The Redemption of the Dead (Provide Baptism for All Who Have Ever Lived) LDS (OPEN)

Ensign Magazine ^ | Nov. 1975, 97 | Boyd K. Packer

[dollarstwocents]

I am not going to start quoting scripture here because I really don’t know enough but .. what I do know is what I have been told.

I’ve been told that Baptism is for the LIVING.
Baptism is to show others that you have accepted Christ as your savior.
Baptism is a tool to bring others to Christ.

Baptism can also be a tool for mis-leading.

Catholics Baptise and hold your faith for Ransom .. until you submit your new-born to Their Baptism.

There is Nowhere in Scripture that approves of Infant Baptism!

How old was The Christ when he submitted himself to John for baptism? (I Know)

Baptism is declaring to the world that you have learned and know .. The Truth of God’s love.
A baby .. cannot know this!

What about the folks from the old testament?

Moses is an example.
What about them?
What about every other “Good Guy” that lived before Jesus came into our world?

Are you REALLY going to tell me that all of the good folks from the time Before Jesus are either in HELL, (awaiting a teaching about baptism or .. in Pergatory .. Which is supported “Nowhere” in the bible, to be Saved?)

I’m Sorry, Your wrong!
Stop this false teaching .. Please.

For anyone .. Who Cares:
There is going to be a resurection of the RIGHTEOUS as well as the UN-RIGHTEOUS!
WHY?

Baptism has Nothing to do with .. “Heart Condition”!

I apologise for my bad spelling .. I never finished school but I did read and understand my bible.

I read and I see .. So many postings, everywhere that are Plumb Wrong and Mis-leading .. either through ignorance or Just Plain Christian Hating.

Thank You for listening to my just plain ignorance.
I am stupid, I know but .. I LOVE JESUS!
2cents

[Tennessee Nana]

Hello n00b...

Are you saying that greyfoxx39 is wrong to disagree with “baptism for the dead” ???

That is what this thread is about...

Do you agree with the concept of baptism for the dead ???

[Tennessee Nana]

courtesy PING to # 22

I mentioned your name...

[greyfoxx39]

Welcome to FReeRepublic, two cents.

For anyone .. Who Cares: There is going to be a resurection of the RIGHTEOUS as well as the UN-RIGHTEOUS!
WHY?
Baptism has Nothing to do with .. “Heart Condition”!

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

There are differing beliefs as to the method of Christian baptism, but it is a tenet of most, if not all of them, and baptizing by proxy for the dead is not Biblical.

I agree with your statement that "I’ve been told that Baptism is for the LIVING."

Mt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

I suggest that you spend some time in the Religion Forum here and read the many posts that address this subject.

[dollarstwocents]

YES

[dollarstwocents]

NO!

I don’t agree with baptim of the dead!

You are going to see my first response to your question say .. Yes.
I posted to quickly on nthat.

Baptism for the dead is a Lie.

[Admin Moderator]

Don’t make personal attacks on the Religion forum.

[dollarstwocents]

I apologize

Not sure of the personel attack part but .. I apologize anyway.

[restornu]

at http://www.byu.tv/ there is an excellent discussion on this topic and a little on this book you posted.

to find it go to and click on
Fri May 8th
click on 7 AM on the Discussion of the D&C

You might need to download some sofeware

[Safrguns]

What harm does this practice do? It may offend you but does it harm any living human? If so, how?

What we desire is not always what we get... and what we say to others is not necessarily what is heard. Frequently we spend more time saying things to others AND OURSELVES that we are simply not cognizant of, but the message itself comes accross quite clear, even if it is subliminal at best.
HYPOTHETICAL Case in point: If I say I voted for Obama, the message most would hear is that I'm a communist... or at the very least a liberal democrat... Am I a lib? NO... DID I vote Obama? well of course I didn't.. but others would believe that I claimed to be a lib based on what I said, not what I intended to say.

What we practice in religious ceremony, regardless of the intention, conveys conviction about a core set of beliefs to others. IF those convictions are wrong, it does not matter how good your intentions were... you will be responsible for transmitting those convictions and beliefs to others. IF those convictions are wrong, you have become a stumbling block for the innocent, weak minded, or naive.

WHEN we act on our faith, whether it be prayer, baptism, or any form of worship or intercession, what we INTEND to accomplish or say is completely powerless compared to the actual affects of those actions... most of which are unknown.

In the case of baptisms for the dead, what is INTENDED is redemption or intercession for those who have passed... but because those that believe in it have also been told that their own standing with God is affected, there exists a more subtle "intention" which is the "works" that supposedly gains them position in heaven. On yet another front, it should be safe to say that we all care about loved ones, and what their fate is once they die... and we would all like to gain some assurance that they walk with God... and baptisms for the dead somehow gives us that assurance doesn't it? And finally, Isn't it important that we communicate to others that we do care about others dead or alive? Of course we do... and rituals such as this certainly serve that purpose as well dont they?

So what IS the true INTENTION of baptisms for the dead...
Is it for the dead? or is it for ourselves? Is it to make us feel better about others? or is it to make others to feel better about us?
OR, is it "All of the Above"?

NOW... regardless of the intention, what is the affect?
What is being said? and What are we teaching others and ourselves?

1. By engaging in and thereby teaching others that baptisms for the dead are viable and good, we are saying to others and ourselves that salvation is still possible after death, even though God says in His Word that it isn't. 2. We are also saying that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient for salvation if engagement in the practice is generally believed or perceived to be a requirement for salvation. 3. We are also saying that those who have died can actually hear our prayers, even though God has said that the dead hear not. If eternal judgment TRULY comes at the moment of death, and intercession is no longer possible, What harm is done to the person who doesn't know any better?... What harm is done to the person who learns from this practice that a commitment to Christ can be put off until later... even after death?

If one person believes a falsehood to be true that results in his/her eternity in hell, what harm is done to others? If 10,000 people believe in that same falsehood, will only the 10,000 suffer the same fate? or will 20,000 more suffer because of credibility they placed in the 10,000?

Someone once asked me if God loves us so much, how come He allows all of this suffering that goes on in the world?

My response was this...

If "suffering" could be measured and tabulated for EACH and EVERY person who EVER lived on the face of the earth for EVERY DAY of their life, and if you could sum up ALL of that suffering from Adam to the last man standing at Armageddon into a figure which represented the "total sufferings of mankind on earth", how would it compare to the sufferings of a SINGLE person in HELL for eternity???

I'm sure it would take a long time for the sufferings of a single person in hell to surpass the sufferings of all of mankind on earth... but eventually at some point it would happen... and at some point it would double... and triple... That's what eternity is all about.

How much "harm" is that?

[Old Mountain man]

In other words, no harm is done to any living person. From your post, it appears that the mainstream both ignores portions of the Bible and cannot stand it that we read the whole thing.

[Safrguns]

In other words, no harm is done to any living person.

No... I said just the opposite. If your practice teaches a fallacy that even a single LIVING person adapts which results in his failure to receive Christ, then the harm that is done just to that one person (including yourself) represents a level of suffering over time which exceeds the sufferings of all of mankind.

From your post, it appears that the mainstream both ignores portions of the Bible and cannot stand it that we read the whole thing.

I never said anything about ignoring anything in the bible, and I wish that you WOULD read the whole thing.
Maybe you can explain how I said the things you claim I said. Maybe you were reading a different post.

[dangus]

>> Catholics Baptise and hold your faith for Ransom .. until you submit your new-born to Their Baptism.

<<

What on earth are you talking about? Hold your faith for Ransom? Unlike Mormonism, the Catholic church doesn’t charge money for baptisms. (You can ask for special arrangements which might incur a cost.) And how does someone hold you faith for ransom?

>> There is Nowhere in Scripture that approves of Infant Baptism! <<

Contrarily, where does it say that children cannot be baptized? The bible states that when people were brought into the Church, their entire households were baptized at once. There’s no mention of excluding the children. And given that “households” referred to a vast extended family, including servants and their vast extended families (often over a hundred souls), it’s inconceivable that such households did not include children.

What’s contrary to the bible is the notion that children are exempted from the need to be cleansed from original sin.

So if the bible DID condemn the baptism of children, wouldn’t it be odd for their to be no guidance as to when a fitful age to baptize children would be? Frankly, I find this whole “age of reason” stuff to be quite laughable. If a kid reaches the age of reason at 15, and you baptize him at 13, than how is that better than baptizing children? If the age of reason is 13, and you don’t baptise your kid until he’s 15, then you run the risk of him dying while he is doomed to hell. THat’s some nice church you’ve got there.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church baptizes kids as soon as possible. (Yes, if a child is likely to die even in the delivery room, any Christian can baptize that child.) “But doesn’t that present the possibility that the child’s will doesn’t accord with his baptism?” you ask. “Yup,” answers the church, “that’s why all Catholics renew their baptism every Easter during the Rite of Lesser Exorcism.” And every Catholic proclaims their faith every week, through the recitation of the apostles creed.

This is the way we’ve been doing it for 2,000 years.

[Iscool]

You don’t have to be an intellectual to know what Jesus teaches in the scriptures...

Don’t call yourself stupid...Education has little to do with whether one is stupid or not...An educated person is,,,educated...Not necessarily smart...

The fact that you know more about what Jesus teaches pertaining to salvation than a majority of religious people in the world sounds like you are plenty smart enough to me...

You are smart enough to have faith in Jesus Christ and BELIEVE what He says...

[Iscool]

So if the bible DID condemn the baptism of children, wouldn’t it be odd for their to be no guidance as to when a fitful age to baptize children would be? Frankly, I find this whole “age of reason” stuff to be quite laughable. If a kid reaches the age of reason at 15, and you baptize him at 13, than how is that better than baptizing children? If the age of reason is 13, and you don’t baptise your kid until he’s 15, then you run the risk of him dying while he is doomed to hell. That’s some nice church you’ve got there.

That's because there is no risk of going to hell for not being baptized...No one in the scriptures gets baptized until FIRST, turning to Jesus...

That's why you do not baptize babies and young children...So there is no acceptable right age as to when a kid gets baptized other than it takes place when the said child willfully turns to Jesus...

Contrarily, where does it say that children cannot be baptized? The bible states that when people were brought into the Church, their entire households were baptized at once.

No the bible does not say that...It says on a couple of occasions that whole families were baptized and that the whole family believed...And THAT certainly excludes babies...Belief comes before baptism...

And it's the belief that gets you the salvation, not the baptism...

[Old Mountain man]

Your post ignores Peter’s teachings on Jesus preaching to the dead as well as Paul’s concerning baptism for the dead.

Further, since the mainstream denies that God is capable of revealing anything since the time of the Apostles, I do not expect that any mainstreamer will be able to acknowledge any of the LDS scriptures.

Too bad.

The argument that is in your post is fallacious. There is no harm done to anyone.

[Safrguns]

I’m not familiar with Peter’s teachings... enlighten me.
The teaching you refer to by Paul was his argument AGAINST baptisms for the dead. Paul poses a rhetorical question with an obvious answer, stating that the practice is futile.

As for LDS scriptures, they are nothing of the sort.
Plagarisms of the bible and self contradictory teachings about a race that never existed in a civilization that never existed. There is not a drop of Hebrew blood in any of the native American indians as evidenced by dna study of over 150 tribes across America. They are decedents of Asia. Absolutely nothing about LDS scripture is confirmed via archeological evidence, whereas evidence for the validity of the bible is overwhelming.

My post was a response to your question... what harm is done.
You can reject it all you want... thats up to you.
Based on your responses, I would have to conclude that your question was not a question at all... but rather a point to be made, or rather an excuse for practicing something which has no basis in the bible.

You only illustrate your close-mindedness by putting words and thoughts into my mouth that I did not say, and reject outright my arguments without any discussion or attempt on your part to UNDERSTAND my answer.

Understanding the answer does not commit you to agreeing with it. The same point can be made about ANY lie...
IF it is a lie, then it WILL do harm.
Just because you cannot see or understand the damage does not release you from the responsibility for it.

[Old Mountain man]

I completely reject each and every one of your arguments as a typical protestant fabrication.

[Safrguns]

Why am I not surprised?

[Old Mountain man]

Most mainstreamers are not surprised when people see through their specious arguments.