not by the Church at official level. That is why they are sometimes baptized three or four times. We baptize people only once! The reason why that has happened is that several people have submitted their names simultaneously to different temples for baptism, before the Church had had the chance to update its database, so that duplicate baptisms could be avoided. Those who submitted the names were just ordinary Church members who for some reason had an affinity for the Popes, or for a particular Pope, and decided to submit their names for baptisms. They may have been former Catholics who loved the Popes, or may even be someone who was related to them.

zerinus

 

[talter]

Thus, a priori, the whole baptism of the dead thing is something she would NEVER approve of; her tone was being ‘nice’ and polite to you.

Rbt — Ouch. I thought it was clear I was a man when I referenced my wife as the Mormon…

Just giving you a hard time. I am a man though.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We don’t “single out the Popes”! We perform vicarious baptisms for all people, especially good people; and we have no reasons to suppose that the Popes were not good people!

Actually, the primary responsibility of searching out names and submitting them for vicarious baptisms rests with the ordinary members of the Church, who have a divinely appointed duty to search out the names of their own ancestors, and submit them for baptism. The Church also does some name extraction independently of the members for that purpose; but the primary responsibility for that rests with the ordinary members of the Church; whose primary responsibility is for their own ancestors. Those Popes who were posthumously baptized, their names were almost certainly submitted by ordinary members, not by the Church at official level. That is why they are sometimes baptized three or four times. We baptize people only once! The reason why that has happened is that several people have submitted their names simultaneously to different temples for baptism, before the Church had had the chance to update its database, so that duplicate baptisms could be avoided. Those who submitted the names were just ordinary Church members who for some reason had an affinity for the Popes, or for a particular Pope, and decided to submit their names for baptisms. They may have been former Catholics who loved the Popes, or may even be someone who was related to them.

zerinus

Not true, really. My parents are part of huge network of people who extract names out of old records. Most often, the records of other churches. This is a church calling for them.

Behind the scenes, there are millions of dollars spent on computer equipment, applications and networks, for this purpose. I know this because I work in the IT field, in Utah, and have contacts that work both for the LDS church and in the LDS church, on this very project.

This is in no way a sort of religious grass roots endeavor. It is run like a business and has the costs of a business.

 

[zerinus]

Limbo is not hell, hell is hell. Also here is what the church teaches.

260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

What twisting? It is clear from the beginning that he is referring to a limited number of people . 1 Corinthians 15:12 “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

Then when referring to the specific practice 1 Corinthians 15:29 reads: “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?” He speaks in the 3rd person which by definition does not include him. Take chapter as a whole not one verse out of context. Even as a singular it is obvious that it is a logic statement concerning the resurrection and their (again 3rd person which excludes Paul who is undoubtedly a believer in the resurrection) lack of belief in the resurrection.

Just so we’re clear logical is agreeing with logic. Logic is valid reasoning. If one does not know the vital information for an individual (Name, DOB, DOD, paternity) you believe that God will reveal to your prophet the vital information on every human who has ever lived. Interesting. Just wondering though if God can reveal all the names so that they can be baptized why can’t He in His infinite grace and power grant them the ability partake in his grace regardless of whether or not they were baptized?

I see an awful lot of “illogicality” in everything you say; and frankly I have no interest in pursuing that line of debate with anyone.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Rbt — Ouch. I thought it was clear I was a man when I referenced my wife as the Mormon…

Just giving you a hard time. I am a man though.

The ouch is mine! I type so fast I assume gender without checking! [you’ll notice a lot of typos and misspellings in my posts!]

Please accept my apology.

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I see an awful lot of “illogicality” in everything you say; and frankly I have no interest in pursuing that line of debate with anyone.

zerinus

The classic Zerinus riposte.

Notice the neener-neener to the POSTER not the answer to the QUESTIONS RAISED.

And then; the “this-is-below-me” finial, voila!

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Not true, really. My parents are part of huge network of people who extract names out of old records. Most often, the records of other churches. This is a church calling for them.

Behind the scenes, there are millions of dollars spent on computer equipment, applications and networks, for this purpose. I know this because I work in the IT field, in Utah, and have contacts that work both for the LDS church and in the LDS church, on this very project.

Spot on from Rebecca and DEAD SILENCE from Zerinus.

Of course it is a business, the whole mormon enterprise is a business (hotels with BoMs in the drawers!)

Poor Zdude, such a martinet for mormonism!

Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

Spot on from Rebecca and DEAD SILENCE from Zerinus.

Of course it is a business, the whole mormon enterprise is a business (hotels with BoMs in the drawers!)

Poor Zdude, such a martinet for mormonism!

Robert

Zerinus has me on ignore and only responds to me, and other evil mormon apostates, on “his terms”. Which is ok. Mainly I point out where he is wrong so other people who know, don’t take what he says as correct.

That particular hotel chain has BoMs in the drawers and porn on the television.

I agree that the whole mormon enterprise is a business. Everyone at the top is a businessman, and they have a lawyer in the top 12 to boot. The church itself is run like a business. The hotel is not owned by the LDS church though. Just some guy who is a mormon.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

But in the mormon church, ALL men are “priests in the order of Melchizidek” Am I correct??

Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

But in the mormon church, ALL men are “priests in the order of Melchizidek” Am I correct??

Robert

Worthy men, yes.

 

[chewchoo]

Not true, really. My parents are part of huge network of people who extract names out of old records. Most often, the records of other churches. This is a church calling for them.

Behind the scenes, there are millions of dollars spent on computer equipment, applications and networks, for this purpose. I know this because I work in the IT field, in Utah, and have contacts that work both for the LDS church and in the LDS church, on this very project.

This is in no way a sort of religious grass roots endeavor. It is run like a business and has the costs of a business.

are any of the pay-for genealogy website mormon owned? most of them have SLC addresses.

 

[RebeccaJ]

are any of the pay-for genealogy website mormon owned? most of them have SLC addresses.

The mormon church’s database and the information they put on their genealogical website is free.

As far as I know, all of the fee-based sites are private businesses. Though many are owned by people who are mormon.

 

[why_me]

I agree that the whole mormon enterprise is a business. Everyone at the top is a businessman, and they have a lawyer in the top 12 to boot. The church itself is run like a business. The hotel is not owned by the LDS church though. Just some guy who is a mormon.

This is a joke right? The LDS is a faith based church that has been very successful with its finances. However, any church which has property must take care of its business. The catholic church is no different. Do you really believe that the catholic church does not have lawyers and accountants managing its finances? Of course it does. And can one really claim that the RC Church is also not run like a business? In the parish that I belong to the church is very poor. Hard to meet endsmeat. However, the lds chapels have no problem with their finances in my neck of the woods.

How to explain it except that the worldwide lds church manages finances better than the Worldwide RC church.

 

[hosemonkey]

This is a joke right? The LDS is a faith based church that has been very successful with its finances. However, any church which has property must take care of its business. The catholic church is no different. Do you really believe that the catholic church does not have lawyers and accountants managing its finances? Of course it does. And can one really claim that the RC Church is also not run like a business? In the parish that I belong to the church is very poor. Hard to meet endsmeat. However, the lds chapels have no problem with their finances in my neck of the woods.

How to explain it except that the worldwide lds church manages finances better than the Worldwide RC church.

the mormon “church” does well financially because in order to be saved and to be in good standing, the poor duped mormon faithful must tithe 10 percent. Titheing is FIRST, before you pay your bill, you had better pony up the 10 percent. Nobody has ever twisted my arm in any parish that I have been a member of. It’s a racket.