Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Ah this is why you never answered my question and you have shown yet again that LDS are incapable of empathy or even a glimmering of understanding on this.
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Zaff, I encounter this often in my Mormon family. You may as well try to get a cat to behave like a fish. It isn’t going to happen, not by any sort of questioning or argument. Mormons want everyone else to forsake their beliefs and convictions, in order to accommodate themselves. If you don’t then you must be anti-Mormon, or, be some sort of control freak. That is all there is to it.
Pray that God will one day find a heart that is open. Especially to this calling up of the dead to a veil that is thin…a weird conversation that creeps me out to no end. But then, Joseph Smith was all about the occult. Ghosts guarding buried treasure…I’d let this one lie, there is nothing good that is going to come from it.
Good night!
Pray that God will one day find a heart that is open. Especially to this calling up of the dead to a veil that is thin…a weird conversation that creeps me out to no end. But then, Joseph Smith was all about the occult. Ghosts guarding buried treasure…I’d let this one lie, there is nothing good that is going to come from it.
Good night!
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Well what bothers me the most about this is they always importune other to understand their point of view, see it as we see it, understand what we believe. I’ve seen many non-LDS that are able to articulate an understanding of their point of view. LDS on the other hand unilaterally refuse to do the same and none are able to articulate any understanding of others view point on this. They pretend to be here to learn and understand others faiths, to be open and respectful of their beliefs, but I see very little “two way” in this. On this baptism and temple marriage they are totally unwilling to see any point of view but their own. And to top it off they complain “you don’t understand” while at the same time do as Parker did here and imply only uglyness to those with a different view point…
In short if they refuse to even try to understand another, they should quite whining that they’re misunderstood.
I
Inishfree
Guest
I believe this too.
P
Peter_John
Guest
To articulate your point of view so that someone can understand your percepective within their own requires understanding how they think. The common LDS publications dealing with other faiths are often incorrect in their affirmations. In order to learn the perspectives of other faiths requires recognizing this, and that means rejcting something the LDS Church has said to begin with.
I
Inishfree
Guest
Parker,
You had stated in an earlier post that mormons have permission to baptise, sealing of the eternal family and celestial marriage for those who consent. I can understand this. If the family has been mormon for “three generations” as mentioned. Which is what this practice intends to do. Tracing children to grandparents.
In the case, where consent could not or would not be given. Wouldn’t the LDS consider this circumstance to be invalid? Thus removing names when asked?
You had stated in an earlier post that mormons have permission to baptise, sealing of the eternal family and celestial marriage for those who consent. I can understand this. If the family has been mormon for “three generations” as mentioned. Which is what this practice intends to do. Tracing children to grandparents.
In the case, where consent could not or would not be given. Wouldn’t the LDS consider this circumstance to be invalid? Thus removing names when asked?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
P
ParkerD
Guest
Inishfree,
I don’t know the answer about “removing names”, although the programming allows an entry of “needs permission” or an entry of “not available”. I suppose someone such as yourself could write to New Family Search support and explain your request, with enough information for them to find the person you were writing about in the database where you had seen it.
As far as an ordinance being “invalid”, as I had noted there is an understanding for all temple ordinances that for any of them to be “valid”, each one needs to be “sealed” by the Holy Ghost, meaning that indeed the person whose name was submitted has a “valid” ordinance only if they desire it sincerely in that they express their free will choice in the sphere of life where they are (the spirit world); I am supposing it also means that the proper channels would need to have been followed or else the person who didn’t follow the proper channels would need to make an earnest effort to correctly do that for that particular name by going back and seeing that it is done.
I
Inishfree
Guest
Thanks Parker!
S
soren1
Guest
Yes, indeed. To take this one step farther, to present an accurate account of certain teachings of Catholicism actually requires contradicting claims by LDS apostles and prophets.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
So you are both saying you can not understand why the LDS do this and/or empathize with how they feel about it?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Good luck with that. lol.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Ya I’ve noticed.
C
campeador
Guest
Maybe I’m missing something. It’s clear to me that the Bible prohibits us from communicating with the dead. Can you show me in the Bible where it says its OK to communicate with the dead?
You make a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions in this short paragraph. You couldn’t possibly have known Wilford Woodruff. You haven’t been communicating with the dead, have you?
Evil spirits can deceive. This is true, and the Bible gives us a way to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-3). Why didn’t Wilford Woodruff do that?
P
ParkerD
Guest
You indeed are missing something, evidently, since Jesus, and Peter, and James, and John saw Moses and Elias who were spirits but had once lived on the earth, and heard them talking and did not have qualms about that experience but instead considered it a blessed experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. (See Matthew 17:3, 4 in most Bibles)
No, but I had assumed you had read the paragraph that Lax16 had quoted from the account by Wilford Woodruff which was given when he was alive. There is such a thing as the written word by people who have died, plus a record of their talks, journals, and other sources. These are called primary historical sources.
Indeed they can. Since those spirits who communicated with Wilford Woodruff were saying they wanted
- to be baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, (this would be because of their faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, and their desire to avail themselves of the full blessings of His atoning grace and the power of His redemption through their repentance)
- to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost through the authority of the restored priesthood on earth–the gift that would enable them to become sanctified through the power of the Holy Ghost, just as Jesus taught that His disciples should do through the “baptism of fire”
So you see, Wilford Woodruff didn’t need to ask them about their testimony or their purpose, since they had expressed their testimony through what they asked him to do for them.
A student of the Bible does well to know that the word “Christ” means “the Anointed One”, which is a reference back to the prophecy of Isaiah which foretold to the house of Israel and through them to the Gentiles, of the words of Jesus, the Anointed One, who said:
(Isaiah 61:1) The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;"
A student of the Bible also does well to go from that reference in Isaiah 61:1 to the words of Peter in 1 Peter 3:19, to be able to understand that there is such a thing as “spirits in prison” but yet that Christ delivers from that “prison” just as He promised when He read those words from Isaiah 61:1 in the synagogue in Nazareth near the beginning of His earthly ministry ( See Luke 4:16-21).
Wishing peace to all readers, and joy in Christ who loves each of you with a deep and abiding love.
L
lax16
Guest
Hi Parker - I noticed that LDS focus a lot on baptism by immersion as necessary.
Why is this and also do LDS believe those who do not baptize by full immersion are in error?
thanks!
K
KathleenGee
Guest
It is difficult for me to understand why the Mormons will reject the early church fathers, recognize the unity of faith, and common liturgy in worship, yet see more religion in the Founding Fathers of America, given their own vices…that I don’t think the ECF or early Christians did.
I mean, I think the early church fathers, bishops, presbyters, Christians were more religious, especially in the face of death. The Founding Fathers were now free to start a new country.
I love our country. But our country is of this world. So I think the aims of Mormonism again have a different end as ours. Mormonism is based on becoming god and drawing on creatures, whereas for us, the new heaven and earth is where we are united with God, the angels and saints, including our loved ones who also have endured in the Lord.
I mean, I think the early church fathers, bishops, presbyters, Christians were more religious, especially in the face of death. The Founding Fathers were now free to start a new country.
I love our country. But our country is of this world. So I think the aims of Mormonism again have a different end as ours. Mormonism is based on becoming god and drawing on creatures, whereas for us, the new heaven and earth is where we are united with God, the angels and saints, including our loved ones who also have endured in the Lord.
C
campeador
Guest
My bible has Jesus actually speaking to Moses and Elijah which seems perfectly reasonable. Wouldn’t the creature speak to the Creator? And where exactly does it say in the Bible that they were spirits? Certainly at least Elijah was there bodily. Why not Moses as well?
I did read that account. It didn’t say anything about Wilford Woodruff being ‘familiar with the Holy Ghost’, or that he ‘didn’t seek them’, or that ‘those spirits were allowed to communicate their desires’, or that ‘he was prayerful to God’, or that ‘he was not considering them as some kind of intermediary’… not anywhere. You must have read into it more than what was actually there.
I do that sometimes myself.
Again, I read the account. I couldn’t find the words ‘Jesus Christ’ in the entire thing. Isn’t 1 John 4:1-3 clear about how to test the spirits?
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
These spirits said nothing that even remotely resembles this scripture passage. It seems Wilford Woodruff must have took them on their word. Not a good idea when it comes to spirits.
Not the first time you’ve tried to sidestep the question with some obscure and non-related Bible passages.
Well done.
Thanks, and peace and joy and love to you as well.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Lax16,
It’s fairly clear to some students of the New Testament that baptisms done then were by immersion (completely submersing the person in the water such as in a river).
It also makes sense to some that since baptism is being “born again” by water", then since our original birth was coming out of a womb surrounded by water, that God is teaching through this teaching of baptism and being “born again” that a person really is becoming “reborn” or having a “second birth”.
It doesn’t sound to me like that teaching comes across in a baptism that is not by full immersion, but then since the students or parents are basically choosing the method they like best then I guess it is what suits them and they should have their free will choice about it. It would be just as or more important what they do with their personal commitment level, actions, keeping the commandments, acting like they have really been “born again” and are a new creature and a son of God or a daughter of God and have been spiritually reborn, as would the mode of baptism itself (although of course the authority itself for the ordinance is an issue that is set aside within this conversation).
All in all, the Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that baptism by immersion is important as the divinely inspired method of baptism.
S
soren1
Guest
ParkerD,
To make my argument clear, I will spell out some distinctions that you probably understand already. These three propositions are different:
- The New Testament Church baptized by immersion.
- Immersion is an essential feature of valid baptism.
- The New Testament Church believed that immersion is an essential feature of valid baptism.
As a preliminary observation, the reason why NT scholars agree that baptism was by immersion is not because the actual New Testament documents prove this. The word “baptize” has too broad a range of meanings to simply require it, and so context must be consulted. The clearest evidence for immersion is that Jesus “comes up” from the water – and that’s about it. That is a very good piece of evidence, but hardly a knock-down, show stopper. It is suggestive, not demonstrative.
But if it is not demonstrative, where does the scholarly consensus come from? It is because other Christian documents, external to the New Testament, establish it. Yet by a Mormon account, these texts are apostate, and contain other teachings about the form of baptism incompatible with Mormonism. The Didache even says that baptism by pouring is acceptable when immersion is not available. This likely refers to situations where Christians are in hiding and don’t have means available to them. Apart from assuming Mormon doctrine about the great apostasy, there is no reason to cherry-pick one part of the Didache’s teaching, claim it is normative, and then reject the other part as apostate. The inconsistency is that one must make the case for immersion baptism as an historical fact by giving credit to texts that Mormons must later impeach in order to maintain the inference that immersion is necessary.
Your argument about the resurrection symbolism is good as an argument for immersion, but not as an argument for Mormon baptism. This is because there is at least one other ritual aspect of early baptism, also important to understanding baptism’s meaning, that was not restored through Joseph Smith. This makes it possible to impeach LDS baptism on the same standards that Mormons use to reject non-immersion baptisms.
In the early Church, baptism was normally performed not only my immersion, but also in living water, that is, water that was flowing as opposed to an enclosed pool such as is used in most LDS baptisms. This follows from the classical baptismal understanding of texts like Jn 4:10-11, Zech 14:8, Rev 7:17, and many more passages that attribute both spiritual and ritual significance to water that is flowing. (This extends to sprinkling rituals as well as immersions; see Lev 14:51-52.)
Because the baptisms recorded in the NT are all explicitly performed in living water, a river or a fountain, and since the early Church put importance on living water (more it seems in the Didache than on immersion), the cumulative case for living-water baptisms is surprising stronger than for immersion, though both are persuasive.
Living water also has a pedagogical importance. While immersion emphasizes the aspect of burial before resurrection, living water represents the aspect of birth. The fluids in the womb are living waters, and so the use of living water shows the convert emerging from a new fetal state, born-again.
Thus, to argue from baptismal symbolism, a consistent case for Mormon Baptism must involve some standard of determining which symbolic aspects are essential, and which are not. It will not do to assume one set of standards for demands to necessity of immersion and another set of standards to dismiss living water. If you can provide some non-arbitrary principles to differentiate them, then you can make a case. Otherwise, you must admit that your argument ultimately rests on assuming LDS authority, and hence reduces to an simple assertion.
- Status