Zone1 Why do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Baptize for the Dead?

[ding]

We are discussing doctrine. Behaviors of members is all over the place because we all have opinions. Brigham Young had opinions and he spoke them. Doesn't make them doctrine.
Well, you can't disagree with anything your church teaches too. For instance, abortion is not murder. Google it.
Now, let's talk doctrine about matter. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Only change it's nature like into energy. Matter is eternal and has always existed. Also, if it were not so, then resurrection would not be eternal either. And, we know that goes against Catholic teachings too. What BY was speaking about is that God didn't create the universe out of nothing. He organized it from matter yet unorganized. Just like if you create a painting, the materials were already prepared and existed before you create the painting. As far as scientific fact, Einstein proved matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So, it is fact. BY knew this before Einstein. Joseph Smith was taught this from God and Angels.

I'm not going waste my time with someone whose knowledge of science is inferior to mine and ignores reality because of his religion.

 

[ding]

I meant only that Catholics see themselves as the only ones who have a crack at going to heaven.

Incorrect.

I think it is correct.

It's not.

 

[Cougarbear]

Sadly, you don't. Cheers.

You were unable to reply to the rest of my posts because you know I’m right.

 

[Cougarbear]

He already knows better.

Then why don’t you?

 

[Cougarbear]

Facts? Which are those? Are you talking about the fact that the Mormons make claims? OK. Fine. No problem. But if you are talking about what God said or what Jesus said then you haven't got a leg to stand on and not a single fact to be seen.

Even the ones directly in the Bible? Missionaries here in our town many decades ago got into the discussion of baptisms for the dead with a minister at a Baptist Church. When confronted with the same biblical scriptures the minister, he tore those pages out of his Bible and said, “Not in my Bible.” Then, he had the audacity to call their mission president to complain to make them buy him a new Bible. We did. We aren’t hypocrites.

 

[Cougarbear]

I'm not going waste my time with someone whose knowledge of science is inferior to mine and ignores reality because of his religion.

Then stop talking to yourself. One who ignores his own scriptures and history. And science too.

 

[Meriweather]

You were unable to reply to the rest of my posts because you know I’m right.

My advice, which you will not follow, but I will speak it anyway: The above is your assumption, your conclusion. The definition of a conclusion is the point where you stop thinking. LDS interpretations are LDS interpretations. Some of us delve more deeply into historical, language, and cultural research, which is why our beliefs differ. Looking at all possibilities, all beliefs, expands both mind and spirit. Yes, we all tend to favor one over some of the others. It is why some modes of discussion are more favorable than others.

 

[GLASNOST]

... I was 14 when I picked up The Book of Mormon .... I skipped ahead to the first actual chapter. I was disappointed. It sounded like it had been written by a 14-year-old boy.

In later years, I heard that it had been!

.... The answer was clear. This is not for you.

I believe you.

I have Quaker ancestors ... I was amazed and disturbed that someone had had them baptized after their death!

Those proxy baptism people are mentally ill. As I keep saying, Mormonism is a Cult. Their Church has nothing to do with God and nothing to do with Christ.

Such disrespect!!!

That's an understatement.

.... I saw those proxy "baptisms" as reducing Baptism to an admission ticket to the LDS

Exactly.

I will not be able to speak then. Therefore I speak to them now. Will they listen? (Not so far, and I've been at this for years.)

I understand.

 

[GLASNOST]

I have given actual facts and you still don’t accept them.

Facts? Which are those? Are you talking about the fact that the Mormons make claims? OK. Fine. No problem. But if you are talking about what God said or what Jesus said then you haven't got a leg to stand on and not a single fact to be seen.

Even the ones directly in the Bible?

Particularly those. You must be 10-years old. I understand that you are unable to use your brain because you are presumably too young but if you ever learn how to think I must to tell you that God didn't write the bible. Jesus Christ didn't write the bible either.

 

[ding]

Then why don’t you?

Because I know better too.

 

[ding]

Then stop talking to yourself. One who ignores his own scriptures and history. And science too.

I worship God. I don't worship my church as you do.

 

[Cougarbear]

My advice, which you will not follow, but I will speak it anyway: The above is your assumption, your conclusion. The definition of a conclusion is the point where you stop thinking. LDS interpretations are LDS interpretations. Some of us delve more deeply into historical, language, and cultural research, which is why our beliefs differ. Looking at all possibilities, all beliefs, expands both mind and spirit. Yes, we all tend to favor one over some of the others. It is why some modes of discussion are more favorable than others.

The definition of a conclusion? WOW! Illogical and not the definition. A conclusion should be based on logic and reasoning that doesn’t dismiss the words of scripture. When you take First Peter chapters 3 and 4 with Paul and 1Corinthians 15:29, along with Jesus clearly stating Baptism is required to reach the highest glory of Heaven, logical reasoning is LDS are correct. Also, include Malachi and the promises made to the fathers (ancestors) by the children to remember and connect us to each other is validation as well.

And then there’s man’s potential that even your so called popes and priests that kept the succession from Peter to the present stated we will be gods too. And you claim history but now not. Funny.

 

[GLASNOST]

I have given actual facts

"Actual Facts"? Which are those?

the ones directly in the Bible

…. I must to tell you that God didn't write the bible. Jesus Christ didn't write the bible either. So, they can’t be "actual FACTS". Let’s have a look, shall we? As far as I remember the only quotes from the bible you’ve submitted are these:

1Corinthians 15:29
Mark 16:15 - 16
John 3:3 - 5
First Peter chapters 3 and 4

Have you noticed something amazing? Not one of them is a quote from God or even from Jesus. Funny, ain’t it? So ….. "actual FACTS"? I think not. You're screwed.

 

[Meriweather]

And then there’s man’s potential that even your so called popes and priests that kept the succession from Peter to the present stated we will be gods too. And you claim history but now not. Funny.

Sigh. Here is a great example of LDS shoddy research. I've said before that Catholic teaching does not say we become God, not in the way LDS teaches. Instead of researching the matter, LDS continues with its own interpretation. LDS teaches God once had a human nature, but that nature became something entirely different--now human, now divine so-to-speak. It would be like once cat, now dog. LDS teaches the once cat, now dog version of something created to be one thing, suddenly becomes something else. LDS teaches mankind sheds his human nature and somehow pops up as a divine nature. This metamorphosis is not scripture--nor what the Church Fathers said--nor Catholic teaching. Doing actual research would tell you this.

Catholic teaching is human nature will not, by nature, be generated into a god-nature, but will retain human nature. What is taught is that mankind--as humans--can participate in God's divine nature. In other words, while not becoming divine by nature, we participate in divinity through God's grace.

An analogy often used is food cooking over a fire. Fire is is hot by nature, food is not. However when put over a fire, food becomes hot, and participates in the nature of fire by becoming hot. Food does not become fire, it shares in heat retaining its own nature.

For once try to understand why it is virtually impossible to explain these things to you. You read/research to the point you want, and at this point begin flinging your fancied conclusion at me and will not listen to anything past that conclusion. Do you see why I quoted that old adage that your conclusion marks the point where you stopped thinking? Right now, you have already dismissed the further research I have presented--the context in which scripture and Catholic teaching about humans only participating in divinity, ever retaining their human nature.

 

[Cougarbear]

Sigh. Here is a great example of LDS shoddy research. I've said before that Catholic teaching does not say we become God, not in the way LDS teaches. Instead of researching the matter, LDS continues with its own interpretation. LDS teaches God once had a human nature, but that nature became something entirely different--now human, now divine so-to-speak. It would be like once cat, now dog. LDS teaches the once cat, now dog version of something created to be one thing, suddenly becomes something else. LDS teaches mankind sheds his human nature and somehow pops up as a divine nature. This metamorphosis is not scripture--nor what the Church Fathers said--nor Catholic teaching. Doing actual research would tell you this.

Catholic teaching is human nature will not, by nature, be generated into a god-nature, but will retain human nature. What is taught is that mankind--as humans--can participate in God's divine nature. In other words, while not becoming divine by nature, we participate in divinity through God's grace.

An analogy often used is food cooking over a fire. Fire is is hot by nature, food is not. However when put over a fire, food becomes hot, and participates in the nature of fire by becoming hot. Food does not become fire, it shares in heat retaining its own nature.

For once try to understand why it is virtually impossible to explain these things to you. You read/research to the point you want, and at this point begin flinging your fancied conclusion at me and will not listen to anything past that conclusion. Do you see why I quoted that old adage that your conclusion marks the point where you stopped thinking? Right now, you have already dismissed the further research I have presented--the context in which scripture and Catholic teaching about humans only participating in divinity, ever retaining their human nature.

Yet the words I posted of early church fathers said you are wrong. That your current teachings aren’t what Christ and the Apostles taught. And, we have current day Apostles and Prophets who give us clarity on this as well as restore all the doctrines lost including our nature and God’s. I follow the Prophets and Apostles of today and yesterday. As I’ve pointed out, the Catholic Church can’t teach simple truths like the nature of God, man and where we came from, where we are going and why we are actually here. We do.

 

[Meriweather]

Yet the words I posted of early church fathers said you are wrong. That your current teachings aren’t what Christ and the Apostles taught. And, we have current day Apostles and Prophets who give us clarity on this as well as restore all the doctrines lost including our nature and God’s. I follow the Prophets and Apostles of today and yesterday. As I’ve pointed out, the Catholic Church can’t teach simple truths like the nature of God, man and where we came from, where we are going and why we are actually here. We do.

You posted words, not context, not etymology, not historical culture, etc.

Listen. I've found it useless to discuss this with you because you dismiss me as a know-it-all. That's fine. We need go no further. I see it as something I have spent a long time studying and researching--time others might not have and I am willing to share.

I am not asking anyone to believe, only to understand why another faith may see it so much differently than you. You have no wish to understand the points from scholars of theology, history, cultural anthropology, language-etymology, etc. You read the King-James English version and are satisfied with your own conclusions. Nothing wrong with that--go for it.

I go back to, not the King James point of view, but to the original author's point of view. And get accused of being a know-it-all. I get no pleasure of discussions with you. What I have and am willing to share only angers you, and that is not my goal. My wish is to share--nothing beyond that.

 

[Cougarbear]

You posted words, not context, not etymology, not historical culture, etc.

Listen. I've found it useless to discuss this with you because you dismiss me as a know-it-all. That's fine. We need go no further. I see it as something I have spent a long time studying and researching--time others might not have and I am willing to share.

I am not asking anyone to believe, only to understand why another faith may see it so much differently than you. You have no wish to understand the points from scholars of theology, history, cultural anthropology, language-etymology, etc. You read the King-James English version and are satisfied with your own conclusions. Nothing wrong with that--go for it.

I go back to, not the King James point of view, but to the original author's point of view. And get accused of being a know-it-all. I get no pleasure of discussions with you. What I have and am willing to share only angers you, and that is not my goal. My wish is to share--nothing beyond that.

Oh, you think we don’t have scholars? Such pride. The kind that damns people. No, my opinion is accurate and it does take in history and language as well. Why do you continue to ignore Catholic historians of the early church? They disagree with you and agree with LDS beliefs. And, I’m not angry. You are as you attempt to rattle me. But don’t. You can’t handle the truth.

 

[Meriweather]

You are as you attempt to rattle me.

I had/have no intent to rattle you. Wishing you well.

 

[GLASNOST]

And then there’s man’s potential that even your so called popes and priests that kept the succession from Peter to the present stated we will be gods too. And you claim history but now not. Funny.

... Here is a great example of LDS shoddy research.

That's right.

 

[Cougarbear]

I had/have no intent to rattle you. Wishing you well.

Calling our practice of works for the dead names? Long posts about it? The facts are the facts. It’s in the Bible.