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

[Robert W]

If that were all that is being done then how could they have their eternal families? That requires the ordinance of exhalation, right? Which requires five ordinances, not just baptism.

Sounds like you wanted a blanket narrow reply so you got one. I was sealed in the Temple to my parents and siblings. But that is not baptism.

 

[Robert W]

You are just arguing to argue. Not learn. I'm a member and know this in and out. The word Primarily means that there are other instances that are done as well. Secondary reasons and others. Like I said, it doesn't contradict the website at all. We have agreed not to do famous people without their family approving of this to be done. But, again, there are two things you are confused about: 1. genealogy 2. proxy works (baptisms, endowments, washing and annointings and sealings. There is nothing stopping me from doing genealogy for someone famous or involved with the Holocaust. Anyone can do this. It's not against the law. But, the Church has agreed to not perform the proxy works unless family members approve of it. But, that doesn't mean that I can't perform proxy works for those other than my direct family ancestors. I can and I still do as long as a family member approves of it. Got it.

Next, there's a third think you are confused about. That is the Millennium. You seem to not understand this at all. When the Lord returns for His 2nd Coming, Satan will be bound and the wicked and evil ones will be eliminated. It will be a peaceful world with no death to humans who remain. Humans who remain will be a part of the work. Some will be builders and build temples all over the world. Thousand of them. And, we won't get tired as we will not die during the thousand year period. Temples will be going 24-7 for 1,000 years. When the last proxy baptism is completed, the Millennium will end. Satan will be loosed again for a short time and will tempt those born during the Millennium so they can be judged righteously with everyone else who lived the preceding 6,000 years. There will be some work still to do after the battle of Gog and Magog and everything ends, the earth is celestialized and the mass resurrection begins.

Those who don't comprehend should first clean their heads of biases. Listen to your words and don't twist them. If they truly want to understand, open minds allow this to happen.

 

[ding]

Those who don't comprehend should first clean their heads of biases. Listen to your words and don't twist them. If they truly want to understand, open minds allow this to happen.

I comprehend just fine. To me the bigger issue is that if everyone believes the same thing, that's programming. It's not real. If there is nothing you question then it's not real. I question everything the Catholic Church teaches. For the most part I agree with it but that agreement is not perfect. There are things I disagree with and in my church that is allowed. Truth is discovered.

 

[Cougarbear]

I comprehend just fine. To me the bigger issue is that if everyone believes the same thing, that's programming. It's not real. If there is nothing you question then it's not real. I question everything the Catholic Church teaches. For the most part I agree with it but that agreement is not perfect. There are things I disagree with and in my church that is allowed. Truth is discovered.

No you don’t. If you did you wouldn’t have continued the same nonsense and understood what I was saying. Also, you would also recognize my expertise in the subject of our temple work and eternal goals. You would have also recognize that the Millennium would be different than what life is now. Your bias is a limiting factor.

Your theory is also flawed. People in the Church do not have the same level of testimony of the gospel and the church. When someone like myself request to have missionaries teach the gospel they are willing to share, through the process we are challenged to read, meditate, pray to know if what they teach is true and correct. Before being baptized we have to freely accept to be baptized. From that point on it’s a matter of faith and continuing learning, reading, studying and praying with real intent to grow our testimony through the rest of our life. Nobody is programmed. If you fall away, we still love our fallen and like Jesus taught, be ready to help those fallen return when and only when they are ready. Like the prodigal son.
Through this, I know the doctrine of the practice of helping to redeem the dead is true and correct.

 

[Robert W]

I comprehend just fine. To me the bigger issue is that if everyone believes the same thing, that's programming. It's not real. If there is nothing you question then it's not real. I question everything the Catholic Church teaches. For the most part I agree with it but that agreement is not perfect. There are things I disagree with and in my church that is allowed. Truth is discovered.

Read post #84 ding. This issue summed up is not what you believe. It is a roadmap to salvation done to benefit the dead. As you have been told, our church does believe in the afterlife survival condition. Where the dead will still be able to make decisions.
If the dead decide not to accept baptism, they can disavow it or simply ignore it, later on.

 

[GLASNOST]

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

Why do Democrats count votes in their favour for deceased citizens? I suppose if that's OK then baptising the dead is equally OK. But then Muslims and Jews can re-baptise them for their own benefit:

"I hereby recognise George Washington's Christian confirmation invalid and declare him a Muslim, post mortem. May Allah (praise be His name) accept Gafsa al Washla (formerly George Washington) into the gates of Heaven!"

 

[Cougarbear]

Why do Democrats count votes in their favour for deceased citizens? I suppose if that's OK then baptising the dead is equally OK. But then Muslims and Jews can re-baptise them for their own benefit:

"I hereby recognise George Washington's Christian confirmation invalid and declare him a Muslim, post mortem. May Allah (praise be His name) accept Gafsa al Washla (formerly George Washington) into the gates of Heaven!"

Not sure what you are trying to say because most who are Republicans also object to baptisms for the dead. The better thought is if you object to the practice and yet reject the ordinance has no validity, then why do you care? The only person who really knows the work is done is the person who performs and cares doing the procedures.

 

[GLASNOST]

Not sure what you are trying to say because most who are Republicans also object to baptisms for the dead. The better thought is if you object to the practice and yet reject the ordinance has no validity, then why do you care? The only person who really knows the work is done is the person who performs and cares doing the procedures.

Do you not understand that counting votes of dead people is just as crazy as baptising dead people? Have you ever heard of analogies?

 

[Cougarbear]

Do you not understand that counting votes of dead people is just as crazy as baptising dead people? Have you ever heard of analogies?

Why is baptizing those who have died without correct authoritative Priesthood authority crazy when baptism is required to enter the highest degree of the Kingdom of God as Jesus stated? It’s squarely in the Bible as well.

Keep in mind that voting is an earthly event and dead spirits cannot vote. There is no lawful proxy voting for the dead. Spirits of the dead being preached to and being baptized by proxy is a matter of faith. There is no analogy.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... baptism is required to enter the highest degree of the Kingdom of God

Who told you that?

as Jesus stated?

No he didn't.

 

[Cougarbear]

Who told you that?

No he didn't.

Mark 16:15 - 16, "And he (Jesus) said unto them, go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (human). He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. " Both baptisms are required of water and the spirit. If ye have faith in Christ and believe, you must be baptized to be saved.

John 3:3 - 5, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again (baptism), he cannot see the kingdom of God (Celestial glory). Nicodemus said unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of WATER and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Celestial Glory).

The Bible tells everyone who reads it.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... baptism is required to enter the highest degree of the Kingdom of God as Jesus stated.

Who told you that?

Mark 16:15 - 16.

So, you are saying ... that one of the authors of the Bible says ... that Jesus said ... that God said ....... Well, I am sure that God didn't say anything like that. The God that I trust doesn't exclude anyone. After all, if anyone/thing created us it was him.

 

[Cougarbear]

So, you are saying ... that one of the authors of the Bible says ... that Jesus said ... that God said ....... Well, I am sure that God didn't say anything like that. The God that I trust doesn't exclude anyone. After all, if anyone/thing created us it was him.

You are sure??? Who are you? Were you there 2000 years ago and there in the presence of Jesus what he said that. I will 100% believe the Bible before I would believe you. It’s straight forward. You will not be able to force your way into Heaven. You must be legitimately baptized by proper Priesthood authority.

 

[GLASNOST]

You are sure???

Absolutely sure.

Who are you?

A believer.

Were you there 2000 years ago .

No, but neither were you or Mark there 2000 years ago. I trust God but you and Mark do not trust God. According to Mark, Jesus doesn't trust God either but Mark probably doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Cougarbear]

Absolutely sure.

A believer.

No, but neither were you or Mark there 2000 years ago. I trust God but you and Mark do not trust God. According to Mark, Jesus doesn't trust God either but Mark probably doesn't know what he is talking about.

You are hilarious. Mark was there. He recorded his words. Every translation says the same thing. Thats why we have the Bible for true believers in which you question. Therefore, you are not a true believer. Baptism is required for all. That’s why true believers baptized the living and the dead as Paul also recorded.

 

[GLASNOST]

... neither you nor Mark were there 2000 years ago. I trust God but you and Mark do not trust God. According to Mark, Jesus doesn't trust God either but Mark probably doesn't know what he is talking about.

You are hilarious. .....

I might call you hilarious except that this is serious business. I believe in one God, you believe in three. Yes, I know you claim to believe in only one God but you don't. This (in my eyes) means that you follow a cult. Do you want to skip past that part? OK, let us move on to the next part.

Baptism is required for all. .

Your belief (let us call it your God as oppose to my God) is imperfect and intolerant. So, getting back to the one God belief, I have extreme difficulties in considering the possibility that you might believe in God at all. Dare I say that you don't believe in God? That's what it looks like. If there is only one God (and I believe that to be true) then I am left to think that you do not believe in God. Or can there be two Gods ..... one that is perfect and tolerant of His own creation but another God that is intolerant, imperfect in His creation, and thinks that humanity should pay for His mistakes by way of Baptism? I have a choice to make :

1). There’s more than one God.

2). Your belief is a cult.

I’ve already made my choice but I don’t want to insult you.

 

[Cougarbear]

I might call you hilarious except that this is serious business. I believe in one God, you believe in three. Yes, I know you claim to believe in only one God but you don't. This (in my eyes) means that you follow a cult. Do you want to skip past that part? OK, let us move on to the next part.

Your belief (let us call it your God as oppose to my God) is imperfect and intolerant. So, getting back to the one God belief, I have extreme difficulties in considering the possibility that you might believe in God at all. Dare I say that you don't believe in God? That's what it looks like. If there is only one God (and I believe that to be true) then I am left to think that you do not believe in God. Or can there be two Gods ..... one that is perfect and tolerant of His own creation but another God that is intolerant, imperfect in His creation, and thinks that humanity should pay for His mistakes by way of Baptism? I have a choice to make :

1). There’s more than one God.

2). Your belief is a cult.

I’ve already made my choice but I don’t want to insult you.

Are you like 10 years old? By calling me a cult you insulted me. Childish rant. So, I’ll ask you questions. See if you can be an adult and logically answer them:
1. Why do you go to strawman arguments when shown that the Bible states baptisms are required?
2. Why do you claim to use a direct quote that there is one God objecting to the possibility of three separate personages making up God (Godhead) while demanding the Book of Mark is fake and dismiss Jesus stating clearly baptism by water and spirit is required to enter The Kingdom of God?
3. Jesus’s Church he was building is known as a cult. He was preaching something the mainstream religious body believed to be heretical. So, they called Jesus a cult leader. Was Jesus teaching something different than what he taught as Jehovah in the Old Testament?
4. We are gods:

The trinity isn’t in the Bible:

 

[GLASNOST]

You are hilarious..

I have a choice to make :

1). There’s more than one God.
2). Your belief is a cult.

I’ve already made my choice but I don’t want to insult you.

Are you like 10 years old?

Are you familiar with American baseball? Do you know what "3 strikes" mean? In my last respnse I wrote that I didn't want to insult you. But now you've got 2 strikes against you. Not wanting to insult you doesn't mean that I don't know how. One more strike and you'll find out.

 

[ding]

I believe in one God

For the sake of full disclosure... are you a Muslim?

 

[ding]

Your belief is a cult.

All religions are cults. Yes, even yours. I suggest you study the origin of the word. Here... I'll help.

You don't need to use pretzel logic, technically, all religions are cults. Religion is the original basis for that word. It wasn't always used in such a negative fashion as you are trying to use it now.

The word "cult" has religious origins from the Latin cultus (meaning "worship," "care," or "cultivation"), initially describing a system of worship or a specific religious practice, like the cult of Dionysus. However, its meaning evolved, and by the 19th century, it gained negative connotations, referring to unorthodox or spurious religions, and later to groups with excessive devotion or manipulative practices, a shift from its original neutral religious basis.

Evolution of the Word "Cult"

1. Latin Roots (Cultus): The word stems from Latin, relating to tilling the soil, care, training, and eventually, worship or adoration, sharing roots with words like "culture" and "cultivate".
2. Early English Usage (17th Century): The first English uses meant "worship" or a specific set of devotional rites, as in the "cult of the Virgin Mary" or Roman imperial cults.
3. Broadening Meanings (18th Century): It began to refer to intense, non-religious devotion to a person, idea, or fad (e.g., "the cult of success").
4. Modern Negative Sense (19th Century Onward): The term started being applied to new or unorthodox religious movements, often with negative judgments, and now frequently describes groups seen as manipulative or harmful.

Key Takeaway
While "cult" began as a neutral term for religious devotion, its meaning shifted from describing a specific religious practice or branch to labeling groups perceived as dangerous or unorthodox, a change that has made the term highly controversial.