Mormons?

[fncceo]

You either have faith in what you believe in or ya don't

A person's faith is a personal thing. Unless you're attempting to convert someone to your faith, there is no reason to justify it to another.

There is no reason for unsolicited prying into the beliefs of others unless you want to dissuade them from it.

Education and information. Nothing wrong with making an informed decision about something so important.

That would be equivalent to a perfect stranger asking you to justify your choice of spouse.

The factors that go into making such an important, and personal, decision cannot be fully articulated to a stranger.

Well, if you were married to a total fraud wouldn't you want to know?

No one's business but my own.

Believing it to be any of your concern is the pinnacle of impertinence.

Public forum.

Private question

 

[BS Filter]

You either have faith in what you believe in or ya don't

A person's faith is a personal thing. Unless you're attempting to convert someone to your faith, there is no reason to justify it to another.

There is no reason for unsolicited prying into the beliefs of others unless you want to dissuade them from it.

Education and information. Nothing wrong with making an informed decision about something so important.

That would be equivalent to a perfect stranger asking you to justify your choice of spouse.

The factors that go into making such an important, and personal, decision cannot be fully articulated to a stranger.

Well, if you were married to a total fraud wouldn't you want to know?

No one's business but my own.

Believing it to be any of your concern is the pinnacle of impertinence.

Public forum.

Private question

Then don't post on a public forum. Duh!

 

[onefour1]

Without a doubt

Why?

The Holy Ghost has born witness to my soul that the revelations of Joseph Smith are true.

Yes, that's the standard reply. However, that's not the biblical test of a prophet. According to Deuteronomy, if a person claiming to be a prophet of God is wrong only once, they are a false prophet. That's the Word of God.

Quote it.

 

[BS Filter]

Without a doubt

Why?

The Holy Ghost has born witness to my soul that the revelations of Joseph Smith are true.

Yes, that's the standard reply. However, that's not the biblical test of a prophet. According to Deuteronomy, if a person claiming to be a prophet of God is wrong only once, they are a false prophet. That's the Word of God.

Quote it.

You obviously haven't read my posts.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

 

[onefour1]

Doctrines and Covenants isn't Scripture.

Nice to offer your opinion but I disagree.

 

[BS Filter]

Doctrines and Covenants isn't Scripture.

Nice to offer your opinion but I disagree.

I know you disagree. Not just my opinion. Millions of Christians agree with me including the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

Doctrines and Covenants isn't Scripture.

Not only that, it doesn't even have the element of the keys correct. Then there is the problem of Apocalyptic literature. Third, no ritual proclaiming to be of God would not go against God's Words and promises.

 

[onefour1]

Without a doubt

Why?

The Holy Ghost has born witness to my soul that the revelations of Joseph Smith are true.

Yes, that's the standard reply. However, that's not the biblical test of a prophet. According to Deuteronomy, if a person claiming to be a prophet of God is wrong only once, they are a false prophet. That's the Word of God.

Quote it.

You obviously haven't read my posts.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

So what if a prophet doesn't speak in the name of the Lord, but merely gives his opinion, do you still hold him to it?

 

[onefour1]

Doctrines and Covenants isn't Scripture.

Not only that, it doesn't even have the element of the keys correct. Then there is the problem of Apocalyptic literature. Third, no ritual proclaiming to be of God would not go against God's Words and promises.

Where is it going against God's words?

 

[BS Filter]

Without a doubt

Why?

The Holy Ghost has born witness to my soul that the revelations of Joseph Smith are true.

Yes, that's the standard reply. However, that's not the biblical test of a prophet. According to Deuteronomy, if a person claiming to be a prophet of God is wrong only once, they are a false prophet. That's the Word of God.

Quote it.

You obviously haven't read my posts.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

So what if a prophet doesn't speak in the name of the Lord, but merely gives his opinion, do you still hold him to it?

Of course not. Paul did that. Do you know the verse?

 

[Meriweather]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

 

[BS Filter]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

Mormonism has taken one verse out of context and made a false doctrine.

Mormon Doctrine: Baptism for the Dead

An examination of the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism-the baptism for the dead

www.christiancourier.com

 

[onefour1]

Without a doubt

Why?

The Holy Ghost has born witness to my soul that the revelations of Joseph Smith are true.

Yes, that's the standard reply. However, that's not the biblical test of a prophet. According to Deuteronomy, if a person claiming to be a prophet of God is wrong only once, they are a false prophet. That's the Word of God.

Quote it.

You obviously haven't read my posts.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

So what if a prophet doesn't speak in the name of the Lord, but merely gives his opinion, do you still hold him to it?

Of course not. Paul did that. Do you know the verse?

Not off the top of my head, but I image that if we had all the words of the prophets and not just what is in the cannon of the Bible, they would all fall into that category. What is the verse?

 

[Meriweather]

Mormonism has taken one verse out of context and made a false doctrine.

What began this practice is the fear the newly formed Mormon Church had for their dead relatives who had not had the chance to hear Mormon doctrine. When faced with this fear people had for their dead parents and grandparents, Smith easily solved the problem by declaring they could proxy baptize members of their family that had passed on before they could hear Mormon doctrine.

I doubt even Joseph Smith pictured members of his church taking this to the extreme of baptizing all dead people. As for Paul's words to the Corinthians: To those who were arguing against the resurrection of the dead, Paul stated firmly the resurrection is fact and indisputable. He pointed out that some Corinthians even baptized the dead because of the belief they lived on. Note that Paul never baptized the dead. He did not praise the Corinthians for this practice, he simply shrugged it off and moved on. He did insist on belief in Christ and the resurrection.

 

[BS Filter]

Without a doubt

Why?

The Holy Ghost has born witness to my soul that the revelations of Joseph Smith are true.

Yes, that's the standard reply. However, that's not the biblical test of a prophet. According to Deuteronomy, if a person claiming to be a prophet of God is wrong only once, they are a false prophet. That's the Word of God.

Quote it.

You obviously haven't read my posts.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor comes to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

So what if a prophet doesn't speak in the name of the Lord, but merely gives his opinion, do you still hold him to it?

Of course not. Paul did that. Do you know the verse?

Not off the top of my head, but I image that if we had all the words of the prophets and not just what is in the cannon of the Bible, they would all fall intoxicated that category. What is the verse?

Here's the verse and historical context.

Mormon Doctrine: Baptism for the Dead

An examination of the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism-the baptism for the dead

www.christiancourier.com

 

[Gracie]

You either have faith in what you believe in or ya don't

A person's faith is a personal thing. Unless you're attempting to convert someone to your faith, there is no reason to justify it to another.

There is no reason for unsolicited prying into the beliefs of others unless you want to dissuade them from it.

Education and information. Nothing wrong with making an informed decision about something so important.

That would be equivalent to a perfect stranger asking you to justify your choice of spouse.

The factors that go into making such an important, and personal, decision cannot be fully articulated to a stranger.

Well, if you were married to a total fraud wouldn't you want to know?

No one's business but my own.

Believing it to be any of your concern is the pinnacle of impertinence.

Public forum.

Private question

That you are peeking in. If its so private to you, leave the thread.

 

[Gracie]

It's an interesting topic. People are discussing withouth name calling and bickering like in other threads. Again, if you (general you) don't like the question, why are you IN the thread? To waggle your finger? Go away if it bothers you too much. I'm learning things, and differing opinions. So are others. And stay out of my next thread about religion. I'm curious and maybe others are too.

 

[onefour1]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

So you say free will because God went ahead and had the Latter-day Saints perform baptisms for the dead without asking each person beforehand if they wanted it? First off, Jesus set up a missionary program in the world of spirits to convert them to his gospel. This is why the Bible mentions that he taught to the spirits in prison and that he preached the gospel to the dead. I don't think all the dead have been taught yet and I don't believe that all who will be taught have died yet. Secondly, God does not necessarily seek the opinions of all people before he commands his people to do something. Just ask the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites if God asked them for permission to destroy them. Lastly, as I continue to tell you over and over again, God does allow man to choose salvation and he also allows man to choose damnation. If man has not received the gospel in this life, He, being a fair God, allows all those who have not had the chance to receive it to receive it. Now it may be that they were deceived in this life and were led astray by false teachings and deception. Perhaps in the world of disembodied spirits they finally get the opportunity to choose without the false teachings and deceptions. However, since those who receive the gospel in the world of disembodied spirits still need to be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven, and since they cannot be baptized as a disembodied spirit, God has set up in his church the doctrine of baptism for the dead that all will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel and have the baptism necessary to enter his kingdom. There is no lack of free will in the process. As I've stated before, each person will have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the gospel and if they reject it, any vicarious baptism performed for them will be of no effect and they will have had the chance, through free will, to enter into his kingdom or not. No coercion, no force, just an unaccepted baptism that is of no effect because they did not choose to accept the gospel.

Nowhere in all the bible does it teach that disembodied spirits have no choice. Why would Jesus go and preach the gospel to the dead if the dead have no choice in whether to accept it or not? Why would he bother?

1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

God is giving us all the chance to change our hearts if we never have had the opportunity to receive his gospel and reject it. This is the reason he preached to the dead.

I can't say that Paul never taught baptism for the dead nor can I see how you can make such a statement. I say this because we do not have all the teachings of Paul. The bible does not contain all that every prophet ever taught. But according to 1 Corinthians 15:29 he bolstered his defense of the resurrection by using baptism for the dead as an argument. He certainly was aware of the practice. Instead putting it down as a false teaching he chose to use it as a reason to believe in the resurrection. Would Paul have used a false teaching for a reason to believe in the resurrection? I seriously doubt it. Paul knew the teaching was true and from God.

 

[onefour1]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

Mormonism has taken one verse out of context and made a false doctrine.

Mormon Doctrine: Baptism for the Dead

An examination of the Mormon doctrine of vicarious baptism-the baptism for the dead

www.christiancourier.com

It takes a person with very good English skills to skew the meaning of the verse to mean something other than what I have told in my previous post. Paul argued for the doctrine of resurrection by stating, " 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? " The obvious answer to Paul's question would be, "because there is a resurrection, and that is why they are baptized for the dead". However, you are quite mistaken if you believe that the church used that verse to establish the doctrine of baptism for the dead. As I explained to Meriweather, Joseph Smith received the restoration of priesthood and the doctrine of baptism for the dead through revelation. The verse simply establishes it as a true practice.

 

[BS Filter]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

So you say free will because God went ahead and had the Latter-day Saints perform baptisms for the dead without asking each person beforehand if they wanted it? First off, Jesus set up a missionary program in the world of spirits to convert them to his gospel. This is why the Bible mentions that he taught to the spirits in prison and that he preached the gospel to the dead. I don't think all the dead have been taught yet and I don't believe that all who will be taught have died yet. Secondly, God does not necessarily seek the opinions of all people before he commands his people to do something. Just ask the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites if God asked them for permission to destroy them. Lastly, as I continue to tell you over and over again, God does allow man to choose salvation and he also allows man to choose damnation. If man has not received the gospel in this life, He, being a fair God, allows all those who have not had the chance to receive it to receive it. Now it may be that they were deceived in this life and were led astray by false teachings and deception. Perhaps in the world of disembodied spirits they finally get the opportunity to choose without the false teachings and deceptions. However, since those who receive the gospel in the world of disembodied spirits still need to be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven, and since they cannot be baptized as a disembodied spirit, God has set up in his church the doctrine of baptism for the dead that all will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel and have the baptism necessary to enter his kingdom. There is no lack of free will in the process. As I've stated before, each person will have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the gospel and if they reject it, any vicarious baptism performed for them will be of no effect and they will have had the chance through free will to enter the into his kingdom or not. No coercion, no force, just an unaccepted baptism that is of no effect because they did not choose to accept the gospel.

Nowhere in all the bible does it teach that disembodied spirits have no choice. Why would Jesus go and preach the gospel to the dead if the dead have no choice in whether to accept it or not? Why would he bother?

1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

God is giving us all the chance to change our hearts if we never have had the opportunity to receive his gospel and reject it. This is the reason he preached to the dead.

I can't say that Paul never taught baptism for the dead nor can I see how you can make such a statement. I say this because we do not have all the teachings of Paul. The bible does not contain all that every prophet ever taught. But according to 1 Corinthians 15:29 he bolstered his defense of the resurrection by using baptism for the dead as an argument. He certainly was aware of the practice. Instead putting it down as a false teaching he chose to use it as a reason to believe in the resurrection. Would Paul have used a false teaching for a reason to believe in the resurrection? I seriously doubt it. Paul knew the teaching was true and from God.

Read this carefully. Please.

The Mormon Doctrine of Salvation for the Dead: An Examination of Its Claimed Biblical Basis - Christian Research Institute

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 20, number 2 (November-December 1997). For more information about the Christian Research Journal click here. SUMMARY The Mormon church cites 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6, and 1 Corinthians 15:29 as biblical evidence, respectively...

www.equip.org