Wow there are a lot of Mormon (LDS) threads and members here

[dianaiad]

well, I think it differently. I think people choose to walk away from the truth because it goes against what they are used to or something they dont want to do (confession comes to mind as one thing that I always here from people who are not Catholic), just like when all the people were walking away from Christ when he was creating a miracle to feed everyone with only 5 loaves and 2 fish…even one of his apostles walked away…

Of course you think that the Protestants are wrong…You are Catholic. That doesn’t mean, however, that THEY think that they are “walking away from the truth” They believe that they are walking away from falsehood. Or at least the ones who leave because of doctrinal differences do.

 

[StevieD]

Thank you. Catholics are among the most decent and honorable people on the planet. Unfortunately the Mormon apostates and anti-Mormons here give them a bad name. Anybody coming here and reading these threads will think that all the Catholics think the same way as they do, which of course they don’t. They are a negligible minority who happen to have found a voice here to vent their anti-Mormonism. They don’t represent the vast majority of Catholics at all.

And by the way, be wary of those who have just joined the forum and have few posts to their credit. They are often the same folks registering under multiple names. They try to give the impression that they are a bigger crowd than they are, or reinforce their own statements by patting themselves on the back. On some boards registering under multiple names is banned. I wish they would adopt the same policy here.

zerinus

If you are referring to me, I can assure you that I am registered under one name only and am not “patting myself on the back” - I can assure you that others are doing the patting.

 

[appaloosablue]

Lamb of God Girly,
I noticed when I happened upon this thread, that no one answered your very good questions quoted above. Here goes a try:

In answer to the last question, when the LDS talk about the “sealing” of families, the concept extends not just to an immediate family, but backward in time to all of our ancestral lines who are progenitor families, and eventually that “sealing” of families needs to be worked out all the way back to Adam and Eve. Mind-boggling? You bet! How possible? We believe that perhaps the most important work to be done on earth during the thousand years of the Millenium, will be temple work for the spirits who lived on earth before our time, including those “sealings”. There will be those helping find records or to re-establish records so that every person who has ever lived is accounted for.

So, our “family” will include a vast number of people, whom we will love and cherish exactly like we do our immediate family now. We will also love and cherish every other family line who are descendants of Adam and Eve, even those who don’t accept these beliefs and who choose a different path–we’ll still love them, perhaps feel badly that they chose their different path, but love them and yet respect their choice.

I don’t think there is an intent of a sense of “fear” about sealings not being done and people getting left out because of that, if a person really understands the doctrine. The work is all-inclusive. A young couple getting married is encouraged to be married in the temple and thus be “sealed” in their marriage so their children are automatically “sealed” to them when they are born, but this encouragement isn’t to try and instill fear. It is to try and encourage covenant-making that will help the marriage to last, and help the parents try as hard as they possibly can to teach their children just as the children of Israel had a covenant and were taught to teach their children to live by the covenant (Deutoeronomy 6):

6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

It seems that the “true” church on earth has all these provisions on earth, i.e. sealing, baptism by proxy, marriage by proxy, etc. to make up for what their god has lacked in planning. This will probably not come off like I am trying to make it sound and will spark a whole bunch of responses. It just seems to me that if my God, Creator of Heaven and earth, needed this much help, from me, in making sure that all people get to the right ‘place’ there is something lacking. And it also made me stop and wonder if you baptize, marry and so on by proxy are you not violating that individuals free will, a thing that even God respects and will not violate?

 

[MelanieAnne]

It seems that the “true” church on earth has all these provisions on earth, i.e. sealing, baptism by proxy, marriage by proxy, etc. to make up for what their god has lacked in planning. This will probably not come off like I am trying to make it sound and will spark a whole bunch of responses. It just seems to me that if my God, Creator of Heaven and earth, needed this much help, from me, in making sure that all people get to the right ‘place’ there is something lacking. And it also made me stop and wonder if you baptize, marry and so on by proxy are you not violating that individuals free will, a thing that even God respects and will not violate?

Rituals conducted in the temple by proxy are not valid if they are not accepted by the person(s) for which the rituals have been performed. There is no violation of free will.

As to whether God needs all this help, that’s another question entirely.

 

[appaloosablue]

Rituals conducted in the temple by proxy are not valid if they are not accepted by the person(s) for which the rituals have been performed. There is no violation of free will.

As to whether God needs all this help, that’s another question entirely.

Then why do it? Thats like there are never any real consequences–there is just and endless supply of ‘get out of jail free’ cards.

As for God needing this help–I was trying to point out that God does not need our help in any of His plans. He wants our love and obedience.

 

[zerinus]

Hi, Tmaque

I was just looking at the past threads, and came across this one that I seem to have completely missed. Things happen fast on these boards, and you can easily miss something.

Zerinius,

I am a “Mormon apostate”. It seems you are guilty of stereotyping as well.

I love LDS people, I just happen to think they are dead wrong. . . .

I am sorry to hear that. I happen to know without a doubt that it is true.

Don’t worry Majick. I’m sure in the next version of the Book of Mormon they’ll remove those “abomination” words.

LDS doctrine is like the weather in Utah. Don’t like it? Don’t worry it’ll change soon.

Again, I have to disagree with you. I am sorry that you think that way. I don’t believe it is true.

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

Then why do it? Thats like there are never any real consequences–there is just and endless supply of ‘get out of jail free’ cards.

As for God needing this help–I was trying to point out that God does not need our help in any of His plans. He wants our love and obedience.

We believe that all any of us gets is one full and complete chance to accept the gospel. But WE don’t get to decide when someone else has had that chance. We don’t get to decide that one door slam is a complete rejection…nor do we believe that those who died without having a chance to hear about Christ, much less a chance to hear the full truth about Him, must be condemned simply because they weren’t lucky. As to “God needing help…” No. He doesn’t. But WE do, and that which we CAN do, we must do.

 

[appaloosablue]

We believe that all any of us gets is one full and complete chance to accept the gospel. But WE don’t get to decide when someone else has had that chance. We don’t get to decide that one door slam is a complete rejection…nor do we believe that those who died without having a chance to hear about Christ, much less a chance to hear the full truth about Him, must be condemned simply because they weren’t lucky. As to “God needing help…” No. He doesn’t. But WE do, and that which we CAN do, we must do.

We cannot and must not presume to know God’s plan for those who did not have a chance to learn of Jesus in this life. God is a merciful and loving God, but just and He will not punish those who did not get the chance. It is, however, preposterous to believe that WE need to do this saving. I cannot save the soul of someone that has died. Death cuts the line between this world. End of Story.

 

[zerinus]

We cannot and must not presume to know God’s plan for those who did not have a chance to learn of Jesus in this life.

Why not? It is like everything else. We know as much about anything as God has chosen to reveal to us. Just because God hasn’t revealed it to you (Catholics), it does not mean that He cannot have revealed it to us either. Remember, this is a new dispensation of the gospel, with additional revelation and scripture which tells us things that we didn’t know before.

God is a merciful and loving God, but just and He will not punish those who did not get the chance. It is, however, preposterous to believe that WE need to do this saving.

That is a very Protestant like comment. There is certainly something that WE need to do to save ourselves (i.e. submitting to baptism and other sacraments of the gospel for salvation); why shouldn’t we be able to do the same vicariously for the dead, should God command it? Haven’t you heard of the word vicar? In the Catholic Church a vicar is “a Roman Catholic priest who acts for another higher-ranking clergyman” (WordNet). The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ, meaning that he acts “vicariously” on behalf of Christ. He stands in place of Christ. The Wikipedia article on “vicar” defines the word as follows:

In the broadest sense, a vicar (IPA: /'vɪkər/; from the Latin vicarius) is a representative, anyone acting “in the person of” or agent for a superior (compare “vicarious” in the sense of “at second hand”). In this sense, the title is comparable to lieutenant, literally the “place-holder”. Usually the title appears in a number of Christian ecclesiastical contexts, but in the Holy Roman Empire a local representative of the emperor, perhaps an archduke, might be styled “vicar”.

The principle of vicarious work is the very theological foundation of Christianity. Jesus suffers vicariously on our behalf so that we might not suffer if we repent. We too perform the sacraments vicariously on behalf of the dead in our temples according to the commandment of the Lord. Nothing strange about that if you understand Christian theology.

I cannot save the soul of someone that has died. Death cuts the line between this world. End of Story.

We don’t claim we can save anybody’s soul either. God has revealed that baptism is a necessary requirement for salvation; and He has commanded us that we can perform this sacrament vicariously in our temples on behalf of the dead. The choice to accept or reject it still remains with them. Just as we can’t save the living, we don’t claim we can save the dead either. The choice is ultimately is theirs.

Don’t Catholics pray for the dead? Don’t they believe that that prayer can have a beneficial effect for their souls? Do you believe that you are “saving them” by praying on their behalf? Our baptism for the dead is not that much different.

zerinus

 

[dianaiad]

We cannot and must not presume to know God’s plan for those who did not have a chance to learn of Jesus in this life. God is a merciful and loving God, but just and He will not punish those who did not get the chance. It is, however, preposterous to believe that WE need to do this saving. I cannot save the soul of someone that has died. Death cuts the line between this world. End of Story.

…curious: where in the scriptures that Catholics accept as such is there any reference to God not punishing those who ‘did not get the chance?’

 

[ricko]

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

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 (Gaudium et Spes 22).

See Romans 2:14-16. “When gentiles who do not have the law keep it as by instinct, these men although withoutthe law serve as a law for themselves. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts. Their conscience bears witness together with that law and their thoughts will acuse or defend them on the day when, in accordance with the gospel I preach, God will pass judgment on the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

The baptism of the dead is not biblical nor necessary as the above passage indicates. Christ will judge those without the law by their conscience and thoughts. Death is too late.

Catholics pray for the souls who “have died in Christ” but still require purification before entering heaven. Even if we did nothing for them they would still get to heaven. We cannot “save” them with our prayers.

 

[appaloosablue]

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

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 (Gaudium et Spes 22).

See Romans 2:14-16. “When gentiles who do not have the law keep it as by instinct, these men although withoutthe law serve as a law for themselves. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts. Their conscience bears witness together with that law and their thoughts will acuse or defend them on the day when, in accordance with the gospel I preach, God will pass judgment on the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

The baptism of the dead is not biblical nor necessary as the above passage indicates. Christ will judge those without the law by their conscience and thoughts. Death is too late.

Catholics pray for the souls who “have died in Christ” but still require purification before entering heaven. Even if we did nothing for them they would still get to heaven. We cannot “save” them with our prayers.

 

[zerinus]

The baptism of the dead is not biblical nor necessary as the above passage indicates. Christ will judge those without the law by their conscience and thoughts. Death is too late.

1 Corinthians 15:29

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

 

[majick275]

1 Corinthians 15:29

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

the bible doesn’t tell us who “they” are but it is important to note that ti doesn’t say “we” in this case, nor does it speak of this as required or even important. it merely references some other people engaging in an undefined practice in teaching about the resurrection of all. the message of this verse isn’t to baptize dead people. it is that all will rise.

 

[mormonboy]

the bible doesn’t tell us who “they” are but it is important to note that ti doesn’t say “we” in this case, nor does it speak of this as required or even important. i**t merely references some other people engaging in an undefined practice **in teaching about the resurrection of all. the message of this verse isn’t to baptize dead people. it is that all will rise.

I think this verse is as clear cut as it could be. it may be undefined for you but for the LDS it is well-explained.

I also think the message of the verse represents both, all will rise, and all will receive the chance to be baptized.

 

[ricko]

“It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). There are no “second chances” after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known.

There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead. Some Mormon writers assert that some Christian commentators have discussed the possibility of a kind of “baptism for the dead” among some in the Corinthian community in Paul’s time. But these commentators do not suggest that the practice was accepted or mainstream. Given the silence of Scripture and tradition, we conclude rightly when we see this behavior as another aberration within a community of believers already soundly scolded by Paul for its lack of charity, its factionalism, its immorality, its abuse of the Eucharist, and other matters.

Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that.

The case against baptism for the dead is also made by the Mormon scriptures themselves. The current Mormon doctrine on baptism for the dead is quite unlike what Joseph Smith first taught. As in other cases, the Book of Mormon becomes an important tool for the Christian apologist. It contradicts much Mormon theology, and baptism for the dead is no exception.

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: “For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

In other words, those who die as non-Mormons go to hell, period. There’s no suggestion of a later, vicarious admission into the Mormon church.

We also see present-day Mormon doctrine contradicted in 2 Nephi 9:15: “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.”

It is unforunate that Smith abandoned his own, earlier doctrine. It would not have made the Mormon scriptures any more authentic, but it would have prevented millions of futile Mormon proxy baptisms from being performed.
Catholic Answers

 

[zerinus]

“It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). There are no “second chances” after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known.

There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead. Some Mormon writers assert that some Christian commentators have discussed the possibility of a kind of “baptism for the dead” among some in the Corinthian community in Paul’s time. But these commentators do not suggest that the practice was accepted or mainstream. Given the silence of Scripture and tradition, we conclude rightly when we see this behavior as another aberration within a community of believers already soundly scolded by Paul for its lack of charity, its factionalism, its immorality, its abuse of the Eucharist, and other matters.

Although we have no way of knowing for sure who was engaging in this practice, it is certain that Paul was not referring to orthodox Christians baptizing the dead. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on that.

The case against baptism for the dead is also made by the Mormon scriptures themselves. The current Mormon doctrine on baptism for the dead is quite unlike what Joseph Smith first taught. As in other cases, the Book of Mormon becomes an important tool for the Christian apologist. It contradicts much Mormon theology, and baptism for the dead is no exception.

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: “For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

In other words, those who die as non-Mormons go to hell, period. There’s no suggestion of a later, vicarious admission into the Mormon church.

We also see present-day Mormon doctrine contradicted in 2 Nephi 9:15: “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.”

It is unforunate that Smith abandoned his own, earlier doctrine. It would not have made the Mormon scriptures any more authentic, but it would have prevented millions of futile Mormon proxy baptisms from being performed.
Catholic Answers

Since when did Catholic Answers become the undisputed authority on Christian doctrine? Unfortunately it is not. The scriptural language is unmistakable and clear:

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?

Nothing further need be said after that.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

Since when did Catholic Answers become the undisputed authority on Christian doctrine? Unfortunately it is not. The scriptural language is unmistakable and clear: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?Nothing further need be said after that.

zerinus

Catholic Answers is in complete alignment with the Church that has been given authority to interpret the Word of God. Not to zerinus, or a heretical organization that arose in the 19th century.

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

The passage is talking about a practice that arose, not one that was ever taught as doctrinal correctness by any Apostle, or Jesus Christ.

Nothing to be said after that.

 

[ricko]

Since when did Catholic Answers become the undisputed authority on Christian doctrine? Unfortunately it is not. The scriptural language is unmistakable and clear:

Since God gave it the authority 2,000 years ago to teach the gospel. The scriptural language that says so is unmistakable and clear.

 

[majick275]

Since when did Catholic Answers become the undisputed authority on Christian doctrine? Unfortunately it is not. The scriptural language is unmistakable and clear:

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?

Nothing further need be said after that.

zerinus

the Catholic church produced the Bible, the New testament in particular and also preserves the Sacred Tradition that provides necessary context to these writings. in that sense the Catholic church (under the guidance of the holy spirit) IS the authority on what this means. yes the language here IS unmistakable! It does NOT support the LDS position. I find it very interesting that the BoM (alleged to contain the fullness of the gospel) doesn’t speak of baptism for the dead at all! It goes into great detail on the subject of baptism even condemning the catholic practice of infant baptism in the strongest possible terms but no mention whatsoever of baptisms for the dead…or eternal marriage for that matter…yet LDS claim these to be “restorations” that are essential to salvation and exaltation.