Posted on 05/08/2009 7:31:47 AM PDT by Colofornian
That would be my question on this concept. What if someone was adamant in their denial of Christ right up till they died? Is the posthumous baptism because their heart was certain to have changed after they learned the truth, post death? Or is it more like, they are getting saved, like it or not,,, that wouldnt make sense to me.
Also, people forget that knowing the true Jesus is just one side of the coin (John 17:3). Twice, Jesus condemns people and leaves them with an eternal write-off of "I never knew you." The question then is: Does Jesus have an intimate relationship with us? (Or do we shine Him on like a former date?)
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 10:1 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”
Exactly. What's worse, though, is that the Mormon church has redefined itself as "the Way, the truth, and the life." Consider these words from the cousin of Mitt Romney's father -- who at the time was one of the highest three LDS leaders:
"This Church is the ensign on the mountain spoken of by the Old Testament prophets. It is the way, the truth, and the life" (Conference Report, April, 1961, pg. 119). Other citations from former lds "prophets": ...we are the only people that know how to save our progenitors, how to save ourselves, and how to save our posterity in the celestial kingdom of God;...we in fact are the saviours of the world..." (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.163).
"... mortals have to be saviors on Mount Zion, acting by proxy for the dead." (LDS "prophet" Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 325)
"We know something about our progenitors, and God has taught us how to be saviors for them by being baptized for them in the flesh, that they may live according to God in the Spirit." (LDS "prophet" John Taylor, March 20,1870, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14, 3/20/1870)
If they never made their intention known, how can they now be baptized in Christ? If no man comes to the Father except through Christ, how can a dead body, which no longer has a spirit, be consecrated in Christ? How can someone, whose views were in direct opposition to LDS theology, ie Jews, Hindus, etc be welcomed into Christianity? If Jesus is a gentleman who knocks at the door, how can you co-opt a spirit in direct contravention to its expressed physical life? Since the spirit of the individual is no longer with us and only God has the power of life, how can one be presumptuous to convey life through “Membership” in LDS?
Exactly. Somebody tell us how this is distinct from the lds church searching world-wide to make a comprehensive list of the following:
(a) All unburied cadavers -- upon which -- instead of conducting proxy baptisms, they just immerse them directly -- with a religious ritual attached to it?
(b) All people in a coma state? (They could just contact the caregiver, explain they want to give them an "immersive bath" as part of their loving, caring "religious service" -- and in the process, they do their religious ritual thing.)
“We both would agree that Jesus talked much about serving the living — the poor, the widow, the orphan, the lost sheep, right? So what would happen in the world if all religions obsessed with the dead as much as Mormons do?”
Again, im not Mormon, but just my observation is that i dont know another religion where dang near every kid goes on that mission they all do, and they work their little patoots off. Also, if you visit Utah, they seem to build an extremely clean society, you dont see exactly see a lot of starving widows and orphans, bums either. I simply dont believe their religion, at all, but its more than a bit excessive to say they ignore the condition of the living.
And be a little careful of Paul, he never even met met Jesus. Its ok to be skeptical of some of his words.
“It is the way, the truth, and the life”, seriously in contradiction to scripture.
“we in fact are the saviours of the world” Again?
“taught us how to be saviors for them by being baptized for them in the flesh” Baptism is an outward witness of evidence of ones faith in Jesus Christ and his resurrection. You are acknowledging that you have fallen short of the Glory of God but that through God's gift we can have everlasting life and attempt to lead an upright life and go forth as a witness to his gift of salvation. It is not a prerequisite to the Kingdom of God.
That's not what Luke reported as to what happened to Paul -- by Paul's own words...and Paul wrote over half of the New Testament:
Acts 22:
6"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?' 8" 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. 9My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. 10"'What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. "'Get up,' the Lord said, 'and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.'
Acts 26:
12"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' "'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Acts 9:
3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." 7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
See, thats kind of what my concern was, without knowing exactly how to put it. Well stated.
Well, i meant when Jesus was alive and walking the earth. Paul was alone when this “revelation” occurred. Thomas Paine commented on the concept of truth being revealed to one man. He wrote something along the lines of
“suppose i told you that as i sat here, a hand magically appeared, took my pen and wrote these words with no help from me”. Skepticism would be called for. Fantastic claims need fantastic proof. Furthermore, Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for asking to see the nail scarred hands. Therefore, its no crime for us to use caution with the words of Paul.
Just a little food for thought. In a sense, the proof of Paul speaking for the lord is the same as the proof of that first Mormon who claimed to show up with an extra part if the Bible that no one else ever saw before.
Theres a lot to know, thats for sure. And dont be offended, i do believe in Jesus.
Yes, but teens aren't expected to be knee-deep in genealogical research. So there's not much competition for time that's being built into (yet) focusing on the living vs. the dead.
Also, if you visit Utah, they seem to build an extremely clean society,...
(Have you been to many segments in downtown Salt Lake City?)
...you dont see exactly see a lot of starving widows and orphans...
And how is Utah distinct from many states in this regard? (Name me 10 states where you see a lot of starving widows & orphans)
...bums, either...
They're there (SLC). And just because SLC is a leader in white crime vs. homelessness being less of a problem only = a different "revelation" of humanity...nothing sacrosanct. Utah is also usually in the top ten for suicide; high in depression; ranked in the top 15-20 for sex offenders per population, etc.
I simply dont believe their religion, at all, but its more than a bit excessive to say they ignore the condition of the living.
I didn't say that Utah "ignores" its living, or that Mormons do. I said the dead are a distraction from the living. That's a degree of "moreness" (if there's such a word) -- that's not a statement saying ALL Mormons are doing this either/or framing you're inserting into my mouth.
[You need to understand that perhaps only 20% of Mormons are temple Mormons...therefore, over 3/4 of all Mormons aren't even bothering (any more) -- at least to any degree of great depth -- with these temple rituals. Therefore, my statements in this thread aren't even aimed at the bulk of Mormons]
No, that's my point - they are NOT being "dead dunked" because it ISN'T REAL. Sure, it's disrespectful, I supposed, but it doesn't have any real effect, because it doesn't actually do anything.
I'm not a Mormon - I'm an evangelical Christian, and I have a rather low opinion of Mormonism, but they can pretend to dead dunk me all they want after I'm dead, just like some voodoo lady in Haiti can do the same. It won't matter, because in both cases I'm already dead and in heaven and whatever silly rituals they want to engage in can't touch me.
You can make the argument that it's the equivalent of spitting on a grave, and there's some merit to that, since spitting on someone's grave doesn't really accomplish anything either. They can spit on my grave all they want once I'm gone too though; it doesn't hurt me any.
Well, to answer this I return to the book of Acts ('tis a great book; ya might want to spend more time there):
The Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)
Whenever anyone -- be it Paul, or Joseph Smith, or somebody else, makes a claim whereby they cite words supposedly coming from a risen Jesus, what noble example from history do we have to follow? (Why, we have the noble Bereans.)
What did they do? Everytime Paul made a claim, they DAILY "examined the Scriptures" [at that time, the OT] "to see if what Paul said was true."
IOW, you ALWAYS examine the alleged newer revelation by the older revelation. Mormons do -- and have always done the exact reverse. They start with the supposed newer revelation -- and then they try to proof-text & squeeze the older revelations into the mold & lens of the newer ones.
So when this Smith "prophet" tells us that Jesus was the "spirit brother" of Lucifer, where do we go to authenticate that? Do we just take Smith at his word?
Also, the gospel doesn't change.
The Jews believed that good news was embodied in a person, the Messiah.
The early Christians believed that good was was embodied in a person, the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
And the Mormons believe that the gospel is one lost by Jesus Christ and his church, that all apostacized, that Jesus lied & false prophesied when he claimed the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against his church (Mt 16:18). 1500+ yrs is quite a lot of "prevailing."
So the Mormons believe the "gospel" is now simply the restoration of a "prophet" and a "church" (It's no longer primarily about the person of Jesus Christ) -- and that this process began with an angel named "Moroni" appearing to Smith.
The apostle Paul expressed great concern that attempts would be made to change this gospel, even concerned that an "angel" would attempt to do it:
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9)
Barking up the wrong tree there. Have YOU ever been to Salt Lake City? Or the Small towns around that state? Its like America in the 50s. Go to any town in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, etc, and you’ll see a hit parade of drunkeness, bums, homeless, etc. Idaho is nice, but its just flat too cold for em.
Its funny, your comment about have i been to downtown SLC. You seem to hold mormons to a standard of absolute perfection and then say they dont achieve it. The essential point is that its irrational to say that SLC isnt light years cleaner than any other large city in the West. Id like to hear your candidate in that competition.
Like i said, i cant make myself believe their theology, but they don’t neglect their society by any measure. The Only main problem that state has is the Liberal non-mormons trying to advocate gay things,,Abortion,,womens lib,, etc,,. The prob there is basically the degree to which they are required to conform to the Democrat liberalism coming out of DC.
And that was my point about the kids, they are working out in communities witnessing,, going overseas and building churches, etc. Clearly they arent distracted. By any sane measure the mormon church is good for people here. Now Id happily chime in with you if you wanna criticize their theology though. But attacking their results here on earth is silly. Thats their strong suit.
And this feel crazy for me, having to defend mormons. Im defending their works, not their theology.
eloquent
Agree. If they “baptize” me after im dead. Its purely meaningless, like the other person who gave the example of some African trib consecrating my soul to the great tree spirit. Meaningless.
I think it's a bit more than that because usually when Paul talks about baptism, he's not describing it as a work or as an ordinance or even as man's activity. I would encourage you to re-read Scriptures on baptism -- and note the level of passivity -- of man receiving baptism. Here's an example, Romans 6:
3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Paul says that when we were baptized, we were baptized into the death of JC. (Now, that's not something you or I can do -- we merely receive it). My main point is that whatever active role we attach to man in the process of baptism, God is ever more active within that inwardly & behind the scenes that we realize.
It is not a prerequisite to the Kingdom of God.
I think we need a balanced perspective here. On the one hand, you're right just looking at 2 NT Scriptures -- the one where Jesus promised the thief he would be with him in paradise. (I don't think the thief was baptized). And secondly, Mark 16:16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [Note Mark DOESN'T say, whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.]
Still, I don't think we should ignore our deep need to be cleansed in the Lord. Recall the words of Jesus to Peter: "No" said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." (John 13:8)
(Keep in mind how Isaiah felt when he was directly in the presence of the holy, righteous, just Lord in Isaiah 6...His reaction was that he was "undone" -- and He knew he was a man "of unclean lips" -- whereby those lips were immediately cleansed.)
The import of baptism isn't its ritualistic significance. The import is that God knows we need inner cleansing, and He chooses to speak into our lives using the most common element in the world -- using the most common element in the world already used naturalistically for cleansing.
What scriptures were the berans comparing to that existed *at at the time of Paul*? And surely you arent suggesting that Paul merely kept preaching the teaching of Jesus from when he walked alive with the 12 Disciples?? He clearly made radical departures.
The teachings of Jesus are the best way to the savior. And it amazing how much earthly construct falls away when you go that route. Very clarifying, although Popes, etc,, don’t like you to do that very much.
One of my friends suggests that Mitt Romney is behind this.
“Paul says that when we were baptized, we were baptized into the death of JC. (Now, that’s not something you or I can do — we merely receive it). My main point is that whatever active role we attach to man in the process of baptism, God is ever more active within that inwardly & behind the scenes that we realize.”
Then 100 years earlier, when John the baptist Baptised Jesus, was Jesus being baptised into the death of himself?
And of course its symbol, ritual,,lovely and useful, but you dont have to be baptised. You simply have to accept Jesus sacrifice in your heart.
The athiest driving down the road. Finally accepts, sincerely in their heart. They rush home to tell mom and get killed in a wreck on the way. No baptism doesnt mean they arent saved.
Thats my point about sticking to the words of Jesus. He said if you believe in him, thats the only thing that gets you there. He didnt demand any special ritual. They are good of you can, to teach, to publically affirm, etc,,, but they arent the core of anything. That silliness leads to post mortem baptism, last rites, sprinking babies, etc. Fine of its for ritual, but many believe its critical to the soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.