Replies

"Do you believe living in a Communist and atheistic country can prevent a sincere seeker of God from hearing the truth?"

Yes. What you're describing is theory-craft and a type of extremism. If order for your point to be proven you have to maintain that no one through out time has never been denied access to the teachings of God if they wanted it.

The phrase "you don't know what you don't know" is true in the is case. I have met people even in the US that knew nothing about God. They had never heard of simple terms like "revelation" before. But they became interested after hearing about God.

What about even the Romans during the time Christ? They were purposefully kept from knowing the truth about Christ. It wasn't their fault, God kept it from them for a reason. But they still needed to have their fair chance of hearing the truth.

How much more isolated have people been in 3rd world countries?

The point is, I've come across many evangelicals in the past that try this line of reasoning. They don't have a viable answer for it, so they make up this unrealistic explanation and call it good.

Me: What about people that lived and died without ever hearing about Christ?
Evangelicals: Nobody in the whole history of the world has ever not had the chance to hear about Christ ....who wanted it!

It's unrealistic and quite frankly it's down right silly. Mainly because I can compare this evangelical theory with the real world. You can't, because it doesn't match up. It doesn't work. Any rational person can see that.

"It's incredibly stupid and false."

The irony.

"Smith set out to reform the Bible into his own perverted interpretation of the gospel and the one he preached is accursed because it is NOT the one Paul delivered through the Holy Spirit. JS was a con man, horn dog who broke every commandment God ever gave. Following after him is a sure way to join him in hell."

"and all the other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the Bible and their creeds." And let me add, if anyone refuses to accept their interpretations they will condemn you to hell. (And they will say mean things about you using hyperbolic language.)

"Scripture is talking about is the souls of those in paradise before the death of Jesus and that, when he died, he lead them into heaven."

This is the EWC (Evangelical Wash Cycle) at work. The scripture is very clear on what's going on here and you can't get around it. You can spin it all you want but the text is plain.

1 Pet 4:
...this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,

1 Pet 3:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

These were the people who died in the great flood. And Christ went and preached (taught) them in the spirit world. Noah was one man, he could not have taught everyone in the world. Therefore, there were people who never heard the gospel and Jesus taught them after they died. They have a fair chance to accept or reject Him.

He preached to the dead the same way He preached to the living and for the same purpose. Simple. Matches the text. Makes perfect sense. Good to go.

But "Christianity" sadly, won't accept that doctrine. Because it opens a can of worms doesn't it? No matter how true it looks, sounds, or how much the Spirit tells them its true, if they accept that doctrine, they have to accept the one who brought it.

The Evangelical doctrine, or I should say "Christianity" as a whole is fragile. It's actually a very small sphere of knowledge and shrinking.

A perfect example is "works". It used to be "works" was essential. Then the question arose, well what works? So then it quickly became "works don't matter!" Works is one of the most talked about subjects in the New Testament. But because it begs a question that "Christianity" can't answer, they deny it has any meaning at all; works don't matter!

God expands knowledge He doesn't limit it.

"But, our works are not what saves us - it is by the grace of God and NOT"

And we've never said anything different. However, in order to be given that grace, certain things are required of us by Jesus.

"What Paul was talking about was NOT some new sacrament that Christians were expected to do but one of many wild practices"

I've seen the Evangelical explanation of Baptism for the dead morph over the years. Many years ago, they had no explanation for it. Then someone floated the idea in the early 90's that because Paul was correcting doctrine, that it had a negative meaning. The first person I ever saw say this was Robert McKay from Utah Mission Inc. (Professional anti-mormon group funded by the SBC)

Then over the years it morphed into "no, this was a practice of some of the cults in the area and Paul is telling them to stop".

I can understand why though. "Christianity" doesn't know anything about it and it's disconcerting that Paul is shown to be talking about it. So here's just another "It doesn't matter!" moment.

Paul isn't condemning the practice of Baptism for the dead, he's using it as evidence of the resurrection.

"Did Paul or any of the Apostles go back and address this practice and spell it how how it should be done for Christians? NO."

This kind of thinking is so strange. There was no Bible when the apostles were writing these things. You don't know if they spelled it out some where or not. John has said that there were important things that he DIDN'T write down. What if the 3rd letter to Corinth spelled it out.

Jesus taught face to face and so did the Apostles. He taught from the scriptures from time to time. But His doctrine was given from Him directly to the people. It wasn't written down and then delivered to the people. So you don't know what you don't know.

FYI, just because I am baptized for someone that's dead, doesn't mean they are baptized. They still have the right to accept or reject the baptism done for them. The commandment is do it for everyone, so they at least have the chance. That's the way Heavenly Father set up the plan of salvation. This was the plan from the start.

The Evangelical doctrine, or I should say "Christianity" as a whole is fragile. It's actually a very small sphere of knowledge and shrinking.

Dream on. This is NOT a message that will meet with favor on FreeRepublic.

BTW, if this is the mormon stance, WHY do you all keep insisting that you are "Christians"?

So when I die

(according to mormonISM)

I get a second chance but when you die

(with out Christ)

you just go to hell.

If Christianity is so flawed as stated in your post, why do you (mormons) insist they are Christians?

The Bible says:(Romans 2:12-16)

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Jesus taught face to face and so did the Apostles. He taught from the scriptures from time to time. But His doctrine was given from Him directly to the people. It wasn't written down and then delivered to the people. So you don't know what you don't know.

(Oh, you mean like nobody would write these things down on say...oh, I don't know..."gold plates"...so that somebody else could come along...receive these "gold plates"...and then never actually interpret these "gold plates' writings" directly because they were looking into a hat...and then these written-down gold-etched writings were further "written down" -- this time instead of gold-etched "reformed Egyptian"...King James English...intended for a group of people in say...oh, I don't know...let me toss out a time frame...say...19th century America...which didn't speak in everyday 17th century King James English)

Oh, we "get it."

FYI, just because I am baptized for someone that's dead, doesn't mean they are baptized. They still have the right to accept or reject the baptism done for them. The commandment is do it for everyone, so they at least have the chance. That's the way Heavenly Father set up the plan of salvation. This was the plan from the start.

I addressed this nonsense back on an Oct. 31 FR thread.

On that thread, I cited ex-Mormon Latayne Colvett Scott's 1979 book, The Mormon Mirage: A Former Mormon Tells Why She Left the Church (Zondervan)

On p. 194, Scott highlights the assembly-line like process teens like her would be used for in these Mormon temple proxy baptisms...note the bold-faced portion below:

"When my name was called, I went down into the water. The baptizing elder turned me around so that he could see a large screen, something like an electric football scoreboard, which he looked at over my shoulder. On top of the screen was my name, and below it a name I don't remember, but which I'll say was Elizabeth Anderson. 'Sister Celeste Latayne Colvett,' he said, looking at the screen, 'having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you, for and in behalf of Elizabeth Anderson, who is dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' Then he quickly dropped his right arm from the square and lowered me beneath the water. As I was regaining my footing (you learn after the third or fourth time to put one foot slightly behind the other to help you get back out of the water) he had already begun the same prayer, inserting this time the name of another dead woman which had flashed onto the screen behind me. Fifteen consecutive baptisms were performed with me as proxy in a matter of about three minutes. As I left the font, another proxy was preparing to be baptized. Then I was led into a 'confirmation room' where a man sat on a high stool with a chair near his knees. I sat on the chair, my back to him, and he and several other elders placed heir hands heavily upon my head while he pronounced this prayer: 'Sister Celeste Latayne Colvett, in the name of Jesus Christ, we lay our hands upon your head for and in behalf of Elizabeth Anderson, who is dead, and confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints..." (The Mormon Mirage, p. 194)

What's of significant interest in the "confirmation room" process Scott wrote about is that many Mormons have said that this proxy Baptism process offers a "choice" in which spirits on the other can reject becoming Mormons. Yet, an "automatic" confirmation process into accepted membership in the Church has been part and parcel of the proxy baptisms--indeed Lds leaders "confirm" dead souls as "members of the church."

I mean, what? You Mormons have a "living prophet" who supposedly hears EVERYTHING the Lord does (Mormons oft' miscite Amos 3:7 to prove that) -- and yet you don't know about "rejections" of the Mormon proxy baptisms on the other side of the veil in the Spirit world? Your "fast-food" like assembly-line baptismal flows are just automated membership processes?

What about even the Romans during the time Christ? They were purposefully kept from knowing the truth about Christ. It wasn't their fault, God kept it from them for a reason. But they still needed to have their fair chance of hearing the truth.

Let's just say, for argument-sake, that the Mormon Church has 20% of all recorded info needed for already conducted (or about to be done) proxy baptisms for people living in the 20th century...and that with enough research, they could bump that up to 1/3rd to even 40%

And then, let's knock that down by 5% for each previous century:
* The Lds church has 15% of all needed info for the 19th century...and could more than double that...
* The Lds church has 10% of all needed info for the 17th century...and could triple that...
* The Lds church has 5% of all needed info for the 16th century...and could quadruple that...
* The Lds church has 1% of all needed info for the 15th century...and could somehow multiply that by 20 times with the right "finds"...

But ya know, we then get into pre-Gutenberg times...with also poor preservation components...with even less world-wide literacy to even write down the requisite info the Mormon Church NEEDS to conduct proxy baptisms. And not only for those early times, but the Mormon Church doesn't even have a "majority" handle (& will NEVER have that) for people who have lived between the 15th and 20th centuries!!!

Bottom-line Stormie?? Your very comments above equally apply to all of these "no-show" people on the "record" of having ever existed!

Go ahead, Stormie...tell us...what % of Romans living during the time Christ does the Mormon church have enough info on to proxy baptize them? Tell us, Stormie!

How about ALL of the BILLIONS of others the Mormon Church has no knowledge of -- and will NEVER know? Why, it wasn't their fault that they were either illiterate...or died in their pre-teen years and weren't noted, or that they were given a nickname that isn't good enough to baptize with since Mormons need the actual "birth name."

How 'fair' is it for the Mormon gods to demand that people have an actual...
...paper trail
...or scroll trail
...or gold-etched plate trail
...or full birth name and birthdate, etc. scratched in some bark still in existence (sorry, initials aren't enough for the Mormon gods)...
...as so-called "proof" to the Mormon gods that they ever lived?

What kind of Gospel "Justice" is that?

Tell us, Stormie, exactly how all these "no names" are "to have their fair chance of hearing the truth?"