I've always wondered about why some religions see ceremonies as being vital to salvation. For example, most Protestant religions seem to see the ceremony of baptism as being vital to salvation. Catholics have the sacraments, and Mormons have ceremonies like endowments and marriage. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Mormons believe that ceremonies are so necessary to salvation that they perform them for the dead to accept in the next life.
I don't understand why these ceremonies are important. I understand the belief that without works, faith is dead. But to me, that means living your life righteously and putting your faith into action. I don't see how ceremonies fit into that. I can see ceremonies being important symbolically- helping affirm people's faith and such. But I'm curious as to how they're necessary for salvation. If a person believes in Christ and does their best to live a Christ-like life, why is baptism (or any other ceremony) a requirement for salvation?
Laura
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
After death ceramonies came about more for the living than for the dead, at least in most religions these days. It give a sense of closure, and a feeling that there is another life, another chance, sometime in the future where we will be reunited with the loved one who has died.
Kwea
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:For example, most Protestant religions seem to see the ceremony of baptism as being vital to salvation
Not the case. Well..I guess I should say in my experience it's not the case. I do know some denominations place a larger emphasis on baptism than others, but the majority of protestants I am familiar with do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation, just that it is something that should be done out of obedience, as a symbolic gesture.
The thief on the cross was not baptised, and Jesus quite plainly said he would see him again.
If a man comes to accept Christ as his savior, confesses his sins, asks for Jesus to cleanse him of that sin, and is sincere - then schedules a baptism ceremony with his pastor and happens to be hit by a bus and dies before the ceremony I don't think he winds up in hell.
My church doctrinal statement clearly states that baptism is encouraged, because it's a public affirmation of one's faith, but that it is not necessary for salvation, nor does the mode matter. In our church, you can be immersed, sprinkled, or poured. It's not about the ceremony, it's about faith.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Kwea- What type of ceremonies are you referring to? Like funeral rites? Those don't seem to deal with salvation, but are like you said, for the living.
Belle- Thank you for that information! I didn't realize that was how many Protestants viewed Baptism.
Are their any Protestants that do view Baptism as necessary to salvation? What about other faiths, like Catholics and Mormons, that have specifically required ceremonies? What is the necessity of the ceremony?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not just those, although that is why I mentioned funeral rites.
Some people believe that the bones must be buried, not cremated, and that they must rest on hallowed ground....how is that NOT related to salvation?
Kwea
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Some people believe that the bones must be buried, not cremated, and that they must rest on hallowed ground....how is that NOT related to salvation?
ohhh! That IS a good example! Why do they believe that the bodies must be buried, not cremated for salvation? If it's about salvation, then doctrinally, it's not just for the living.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, but the ceraminies that grew around it are for the living, maybe more than the dead...almost certianly more so....
I believe that the reasoniing go back to the belief in a bodily resurection during the end days, although a lot of catholics might not be aware of that. I imagine that those beliefs should be fairly easy to track down if you want documentation of them, but I don't know of any links myself. I believe it was in the Chaticism I was taught in high school, though....
Kwea
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That belief has to do with resurrection, not “salvation” as it’s commonly understood. Most of the people who are against cremation believe that in the last days God will literally raise the bodies of all who have died. So if you want to have a body at that time you can’t burn it now.
Edit: What Kwea said.
[ October 29, 2004, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Thanks guys! Very good to know. That seems to have a very concrete theological explanation. What about the others? What about Catholic Baptism, Last Rites, and other Sacrements? What about Mormon Endowments? Why does an external ceremony impact one's internal salvation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Unfortunately, I'm very short of time today. But you can't really discuss the Catholic beliefs on this without clearing up a few semantic questions first:
Catholics don't believe "ceremonies" are necessary for salvation, they believe sacraments are. "Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, accepted today by many Episcopalians, the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are not mere signs; they do not merely signify Divine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, they cause that grace in the souls of men." There are 7 Catholic sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony. The link has a pretty full discussion, but I'll try to pull out the stuff specifically related to cermonies for you. Information in quotes below is from the link.
1. "In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution. A sign stands for and represents something else, either naturally, as smoke represents fire, or by the choice of an intelligent being, as the red cross indicates an ambulance. Sacraments do not naturally signify grace; they do so because they have been chosen by God to signify mysterious effects."
2. "As in physical bodies, so also in the sacramental rite we find two elements, one undetermined, which is called the matter, the other determining, called the form. For instance, water may be used for drinking, or for cooling or cleansing the body, but the words pronounced by the minister when he pours water on the head of the child, with the intention of doing what the Church does, determines the meaning of the act, so that it signifies the purification of the soul by grace. The matter and form (the res et verba) make up the external rite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition, because men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words."
"Ceremony is the necessary outcome of the twofold nature of man, intellectual and sensible, on account of which, as St. Thomas Aquinas says (Contra Gentiles, III, cxix), he must pay God a twofold adoration, one spiritual, which consists in the interior devotion of the soul, the other corporal, which manifests itself in the outward form of worship, for there is no inward sentiment or feeling which man is not wont to express outwardly by some suitable gesture or action. Ceremonies are employed to embellish and adorn sacred functions; to excite in the faithful sentiments of respect, devotion, and religion, by which the honour of God is increased and the sanctification of the soul is obtained, since these constitute the principal object of all liturgical acts; to lead the illiterate more easily to a knowledge of the mysteries of religion; to indicate the dispositions necessary to receive the sacraments worthily; and to induce the faithful to fulfil with greater docility the obligations which the reception of the sacraments imposes on them."
In these usages of the words, "ceremony" can be one component of a sacrament. Ceremony is only necessary for salvation insofar as it is part of a sacrament.
The final thing to realize is that the ceremony can be altered to fit the circumstances. Much of what people commonly associate with the ceremony is not required, or is only required if circumstances permit.
I know this doesn't get to the heart of your question, but I hope this helps frame the question differently for you, at least with respect to catholicism.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
The ceremony of baptism is NOT considered vital to salvation in most prostestant religions. It is heavily promoted, as an outward show of an inward conversion, but Salvation is a gift through Grace. You can definately be given salvation without having been/ or getting/ baptized.
But Jesus did it as an example to us, so we follow that example.
Farmgirl
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
What Dag says applies to many Protestant denominations as well – we differ with the Catholics over how many sacraments were instituted by Christ, but not as much on the meaning of sacrament.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Farmgirl, while I agree that baptism is not “necessary to salvation” in protestant religions (in the sense of if you die unbaptized you can’t be saved) , it isn’t primarily a sign of conversion, at least for those who practice infant baptism. It’s an outward and visible sign of God’s gift to the child, not the child’s response.
[ October 29, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dana, do most Protestant denominations have a strictly dichotomous view of the after life: i.e., either someone achieves salvation or someone is damned? I know little about beliefs outside Catholicism on this.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag: kinda, sorta, not really, maybe. It depends on how you define the terms. For some groups the term “damned” simply means “not saved,” so that would be dichotomous by definition. “Damned” doesn’t necessarily have any further implications of eternal torment in that sense, though. And you’d also have to define what “salvation” consists of, which is by no means agreed upon by all protestant groups. (not just how it happens, but what it actually is that has happened or will happen because of it).
About the only thing you could everyone together on would be to object to your use of the word “achieve.” Salvation in protestant theology (whatever it is) is not something that can be achieved, it is a free gift of God.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, most of the groups I looked into when searching for a new faith (and I looked at most of the local Christian ones around here in the NE) do believe in a dichotomy, as in you are saved ro you are not.
Since hell is the absence of God, not necessarily flames and pitchforks, there is very little in between.
From what I remember, doesn't Catholic faith preach about purgatory, an in between place for all the non-baptised people who don't deserve hell but aren't quite ready for heaven yet?
I thought that one of the reasons a person could end up in purgatory was to be unbaptised...
Kwea
[ October 29, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kwea, you're thinking of limbo (for the unbaptized folks). Purgatory is for Catholics who are on their way to being sanctified (ready for heaven), but not quite there yet.
[ October 29, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
dkw, I have heard of purgatory being the same, I don't remember any true discussion of limbo...
Not that you ae wrond, but that is how it was described to me. Keep in mind that my chaticism days were 25 years ago...
Either way my point still stands....baptism IS necessary for salvation. Or at least immedate salvation.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:About the only thing you could everyone together on would be to object to your use of the word “achieve.” Salvation in protestant theology (whatever it is) is not something that can be achieved, it is a free gift of God.
Yes, achieve was probably the wrong word. I think I meant attain - achieve doesn't reflect the Catholic view well either.
In Catholicism, there is the possibility of ending up perfectly happy but not prepared to receive the beatific vision. This state would be Limbo, but the Church has never considered this definitive. Basically, it's speculation consistent with what is known. The beatific vision is what differentiates Heaven from Limbo.
Purgatory is the preparatory state for those destined for Heaven.
Hell is the state of damnation.
All this is a very lay conception of things.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I had a "debate" with a friend who is Church of Christ about the necessity of baptism. I grew up in that church so I probably better understand her viewpoints on all the Church of Christ beliefs than most people do. Our conversation went something like this:
Her: Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Me: How can it be? What about the thief on the cross?
Her: I don't think God penalizes people for not doing things that they can't physically do. He couldn't have gotten baptised if he'd wanted to.
Me: Well, I think baptism is symbolic of your obedience to God. I think it's "necessary" in that if you say you follow Christ but refuse to get baptised, then you don't really follow him, or you'd perform the very simple act of obedience.
Her: Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel too. I believe that you have to obey the Lord to show that you love him, and that loving him is a commandment that we have to follow. Baptism is something we do to show that we are obedient to him and love him.
Me: I agree.
---
I wrote all that to show that we actually agreed on 99.9% of the doctrine of baptism. The only part we disagreed on was whether or not it was technically necessary, but it turned out that it doesn't matter whether we agree on it or not. The reason is because we both agree that obedience is necessary, and that baptism is an important way to show obedience, and that anyone who claims to love the Lord can easily show it through baptism, and that refusing to do it is a refusal to obey. Therefore anyone who is Christian should get baptised if they can.
So, the point is that people who believe baptism is necessary can find common ground with people who don't, and vice versa.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, that feeds into what I was saying....only people who get baptised are saved right away..the rest are either in Limbo or Purgatory....I thought that Purgatory came about specifically to explain how all the people who lived good lives before Christ could avoid Hell....it wasn't thteir fault they were born before Christ, right?
So the concept of Purgatory came into being, giving them a place to stay that wasn't Heaven, but isn't hell.
None of them were Baptised, so were not in a state of grace, even after the death and resurrection of Christ freed them from hell.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope, if I understand it correctly, purgatory is only for those destined for salvation.
Limbo was one possibility for those who had no opportunity to know about Christ but lived virtuous lives.
Dagonee
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
My understanding on certain LDS ordinances like baptism, confirmation, endowment, etc. is that they are a way of entering into a covenant. So just as we sign our names to the bottom of a contract, or shakes hands to close a deal. When we are baptized we promise to take his name (Jesus Christ) unto ourselves, and to always remember him. He promises that when we are bapized all of our sins will be remitted (or forgiven and forgotten).
Since we believe thatbaptism requires a physical body, those who are already dead and didn't have a chance to be baptized in life by what we consider proper authority, still have a chance to enter into that covenant, but they require a proxy to do the actual baptism. It is generally agreed in LDS theology that when Christ promised the thief on the cross to see him in paradise, that they were both going to a spiritual 'holding area' where those that were righteous, but didn't get the chance to be baptized by the authority in life go and are taught the gospel by Christ himself (that's why he was going there to organize this teaching of the righteous) and later those who accepted the gospel themselves help with this teaching. They also teach those who weren't righteous in life, to try to convince them to change their ways.
Once someone is baptized for them, the dead have a chance to either accept or reject the covenant, but they can't make it because they have no way of 'signing' it per se. I use baptism as the example, because it is the I'm most familiar with, and that correlates best with other christian churches.
edit because I forgot to put LDS in the first sentence.
[ October 29, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Audeo ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What Audeo said.
Plus, the LDS church believes (as I'm sure other religions believe) that all things must be done in order and by the proper authority. Baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, the ordinances done in the temple--all are done by the proper priesthood authority by those recognized and duly assigned to administer the ordinances. There are always witnesses to record that the ordinance was performed properly.
No one can baptize themselves, for example, and baptism must be done with the proper authority, in the proper way, to be recognized by the church. This is the same for any ordinance.
The ordinance really is a symbol in space and time that we are entering into certain covenants with God. It is something that can be recorded as having been done. We can look back at it clearly and know we have done it, and have in effect signed our name to the covenants the ordinance represents. The ordinance also marks our progress toward eventual salvation, like a landmark on a path. When we have completed the ordinances required of us and as we faithfully keep the covenants those ordinances represent, then we have that assurance that we are traveling the right path in the right direction.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: The ordinance also marks our progress toward eventual salvation, like a landmark on a path. When we have completed the ordinances required of us and as we faithfully keep the covenants those ordinances represent, then we have that assurance that we are traveling the right path in the right direction.
This seems like you're saying that ordinances are largely symbolic (landmarks that are passed, not gates that MUST be passed through). If this was the case, it seems like performing ordinances for dead would be unimportant because they would be accepting the covenant in a spiritual sense and would have no need for the landmarks. From what you and Audeo have said, it seems more like the ordinances are gates that must be passed through. Without them, you can not reach salvation. In Audeo's terms, it is necessary to actually put your name to the contract, even if you already accept it and live by it. Do I understand correctly?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The ordinances must happen, and by the right authority. It isn't merely symbolic.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
And thank you to all for your explanations! This has been very informative.
PSI Teleport, I really appreciated your explanation. The idea that ceremonies are necessary for obedience, which will occur if a person is truly saved, is something that I can wrap my head around and understand.
A further question, in Dagonee and Kwea's explanations of limbo, I'm unclear if those people still need to accept the sacrements after death (like the Mormon holding place) or if they can attain salvation without them?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
katharina-
What is the basis for the other ordinances? I'm assuming that the logic for baptism is the same or similar to what Lucky4 stated, that the Bible says so. Is there similar revelation for the other ordinances? Or is there any further philosophical reasoning?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A further question, in Dagonee and Kwea's explanations of limbo, I'm unclear if those people still need to accept the sacrements after death (like the Mormon holding place) or if they can attain salvation without them?
The Catholic belief is that the Sacraments are unavailable to those who have died, so they are excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. But, their state is not one of punishment; it is simply the best happiness that is naturally attainable.
quote:The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see "Baptism," subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Rom. 5:12 sqq). On the other hand, it is clear form Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq, II Cor. 5:10; see also "Apocatastasis"). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."
Dagonee
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Great explanation Dagonee! Thanks! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
New Advent is a great site for explaining Catholic beliefs, but it's a reference, so you have to know some of the basics to find what you're really looking for.
Dagonee
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:What is the basis for the other ordinances? I'm assuming that the logic for baptism is the same or similar to what Lucky4 stated, that the Bible says so. Is there similar revelation for the other ordinances? Or is there any further philosophical reasoning?
Baptism (at least in the LDS church) symbolizes death (burial) and rebirth. The death of the old life, and the rebirth as a child of god. The physical death and the resurrection. Also, the cleansing of all sins.
The sacrament, where we eat the bread and drink the water, symbolizes the body and blood of Christ, and is a time to remember Christ and his great act of atonement for us, and to also renew the covenants we made at baptism.
I don't think every ordinance is as overtly symbolic, but they all have to be done in order for us to progress. Passing through gates is a very apt metaphor. I should have said that instead of landmarks.
[ October 29, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: all are done by the proper priesthood authority by those recognized and duly assigned to administer the ordinances. There are always witnesses to record that the ordinance was performed properly.
See, this part is confusing to me. I guess I can see why you'd want someone to witness it if it's something that has to be done "just so." But why does it need to be recorded? Doesn't God know if you've done it right? I'd think he'd be the only one who mattered.
Serious question, absolutly no offense intended. Is it for the security of future generations, to know that their ancestors are taken care of?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:See, this part is confusing to me. I guess I can see why you'd want someone to witness it if it's something that has to be done "just so." But why does it need to be recorded? Doesn't God know if you've done it right? I'd think he'd be the only one who mattered.
Serious question, absolutly no offense intended. Is it for the security of future generations, to know that their ancestors are taken care of?
The church keeps records of all ordinances performed. Baptism, for instance, is how one becomes a member of the church, so records are definitely kept. And yes, it is important to know which ordinances our ancestors have had done.
I should clarify about the witnesses: they don't actually record anything themselves. They are there as part of the ordinance being performed properly, and to ensure that nothing was missed.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Eljay,
The idea of witnesses is very important to Mormons theologically. It starts with the idea that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost (or at least one with the other) serve as Witnesses of each other.
"6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that abelieveth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."
-- 1 John 5:6-11
This extends to all matters of God, even if it is no more than preaching:
"1 THIS is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
-- 2 Cor. 13: 1
However, it extends most importantly to any ordinance administered to the Saints by those holding authority. In this particular scripture it touches on legal and spiritual matters in one discourse:
"16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the cchurch, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall aagree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
-- Matt. 18:16-20
I would even go so far as to say that for a Mormon, ordinances have to be done as a witness to ourselves and those around us as to spiritual intentions. For every ordinance done, there is a Covenant made. Physical actions imply Spiritual promises, although they are without force without Faith in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. And, in modern secular vernacular, a contract is always overseen by authorized witnesses.
[ October 30, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As for keeping records on earth, it has been important to do so since the creation of the world. The Old Testament, for instance, is full of references to book keeping.
"1 THIS is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 ¶ And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters . . ."
-- Gen. 5: 1-4
The books, or records, that are kept here on earth are in similitude of the Book of Life kept up in Heaven. It is for reasons of both judgement and the law of witnesses that records must be kept, even if God knows and doesn't have any personal reasons for the existance of the same on Earth.
"12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
-- Rev. 20: 12-15
I haven't used other LDS Scriptures to explain these concepts as the ones I have used I think are sufficiant. Joseph Smith Jr., the first LDS Prophet, wrote extensively about keeping records and explained it somewhat in depth.
[ October 30, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The books, or records, that are kept here on earth are in similitude of the Book of Life kept up in Heaven."
Is it the official LDS stance that these "records" are correct, particularly regarding lineages and lifespans?
[ October 30, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: See, this part is confusing to me. I guess I can see why you'd want someone to witness it if it's something that has to be done "just so." But why does it need to be recorded? Doesn't God know if you've done it right? I'd think he'd be the only one who mattered.
Okay, I think some people missed a point here. You're right, God doesn't need records, he knows it all already. But men do. In order to keep from performing the same ordinance twice, we record that is has been done, the witnesses are there only to ensure that it has been done properly (Make sure the name is said correctly, the prayer is said correctly, etc.) If we didn't record who gets an ordinance performed, we'd probably end up baptizing for the same person over a hundred times, which, even with the records, has probably happened once or twice anyway.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: It is generally agreed in LDS theology that when Christ promised the thief on the cross to see him in paradise, that they were both going to a spiritual 'holding area' where those that were righteous, but didn't get the chance to be baptized by the authority in life go and are taught the gospel by Christ himself (that's why he was going there to organize this teaching of the righteous) and later those who accepted the gospel themselves help with this teaching. They also teach those who weren't righteous in life, to try to convince them to change their ways.
I was thinking about this last night. Sorry if this has already been asked, but I don't know the answer and am truly curious. With this belief, what is the incentive to join the LDS church in this life? I mean, I know that if I died and I went to a holding area where Christ and Mormon missionaries were trying to convert me, you better believe I'd convert. It seems like most people would. So, do LDS expect that most people will end up in the Celestial Kingdom? Or is there some additional after life benefit of being LDS in this life?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Is it the official LDS stance that these "records" are correct, particularly regarding lineages and lifespans?
Although you can get different answers from whoever you ask, for some LDS believe them to be more accurate than others, officially the records are considered as plagued with problems as any human work. It is assumed (if not with a stronger word) that all things will be made right in the eternities. Any mistakes of men will be "corrected" by God in the future. Let this be emphasized once more that the records on earth are for OUR benefit, as God is seen as a God of order.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Amancer,
There is no "Second Chance" in the afterlife. If you have had a chance to be baptised on earth, and refused, than that is all you have. Vicarious works are for those who never had the chance to accept or refuse the message. So, why join here on Earth? Because once you know something, than you are obligated to act upon that knowledge one way or the other. Perhaps in this case ignorance is bliss. Who knows?
There is also the LDS teaching that says whatever spirit you have when you leave the body, you have in the next life. If you are filthy when you die, you will remain in that state. If you are righteous when you die, than you will remain in the state of Righteousness. Thus, if you would accept the gospel while alive, you would accept it after death. If you would reject it while alive, you would reject it after death as well. This life is the time to prepare to meet God, and afterward judgement. It really depends on the kind of person you are at the end of this probation called mortality.
I guess you could say that I take issue with the idea that the afterlife missionaries "teach those who weren't righteous in life, to try to convince them to change their ways." However, those who sin in ignorance (or what the scriptures call without the law) are considered covered by Jesus Christ's atonement.
[ October 30, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What constitutes a chance to be baptised? I would rather think many of the people baptised post mortem at least knew about the LDS faith in a vague sense, for instance.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:What constitutes a chance to be baptised?
The Zillion Dollar Question! That isn't for me or anyone else to say. That is up to God to say, and He aint tell'n.
[ October 30, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I don't understand why these ceremonies are important.
Neither do I, although I believe that they are.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I was thinking about this last night. Sorry if this has already been asked, but I don't know the answer and am truly curious. With this belief, what is the incentive to join the LDS church in this life? I mean, I know that if I died and I went to a holding area where Christ and Mormon missionaries were trying to convert me, you better believe I'd convert. It seems like most people would. So, do LDS expect that most people will end up in the Celestial Kingdom? Or is there some additional after life benefit of being LDS in this life?
The whole thing is really hard to explain, and is more or less the result of revelation coupled with my own theories of what happens (So don't take me as an authority). The rule for this is simply stated, in paraphrase (I can't remember the exact scripture): The spirit that has control of us when we leave this life will have power to control us in the next. If we are controled by a spirit of hatred, we will still have that hatred in the next life. If we are controled by an addiction, that addiction will control us in the next life (Though that addiction will never be able to be fulfilled, and will effectively become a hell of its own). So the way I believe it works is this, if a person hates our church here, they will hate it there and will ultimately reject any baptism done for them because of that hatred. Only the person who dies actually has any control over whether or not they accept that baptism. There will be no moment when you die that you just suddenly realize, "Oh, it was the Mormons, huh?" Our faith is still tried even after death. The basic result: a person who accepts that baptism in the next life probably would have eventually accepted it in his lifetime had it been long enough. If a person has missionaries on their doorstep and says, "No thanks" in this lifetime, I honestly think it is unfair and unrighteous to say that that person will not have a chance to accept it in the next life, or that a baptism for that person will not count. On the other hand, the man who I spoke to on my mission who said he hated all Mormons because they were biggots (I always thought that was funny) and then threatened me will more than likely have the same opinion in the next life, and will refuse baptism, though I am not certain of that, because that isn't my call to make. I hope that clears up more confusion than it causes.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Heh, just realized I restated something said earlier. Learn to read all of the posts, Boris. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yes, but you said it differently. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Okay, I think some people missed a point here. You're right, God doesn't need records, he knows it all already. But men do. In order to keep from performing the same ordinance twice, we record that is has been done...
...we'd probably end up baptizing for the same person over a hundred times
Borris, I was talking about ceremonies done for people who are still alive. I think you would notice if someone tried to baptise you repeatedly, and talk them out of it by the 99th time, neh?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
(I'm gonna use that for the beating myself on the head cause I'm too lazy to read everything on the thread smiley). And just so you know, I knew a guy on my mission who had a severe relapse of PTSD and forgot he was a member of the church (no lie). We ended up baptizing him a second time, then the records came back with a note that said, "What'd you do that for?" Yeah...It happens.
[ October 30, 2004, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I like to think that following ordinances are in many ways physical means of expressing an inward change, or a readiness and willingness to accept more responsibility - I think in many ways, the ritual-aspect of the ordinance is done as a physical reminder of the spiritual convenants made - a tangible or tactile expression of a spirtual event. All ordinances are heavily symbolic, in ways that the more one thinks about them, the more insight and understanding one can get of the spirtual meaning behind them. Multiple meanings, kind of like Christ's Parables.
Here's a Q&A concerning 'Being Born Again & Baptism' that I recently read reprinted in an LDS New Testament study manual, that I think really expressed how each outward ordinance is only half of the process - the Spiritual change needs to accompany the physical, and vice versa.:
quote:QUESTION
In John 3:3, Jesus said, “Except a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” and in John 3:5, Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” It is one thing to see the kingdom, and it is a different thing entirely to enter the kingdom. Does this mean that the second birth, or spiritual rebirth, has two parts?
ANSWER
Yes, this second birth or spiritual rebirth has two general parts. In order to understand what it means to see the kingdom of God, it is necessary to perceive what the Holy Ghost will do for a man before that man is baptized into the Church, The Prophet Joseph Smith explained:
“There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.” (Teachings, p. 199.)
When a nonmember sees the kingdom of God, it means that the power of the Holy Ghost is poured out upon him to teach him that the Church is true. He then has a testimony. He knows.
“The Lord will reveal the truth once; then when this testimony has been given, the person should accept the truth and receive the gospel by baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. . . . Cornelius received a manifestation in strict conformity to the instruction given by Moroni, and had he turned away there would have been no further light or direction for him. The Spirit of the Lord will not argue with men, nor abide in them, except they yield obedience to the Lord’s commandments. (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:29.)
At the time a person sees the kingdom, he does not necessarily receive a remission of his sins. The Holy Ghost has merely taught him what he must do to receive a remission of sins. Of this the Prophet Joseph Smith said:
“It is one thing to see the kingdom of God, and another thing to enter into it. We must have a change of heart to see the kingdom of God, and subscribe the articles of adoption to enter therein.” (Smith, Teachings, p. 328.)
QUESTION
Does a person always see the kingdom before baptism?
ANSWER
No, this experience may occur in the life of a baptized member of the Church as well. Sometimes people are members of the Church even for many years before they “see” or gain a testimony that the Church is true.
QUESTION
It seems clear that seeing involves witness and testimony and conviction about the truthfulness of the Church. But what has to occur so that a person has the true change of heart so that he can enter the kingdom of God?
ANSWER
“Baptism by immersion symbolizes the death and burial of the man of sin; and the coming forth out of the water, the resurrection to a newness of spiritual life. After baptism, hands are laid upon the head of the baptized believer, and he is blessed to receive the Holy Ghost. Thus does the one baptized receive the promise or gift of the Holy Ghost or the privilege of being brought back into the presence of one of the Godhead, by obedience to whom and through his faithfulness one so blessed might receive the guidance and direction of the Holy Ghost in his daily walks and talks, even as Adam walked and talked in the Garden of Eden with God, his Heavenly Father. To receive such guidance and such direction from the Holy Ghost is to be spiritually reborn.” (Harold B. Lee in CR, Oct. 1947, p. 64.)
QUESTION
Does a person always receive this spiritual rebirth at the time of baptism?
ANSWER
“Mere compliance with the formality of the ordinance of baptism does not mean that a person has been born again. No one can be born again without baptism, but the immersion in water and the laying on of hands to confer the Holy Ghost do not of themselves guarantee that a person has been or will be born again. The new birth takes place only for those who actually enjoy the gift or companionship of the Holy Ghost, only for those who are fully converted, who have given themselves without restraint to the Lord. Thus Alma addressed himself to his ‘brethren of the church,’ and pointedly asked them if they had ‘spiritually been born of God,’ received the Lord’s image in their countenances, and had the ‘mighty change’ in their hearts which always attends the birth of the Spirit. (Alma 5:14–31.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 101.)
QUESTION
What blessings are available to someone who is born again?
ANSWER
“Those members of the Church who have actually been born again are in a blessed and favored state. They have attained their position, not merely by joining the Church, but through faith (1 John 5:1), righteousness (1 John 2:29), love (1 John 4:7), and overcoming the world. (1 John 5:4.) ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not continue in sin; for the Spirit of God remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God, having received that holy Spirit of promise.’ (Inspired Version, 1 John 3:9.) (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 101.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Learn to read all of the posts, Boris. ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)