posted
Also, I think a major problem seems to be stemming from the interpretation of Baptism for the Dead. For some, proxy baptism is baptism, with all the consequences that implies. It seems to me, at least I think, is that what the LDS members are saying here, is that by doing the proxy baptism, they are only "offering" a baptism. Which seems bizaar to me, but if I'm understanding this correctly, I think this is where the fundamental problem lies. Your either baptising someone by proxy or your offering a baptism by proxy. Maybe the change in language would help. But as it stands, it seems wrong. The grove of trees comparison from earlier is a good example. If you are just walking out there and offering a bless, and wait for the tree to answer, that's one thing. But if you are just blessing the trees, that's a completely different thing. (Wait, are the trees sentient, like in Speaker For The Dead? Or are the trees being used as proxies for actual family members? I forget.)
posted
I have to jump in and offer my support of TomDavidson.
It seems to me that bad choices are the result of insufficient information. I talked a little about this in another thread:
quote: I maintain that there are two types of sin.
1: ignorance (non-evil) 2: delighting in suffering (evil)
While God can not create sin in regards to creating something evil, I do believe that God can withhold knowledge.
Adam and Eve had no desire to sin, infact, (assuming it is a true myth) until they partook of the tree of knowledge, they could not know the implications of their actions.
Working through experiences (i.e. ignorance and hence sin) to learn Godly attributes is not evil and can exist with an Omnipotent Good God.
I think the vast majority of sin in the world is due to ignorance since all of us (from a Mormon perspective) are still behind the veil.
In ignorance we can learn to delight in the suffering of others, and that is why we need an atonement. We need the atonement, not because we were too ignorant to know better, but because in our ignorance we can also learn evil attributes just as easy as we can learn good attributes. God created neither, but He does give His endorsements and judgments.
In the afterlife, unless you want to delight in the suffering of others, you will have all the facts--yep..there is Christ. Yep, he really did atone for us. WHY would anyone make an incorrect choice if they have all the available information. My contention is the vast majority of people would make similar choices in a situation that affected their eternal happiness and progression if they had all of the right information.
What kinda of person, assuming LDS theology is correct, would deny proxy baptism? I don't think anyone would, because all the people who already denied God's plan with full awareness are considered perdition.
The rest of us accepted the plan already and have now made choices due to ignorance. With all the data, we would all accept the plan. Hence, Tom's logic
quote: Whether or not the Muslim chooses to accept the baptism after his death -- and he'd be pretty stupid NOT to, really, since the afterlife he'd be experiencing by that point would clearly not be the Muslim one; I reject utterly the bizarre Mormon claim that dead people sit around going, "Oh, looks like the Mormons were right -- but you know, I just don't feel like being a Mormon, so I'd rather hang out here" -- is irrelevant.
on why this is ridiculous holds full sway for me--until someone can point put a different type of error.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, would God really deny entrance to your afterlife based on the fact that someone was born on the wrong continent at the wrong time? If you grew up in a part of the world 100 years ago and had never heard of LDS, would that person really be held accountable for his choices? Either you knew and your responsible for your choices or you didn't and shouldn't be.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle- I was thinking a few weeks ago about the sacrament (communion of bread and wine, or in our case, water) and whether it is a work or an act of faith. I think because I am dependent of the servants of the Lord to provide me with it, it is a symbol of my dependence on the Lord. I think all ordinances, rather than ladders we climb, are hands reaching down to lift us. What looks to you like the lie of spiritual self sufficiency looks to me like the truth of surrender.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, would God really deny entrance to your afterlife based on the fact that someone was born on the wrong continent at the wrong time? If you grew up in a part of the world 100 years ago and had never heard of LDS, would that person really be held accountable for his choices? Either you knew and your responsible for your choices or you didn't and shouldn't be.
Kayla, that's the whole point of the proxy baptisms, they did not get a chance to hear the gospel in life, so it wouldn't really be fair for them to be held accountable for not believeing it. However, they have to belief it an accept Jesus's attonment for their sins, or justice simply will not let them enter into Father's kingdom, for God can not be in the prescence of sin and only Jesus can wash that sin away. So the solution? They will have a chance to accept the gospel after their death and the apprpriate ordinances will be preformed here on Earth (proxy baptism) so that they can enter "into His rest."
One thing I've been thinking about, clearly when doing the proxy baptisms, all participants have it clearly in mind that they are only giving the person a chance to be baptisied, not actually forceably baptising them. It seems like any belief system in which other's works affected your after-life would also take into account what the works are, and the fact that the work itself is an offer, not a forcing seems like it should matter. I don't know though, just a thought.
posted
Kayla, I'm afraid I used some confusing language when I said accountable.
For reference, I am pulling most of this from Moroni 8.
We are accountable for what we know. EVERYONE needs the baptism still (for my theory as to why, see the post to Alexa), but when it comes to "how did you do in this life", we will be judged according to the commandments we knew and could have known.
For instance, someone who never got a chance to hear of Christ will have their life judged by the commandments they knew, and then given a chance to accept Christ.
It's kind of a freaky concept, because it means the more you know, the more you are accountable for. That's right - the more you read the scriptures, the more ultimate trouble you can get into. Of course, the more you read, the more chance you get of getting to know Christ, so there's an upside.
This includes deliberately choosing to not listen. Someone who has an opportunity and chooses not to take it does not have the same accountability as someone who never had the opportunity.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What kinda of person, assuming LDS theology is correct, would deny proxy baptism? I don't think anyone would, because all the people who already denied God's plan with full awareness are considered perdition.
The rest of us accepted the plan already and have now made choices due to ignorance. With all the data, we would all accept the plan. Hence, Tom's logic quote: "Whether or not the Muslim chooses to accept the baptism after his death -- and he'd be pretty stupid NOT to, really, since the afterlife he'd be experiencing by that point would clearly not be the Muslim one; I reject utterly the bizarre Mormon claim that dead people sit around going, "Oh, looks like the Mormons were right -- but you know, I just don't feel like being a Mormon, so I'd rather hang out here" -- is irrelevant."
on why this is ridiculous holds full sway for me--until someone can point put a different type of error.
Well, this all kind of depends on what people are like after they die, don't you think? If a person finds christianity distasteful in this life what makes you think that it will be suddenly palatable to them after they die? Really the points you and Tom raise depend very much on the idea that death is very much different from life, and that due to this difference there is a radical change caused in the beliefs of the person. When our core beliefs are challenged by new experiences would you say the tendency is to change those beliefs or to cling more tightly to the old ones?
Clear examples of this can be seen right here on this thread. When scriptural points are raised together with a challenge to one's beliefs, does the challenged person surrender their belief or do they find a way in which the challenge actually fits into their beliefs after all?
posted
Hobbes, thanks for the answer. I would think God could set up a better system than that. You know, "Orientation 101" for those who never heard the Gospel, that way, they could listen and decide, but seriously, at that point and time, is there really a need? Tea and cake or death. Duh. Tea and cake.
What kind of God would allow for someone never having heard the Gospel and then never been "lucky" enough to get his name submitted for proxy baptism? Do you really think that you have and/or could possibly [i]ever[i] have all the names of everyone who never heard the Gospel? I don't see how you could ever possibly think you could. What about those who aren't related to you? I mean, if you go back far enough, we're all related, right? But there are people who are forgotten completely. There are people who lived and died and don't have relatives that are LDS and never heard the gospel. I still don't get it. It seems to me that type of God would be what I'd consider uncaring and capricious.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, before Christ comes down again (the Second Coming) we're just trying to get as much of the work out of the way as possible. Technically we could just sit on our hands and hmm until the Lord returns (though that would mkae us pretty selfish) and His will would still be done. Once he arrives here all the names will be supplied. All people will have the option to accept the gospel and be baptisied.
quote: Do you really think that you have and/or could possibly [i]ever[i] have all the names of everyone who never heard the Gospel? I don't see how you could ever possibly think you could. What about those who aren't related to you? I mean, if you go back far enough, we're all related, right? But there are people who are forgotten completely. There are people who lived and died and don't have relatives that are LDS and never heard the gospel.
That's the goal. Everybody. We believe a lot of the millenium will be spent doing this work.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it is true that the LDS scriptures talk of everyone having a "perfect knowledge" in the afterlife (see 2 Nephi 9:14 in the Book of Mormon, for example), nothing I have seen seems to imply that such perfect knowledge will come to an individual until after his resurrection. And LDS doctrine, as I understand it, teaches explicitly that the opportunity for people to accept/reject Christ and His gospel (and any associated proxy ordinances) will be before said resurrection. Perhaps in the afterlife, there will be some of the same uncertainties we have now: other people trying to explain to us what everything is all about, preaching different doctrines. Maybe there will be many different explanations of why life-after-death is the way it is, some based on truth revealed from God and some just the best that men can come up with on their own. And we'll have to decide, again, what we believe.
Thus, I don't see it as automatic that everyone will get to the afterlife and immediately have "all the facts"--large amounts of evidence that the LDS teachings were right all along, for example. It could be that way, or it could not be that way, and LDS doctrine doesn't seem to definitively answer the question.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
For those who don't know what Kat means, once Christ reveals Himself (physically) to the world for a second time, He will reign over the earth for a millenium (one of peace and prosperiety), and then all people who have lived will be ressurected and judged. That in-bewtween mellenium is called (obviously) the millenium, and that's what Kat's talking about.
It is because the idea that people can go out and do horrible things their whole life and then, at their death, can simply ask Christ to forgive them. They spent their entire life refusing Christ because they would rather have the pleasure, and at the end realize "Oh, I'm going to die? What now? Oh yeah, hell. I can feel it already, the guilt for all the things I did. Damn, I don't want to go there. Please, Jesus, forgive me."
This doesn't seem proper, to me at least.
The theoretical "didn't know any better, but now I do, but now my life is over" is rare and I think it is wrongly used by many people who claim to be Christian to dismiss their wrong doings as already being taken care of by Christ, so that they can party, and then expect the bill to be paid by Him.
God is limited in saving us by our own limitations, psychological and physical.
There must be balance. While it is true that we cannot even hope to begin to repay all the blessings God has poured down upon us, neither can we hope to get it for free.
It requires, at the very, very least, a true belief in Christ. That is the beginning. Once you step on that path, your belief in Christ requires other things of you, and if you do not sincerely try to follow through on them, then you are rejecting Christ.
In the Bible, God always formalized things with his people using covenants. LDS people believe he did not change this pattern. Baptism is a formalized covenant between God and the person being baptized that they accept Christ, will be his witness, and will keep the commandments.
In return, we are saved and we recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
Being formalized makes us more likely to follow Christ, because in our sinful nature, such things make God more real to us. It is another way, another tool that God uses to help as many as possible accept Christ and KEEP Christ accepted in their lives.
Once you understand the impact of your actions in relation to Christ, you are that much more responsible if you harm others. Yes, Christ will atone for that too, but only if you keep your eye to Him. Formal ordinances help you do this.
Baptism is a requirement, yes, but only because it is a tool that will statistically help more people than if it didn't exist. But because God does not treat people differently, he doesn't change the requirements for everyone.
The other LDS ordinances are simply more tools to help us commit even more deeply to the path that God would have us take. We promise our entire life to pursue the goals of God: our riches, our talents, our muscle, our mind, our spirit are all offered to God to help build His kingdom. Some people view that as the Mormon church, but I believe it is more. The LDS organization is important even to the point of being pivotal and I will uphold it my entire life, but I think it is still another tool in God's hand to bring the world His peace. The more good anyone does, the closer they come to God. The closer anyone comes to God, the more joy and peace there is in the world and in heaven thereafter.
Is that such a horrible thing to add to the Gospel?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your either baptising someone by proxy or your offering a baptism by proxy
I am glad you brought this up. For mormons, because Christ's atonement was a proxy atonement, I think we (yes I still consider myself Mormon) tend to assume other Christians and non-Mormons undersand that anything proxy depends on the choice of the recipiant. Just like Christ Atoned for all sins but only those who accept Christ will have the atonement applied to them, proxy Baptism depends on the choice f the recipient. You are giving opportunity and choice--not taking away choice.
Jacare Sorridente,
quote:Really the points you and Tom raise depend very much on the idea that death is very much different from life, and that due to this difference there is a radical change caused in the beliefs of the person.
No our point (well mine anyway) is that additional information will affect our decisions. If there is an afterlife and there is a Christ, you got to admit that is some pretty powerful information, so yeah, I think there will be dramtic changes in behavior and choices.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I agree that just knowing there's an afterlife can be a big help, but who said you'll know there's a Christ? Really, I don't think there's a garuntee anything will be told to you at all after your death. (By which I mean, you probably aren't going to die, go to class for a while, and then enter into the spirtual after-life).
posted
It's not a horrible thing to add to the Gospel, it's just unnecessary.
You are making the claim that people can live a righteous life. When you judge the person who sees the light and gets converted on his deathbed and condemn him for living a horrible life you are asserting that you, who saw the light earlier, lived a better life and is more deserving of heaven.
I believe that you deserve hell. And so do I. And so does that last minute convert that did despicable things. God teaches us that no one is righteous, no not one. All our good deeds are as filthy rags. Nothing you can do can earn you heaven, so it's pretty presumptuous to believe you deserve it more than that man on his deathbed.
Christ's sacrifice covered all our filthy rags and unrighteousness. And to say it isn't enough, to say that more is required, belittles Calvary. It belittles what he did, it says "Christ shed his blood in atonement - but it's not enough. you also have to do these things that humans have decided should be added to the gospel, because we humans know better about what salvation requires.
Nothing I do will ever win me a spot in heaven. I don't care how righteous a life I live or how many people I lead to Christ or how many sacrifices I make or even whether I go to my death as a martyr for my faith. Nothing. No amount of works, baptism included, is worth more than the blood of Christ.
His blood, his atonement on the cross is enough for me. I don't want to exalt any physical act, any outward work, any rite or ceremony man came up with to the same level as his sacrifice for me.
I have been baptized out of obedience, out of respect, and out of a wish to make a public declaration of my faith. But that baptism didn't save me, no more than any of the good works I try to pile up in this lifetime can.
Nothing but the blood covers my sins, and I personally believe the blood is enough.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every knee shall bow, every tounge shall confess--sounds like everyone will know (assuming it is true).
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the best illustration of this is Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard.
The 11th hour workers received the same pay as the ones that worked all day.
The ones who worked all day thought this wasn't fair and most of us would agree it isn't fair.
But grace is not about fairness, it's a gift. The murderer on his deathbed is the 11th hour worker - he received his pay for only one hour worked. We, on the other hand, if we have been believers most of our life, worked all day. We get the same pay.
Why? Because the giver can bestow the gift wherever he wishes. And he offers the gift of salvation to all who ask, yes even those who ask in the final moments. Is it unfair to us? No, we agreed to work for the pay, and we are given it. It is up to him if he wants to favor the 11th hour workers with the same payment. Why should we be jealous at his generosity?
It's grace, it's a gift, it's love. We can't earn it. It would mean a lot less if we could.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to say that Belle is doing a very nice job of explaining what I believe also.
The only thing I want to add is that the person who sees the light earlier and devotes their life to good things, doing their best, giving to the poor and living as righteous a life as they are capable has their rewards when they get to heaven. The works of goodness didn't get them there, but the Bible says that by the lives they led will their crown and rewards be determined. The guy who has a deathbed conversion will be a pauper as he will have *nothing* to claim for goodness.
By grace we are saved, but by our works we are known. I would sure hate to be the guy who has no good works to show for the entirety of his life. I would prefer to be the one who Jesus calls, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
So works count for something...they just won't do the saving.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Mormons do believe that we are saved by grace -- that it is only through the gift of Christ's atonement that we can be saved and that that is a free gift for all.
Our works do not save us. You do not 'earn' your way into 'Mormon heaven.'
And without being born again -- meaning not only being baptized, but in truly committing and re-committing to Christ, to having his image in our countenance -- we can not be saved.
Indeed, the very fact that we have a chance to be cleansed of sin and return to our Father is a gift.
The difference lies, then, not in concepts of works vs. faith or grace or when a person converts [Mormon theology allows for the 11th hour parable -- and indeed it is repeated in non-Biblical Mormon scripture (as someone mentioned earlier)]. Rather it lies in our view of the eventual state of the human soul.
It makes a lot of sense of discussing being saved in the terms Belle describes if you believe that after we die we are judged and we either go to heaven or not.
And in one way, Mormons believe this. We are saved from eternal damnation and the grave through and only through the grace of Christ. But because we also believe in the concept of eternal progression -- of acquiring the attributes of God, we also believe that it's crucial that you do those things i.e. live in such a way that you are able to acquire these attributes, knowledge and wisdom. And that is why we have the ordinances that we do [which are there to symbolize, formalize and motivate us in our attempts at progression -- and to point us always to Christ as the one to emulate and the only one who can give us the strentgh and grace and absolution needed to progress] and why we try and live in the way we do. But those actions can't be done, in the end, only in view of some reward. It has to be based in love -- love of God, love of Christ. Yes, because we are weak, we don't always have that attitude, but if we can't act -- can't serve others -- with that attitude at some point, then we are lost.
In terms of deathbed repentance. I understand those Mormons who see it as cop out. But here's the thing -- we believe that we have a chance in the next life to renew or make convenants, learn and progress etc. If Constantine, for example, truly accepted Christ and Christ's grace on his deathbed, then that means he died in a state of being pointed in the right direction and thus is 'saved' -- and has a chance to become perfected.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's true that our works don't make us righteous. But it's also true that our works keep us in a range of choices so we are less likely to commit adultery or murder. Or even to be offended. I've often wondered what is meant by offend in the New Testament. It's not one of those words that is broken down very much.
I think the worst sin we can commit is the one that tempts our brothers and sisters to not forgive us. Now I don't think that because some have found reason to be offended by posthumous baptism, that it is a sin. I mean adultery and murder. Those are tough to forgive. But neither am I offended at those who have said it is such a sin. Perhaps I made such sin by putting 8 smilies in one post on this thread.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I understand your thought that wrong choices are the result of insufficient information. And I certainly hope that people find it as clear as that in the next life.
But I don't think that's necessarily the case. The scriptures show time and time again that people with good information -- information beyond what most of us have been privy to, still make wrong choices. See for example, Laman and Lemuel.
The reason for that is, actually, linked to the fall of Lucifer and his becoming Satan. That is -- pride.
Also: from what I understand of the spirit world -- where our spirits go when our mortal bodies die -- it is a place not much different than this world. A place where people form relationships and societies. A place where a lot of talking goes on. A place where decisions are made. It is not the place where the Father is.
While the very fact that spirits discover that there body wasn't all -- that they do have an immortal element to their being -- is indeed a huge piece of information. I don't know that that will be enough to convince everyone that 'Mormonism' is the right way and they need to do those things that Joseph Smith et. al. is saying they need to do in order to qualify for the celestial kingdom at the time of the resurrection and final judgement.
And I still think that holds true even if -- as it seems to be to be the case -- heavenly messengers appear from time to time with messages, warnings, etc. Laman and Lemual, after all, saw an angel.
What's more, it's one thing to have a knowledge of something. It's quite another to humble yourself, to let go of your pride, and accept the will of the Lord. Conversely, it's also another thing to find the strength to take advantage of repentance and feel worthy of God's presence -- especially since we don't enter the spirit world as a blank slate. We enter with our experiences in mortal life engrained upon our spirit -- that matter more refined shaped by how we live our life and thus varying in its responsiveness to the Gospel message.
Does that make sense?
That said -- I think that some people will find it easier to believe and act on that belief. Some may find it more difficult.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Catholic Church does NOT recognize LDS Baptisms. The vatican made an official pronouncement on that at some point after I was baptised LDS, and I was interested to hear that because of having been raised Catholic myself.
So it's definitely mutual, the not-recognizing-the-other-baptism thing. Just thought I'd mention that, because way back on page 3 or something, it was brought up. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka: our works can make as righteous -- i.e. can make us a person who has godly attributes. But they don't save us. Christ saves us through his atoning sacrifice. He qualifies us. Because even if we repent, we still are not perfect, we still are weak. Even our final status -- our place in one of the three kingdoms -- comes because Christ is able to satisfy the demands of justice and allows us to partake of his mercy.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the absolute necessity for Grace. It goes both ways though. Faith without works is dead.
The true Christian (and no one can judge who that is, they can only apply this principle to their own life) will be one with Christ. But this does not mean it is no longer an effort to extend the hand of service. It means simply that they understand the meanings of their works now, and understanding the spirit, they can serve better. I don't care when this happens.
I just don't think that anyone can PLAN to sin, knowing that Christ will forgive them. Such a planning doesn't need to be premeditated somehow. Just a lifestyle lived badly with the "But it is okay, because Christ will save me."
Part of believing on Christ is to actually have a contrite spirit. Every sin we commit is worthy of sorrow and seperates us from God. We are all at different points in our lives, where some sins are very easy to avoid, while others we struggle with our entire life. And that is the point: we must be struggling in Christ.
There is no point in your life where you can claim you are saved. Your belief in Christ will be reflected through the sum of your faith in Christ throughout your life. That could very well be the whore who tried to feed her children.
But you cannot say the tools are unecessary.
You are a writer, Belle, so I think you can understand the struggle with making sure the words mean exactly the message you are trying to convey. Jesus was far better at living than we ever can hope to be at writing. Do you not think that every single action he made was carefully calculated to give us exactly the example we needed? Do you think that God was just playing around when he used John the Baptist as a prophet to teach the saving ordinance of baptism and then Jesus approached him, Jesus who had no sin, and was baptized? And then God said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Unecessary symbolism? Would God EVER do anything unecessary?
We are human. We need our symbols. We need our covenants with God. I maintain that such formalized promises ARE necessary for the greater good. I maintain that such formalized promises increase not only our personal relationship with God, but also our ability to help others around us and cause more people to see the light and be saved in this world and the next.
You, yourself, believe that marriage is not simply moving in together, but requires a ceremony. And that is a less important step than accepting Christ.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apart from this particular discussion with Belle, I agree with what Rakeesh said: I would never support causing anyone who, in their life, expressly forbid anyone to baptize them for the dead, or who was part of a religion that believed that it would cause harm to their spirit.
ak: I think it has something to do with our recognition of priesthood authority. We both believe in it, but who actually has it is at contention. Protestants are generally considered a descendant religion from catholicism, that considered itself descended from the ministry of the 12 apostles. As such, the priesthood never left the earth. We believe the priesthood was lost, and that a revelatory restoration was needed. As such, we both recognize that our priesthoods are different. The only question is, which one maintains the authority? So it is logical to extend that to not recognize the authority by which someone in the other church is baptized.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What happens to people who are baptized after death, but unable to make the decision about accepting it (dementia, mental illness, etc)? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After death? I don't think those will be a factor.
For this life, we are only accountable for as much as we are able to understand. In other words, if you don't have the capacity to make the choice, free pass.
So these people, if not raised in an LDS family, are not baptized after death?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the doctrine is that if someone is incapable of being accountable for their actions, as through dementia or mental illness, they do not require baptism. But seeing as we can't judge such a case, I think the general idea is better safe than sorry.
But with children, we have been very clearly told that under 8=not accountable. That is, children under 8 still may do "bad things", but because their minds are young, Christ's atonement covers whatever they might do. They are not held accountable. Children who died under the age of 8 are not posthumously baptized.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if anyone interested has done the math to discover just how many names you'd need to proxy baptism each day in order to come out even in 100 years.
It's probably Quite, Quite high. So high, that every LDS member writing down names 24/7 wouldn't be able to do it. But feel free to do the calculation and prove me wrong. I'm quite curious.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, here is a "modern parable" that kinda describes LDS viewpoint on faith/works/salvation. It goes something like this:
A little boy wants a bicycle. He wants it really badly. The father says, no. He explains that a bike costs a lot of money, and the family can't afford it right now. The boy leaves, thoughtful. He returns with some coins in his hand. "This is all the money I have in my penny-bank. Is this enough to buy a bicycle?" The Dad is moved by this child's willingness to give all he has for the bicycle. But it is hopelessly short, it is little more than a dollar. But the father says, "Yes, son, that will be enough from you. It is not enough to pay for the bike, but I see how much you are willing to give for it, and I will make up the rest of the cost." The father takes the boy's money and buys the bicycle for the child.
Two passages from the Book of Mormon:
2 Ne. 10: 24
24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.
2 Ne. 25: 23
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace• that we are saved, after all we can do•.
Since we believe faith and works go hand-in-hand, we believe the Lord requires an offering of both together. Faith, Repentance (part of repentance is bringing forth good fruits), Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. After that, we then need to do our best. We believe that someone can "fall from grace".
2 Ne. 31: 14
14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny• me, it would have been better• for you that ye had not known me.
I look upon this as very simple and beautiful, and it makes sense to me. I also believe that this doctrine is in harmony with the teachings of the Bible. But as these things are not as clearly stated there, it is easier to come away with different interpretations, as we see amongst the many Christian denominations.
That is one of the reasons I love the Book of Mormon so much, when you join the words of it and the Bible together, it is a lot harder to come away with different interpretations on so many basic gospel principles.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, that's one of the reasons we need to convert as many people as possible. The more individuals working on it over a period of 1000 years, the more you can get done. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh except by working over 1000 years, you're doing yourself a disservice. As the population of the world is undergoing quite a steep logarithmic curve (minus inevitable destruction because of resource problems), you're going to have to do much better on the writing side. It'll be tough to combat.
Easier to work now before it gets too high.
I'm working on a super rough estimate with friends. I'll get back to you when we have a number.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given 37 billion people who have died, according to ads for Dawn of the Dead, it would require baptizing 1,013,004.79 per day to get them all in 100 years. That's counting leap years.
posted
If I understand correctly, a LOT of people are going to die in the calamaties leading up to Christs return, and there will be a higher population of reproducing LDS not to mention all the missionary work going on. I think it will work out alright.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget to subtract out everyone younger than eight years old- that will lighten the load considerably.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mkay. For anyone else foolish enough to be interested...
you could get a rough estimate (Rough!) by:
Plotting a line that estimates the number of people that can be proxy baptized if all LDS write down names for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week (giving time for sleep) while taking into account the already-done-baptisms-by-LDS and the current rate of growth of the LDS Church.
Seeing the intersection of that curve with a plotted line of the number of people that have ever lived. Start at (0, 37 billion) using Dag's discovered estimation, and use the current birth rate (which is 20 births/1000 living people per year).
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also consider we will probably have a better idea of who definitely does not want to be baptized. Right now we try to cover everyone, but then, we will actually know and it will be according to their will.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I totally forgot that it would take longer to baptize each person.
Can anyone estimate the length of time it would take to baptize someone by proxy? We'd also have to remember there's a limit because there's a limited number of Church officials who can perform the baptism...
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, since in the LDS church all worthy males may hold the priesthood, and so long as such a guy has also been deemed worthy to enter the temple, he can perform these baptisms, it isn't much of a problem.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
