posted
There are a couple of floating mormon theological questions to address:
Q) Didn't Christ tell the unbaptized thief on the cross he would go to paradise?
A) The paradeisos is the greek word used which refers to a Hebrew belief that in sheol (greek Hades), which is the abode of the spirits, there was a separation between the spirits of the pious and the wicked with the pious dwelling in paradise and the wicked...not (see strong's concordance 3857). In LDS doctrine we find a similar view with the basically good going to paradise and the wicked going to spirit prison. After this stage awaiting the resurrection comes the final judgment where there are basically four places people can go- three kingdoms of glory and one of darkness. There is nothing as far as I know which correlates where a spirit stands in sheol (ie paradise or prison) and where they end up in the final judgment. Therefore it is quite possible that the thief on the cross ended up in paradise after he died but would still have to accept baptism if he were to be able to obtain the highest degree of glory- else he would be relegated to a lower level of glory by LDS theology.
Q) What about the reference in Corinthians to baptism for the dead?
A) Corinthians 15: 29 reads: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
The Mormon understanding of this scripture is that Paul in his indictment of the Corinthians for their belief that there was no resurrection was asking why the Corinthians were performing baptisms for the dead if there is no resurrection since such a ritual would be meaningless without the resurrection.
The general protestant view of this scripture as I understand it is that Paul was citing practices of a sect in apostasy and indicting them in addition to the corinthians for their unbelief.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, I think Xavier disregarded that notion because he doesn't believe that God would work that way, and I think many people would agree with his assessment.
[ April 12, 2004, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately by simply disagreeing, you're simply working within your own framework. Which is part of the problem.
Saying "your version of reality can't be right," doesn't get us very far in the realm of increasing understanding.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon, that's assuming God would have a choice in the matter. Many believe that God have (voluntarily) restricted himself in how he interferes in the human affairs, particularly with regards to free will. Obviously God does not intervene to stop any number of actions that lead to terrible atrocities on the physical plane. What if the Mormon baptisms, by virtue of the free agency of those performing them, lead to similar terrible (if unintended) consequences on the spiritual plane?
quote: 4. The proxy baptisms of the Mormons affect the dead, but not in the way intended by the Mormons.
#4 can be harmful. Paul insists the same earlier on this page. The Mormon Church believes the dead have the choice to accept the proxy baptism. What if they don't? What if your proxy baptism changes the dead? Kind of like expelling a poltergeist? Then harm is done.
But here's the thing: in order for someone to be worried about this shouldn't their theology include at least th epossibility that this can happen?
All of the protestant religions that I know of are pretty much of the opinion that this life is your one shot and there was nothing before and there is nothing you can do to change the results after. Inasmuch as this is the case (and please tell me if I'm wrong) it makes no sense at all for protestants to be offended.
Catholics believe (still?) that prayers on behalf of the deceased can help them out, but they don't to my knowledge admit any other influence on the final destiny of the soul beyond this.
Jews have a much greater breadth of possible doctrines on this matter, though I am not aware of any doctrine that the actions of the living can affect the dead (if there are Rivka please elucidate).
So I am at a loss to understand the anger and outrage from those whose professed beliefs hold that at worst this practice is ineffectual.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who are worried about choice #4, I can certainly understand why this practice would bother you. I never considered it as an option because it doesn't make sense to me. This is the first time it has even occurred to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And how is this practice any more offensive than LDS being condemned to hell by other Christians?
It’s not. Where on this thread (or anywhere on Hatrack, for that matter) has anyone defended LDS being condemned to hell by other Christians?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The scripture JohnL is 1 Cor 15:29: 29, but like you said it has already been explained to speak againt baptism for the dead. I disagree (and stated why), and there is room for disagreement without getting so agitated.
Whole separations from religious institutions have occurred over such distinctions, so I find your dismissal of the agitation a bit insulting. Interpretation is a big deal, and considering the known inconsistencies of KJV scripture to the original texts it was written from (done later with more research and concordance), it's easy to say just using a KJV interpretation has so many inherent flaws as to wonder who was actually saying it: Paul or the "translators" for the KJV. Every newer translation of that text shows it clearly that Paul was speaking out against it, and unless you are going to go back to the originals in the old languages from which it is derived, and proceed to translate it literally for me, your explanation falls a little short.
quote:Personally, I look at it like credit card offers. Someone has gone through all the trouble of making sure I qualify, but until I sign the dotted line, it is not valid. I just get sick of the junk mail. I am not sure we send junk mail to the undead asking them to accept our proxy baptisms. Curious curious.
You mean personally for you. If you wish me to use a "personally" reference to what it means, then I would equate it to identity theft of my dead grandfather, and then using that in a manner which is in direct opposition to his life, then telling me it was done for his own good. It's meddling in the affairs of the dead, who have already had their own affairs, and are meeting with them on their own. Any attempt to alter that, especially in a manner such as stealing the identity for your own purposes, is not only insulting but harmful to my family's name and reputation. All for a listing on your "possibly saved" database. Personally, that's a dirty trick equitable to sheisters and snake-oil salesmen of old, stealing and cheating for personal gain that, in the end, isn't even that valuable.
And please understand, this is as someone who has no religion. Were I of a faith that held power in names, especially family names, I would view it as a direct attack on the living members of my faith by way of using the dead of my faith as a weapon, much more so than just saying "you're wrong and going to hell."
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Submission can only be done for family members. What if you brother was LDS and wanted to do it? Would you still consider it theft? *honestly curious*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
That wasn't supposed to be in reference to Hatrack -- but considering the context of this discussion, I could see how it would appear so. Sorry.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Religious freedom: based on the fundamental belief that each person may pursue his own spiritual growth in any way he wants, as long as it does not harm other people.
Religious tolerance: where the spiritual beliefs of your neighbors are tolerated or humored, but never accpeted as equal.
I don't want to be tolerated. I accept your beliefs as valid, why can't you do the same for me?
quote: Every newer translation of that text shows it clearly that Paul was speaking out against it
John, I think that is overstating the case. It doesn’t look to me as though Paul was speaking against or for the practice, merely using the existence of it as a supporting argument for a completely different point.
Equal meaning what? *puzzled* Right to have equal protection under the law? Yes! Equal number of holidays on the calendar? Sure, especially if everyone votes for it. Equal right to not be disparaged? Absolutely.
Be considered equally true? Well, no. Despite France's best efforts, you don't erase any troubles with differences by erasing the differences. Picking a religion usually means you think it's right - it's not like picking a country club. But I'm not sure that's what you were meaning.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, my version of agnosticism allows for the possibility of harm to my soul after death. I allow a lot of possibilities.
As I said before, it seems that Paul G also agrees with the sentiment that such harm would happen under his framework. Didn't you guys read his post on the last page?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Submission can only be done for family members. What if you brother was LDS and wanted to do it? Would you still consider it theft? *honestly curious*
Yep. Theft is theft, insult is insult, damage is damage, and it's still insulting and damaging the family name. It would be even more of a betrayal if a family member was taking part in it. As far as these Holocaust victims, it is not saying whether family members are a part of it (in fact, it implies they are not being told at all). A sheister is a sheister is a sheister.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, it looks to me like he was telling them that what they were doing was not in accordance to his (Paul's) church or teachings, which is what I mean by "against." According to their own beliefs, I'm pretty sure they were justified.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to be a family member to submit names. If Holocaust names are still being submitted, it is either someone who shouldn't even been near a temple because they are rebelling against the church, or else it is a family member.
Really? You'd be that mad at your brother? Why does your opinion of this take precedence over his? In his eyes, you'd be deliberately withholding something infinitely precious from your grandfather. Not even a hearing with your brother?
The theft part is confusing. If you mean theft of the name from you, if its your brother, isn't it as much his already as yours?
posted
All right, so I admit I haven't read all the other posts; I haven't the time. But I've run into this basic issue before, and while I understand it is sensitive, it seems to me an emotional rather than a logical issue. It seems that there are, basically, two choices.
A) The LDS Church is true and its rites effectual. In this case, one can, for obvious reasons, hardly be upset about the proxy baptisms, especially in light of the doctrine that the dead have the option to either accept or reject the rite.
B) The LDS Church is not true and its rites *in*effectual. In this case, nothing is really being done when you get right down to it, is it? No *real* injury is being done. So while it may be offensive to some parties, there isn't much done or said in this world that is not.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems that there are, basically, two choices.
Or, there are three possiblitites The third being, being that more than one religion is valid and by doing baptism by proxy, you will be yanking someone away from his family in his version of heaven and putting him in your version.
That's why they are called "unintended" consequences.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But yeah, I can't believe you are back! I can't believe it's been two years! Holy tarnation. I remember when you got the call, too. Man, time flies. So, didja have fun?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that, in LDS theology, the muerto in question has a choice whether to be "yanked from heaven" or not.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have to be a family member to submit names. If Holocaust names are still being submitted, it is either someone who shouldn't even been near a temple because they are rebelling against the church, or else it is a family member.
That's really disingenuous, Kat. The family member rule has, according to the articles, only been in effect since 1995. What about all those people before it?
And yes, I would be that angry at my brother. And once again, you pull the "what about our perspective?" question, when it's already been pointed out that your "perspective" is understood, and found to be highly arrogant, insensitive, offensive, and harmful. You don't like it when other faiths openly insult your own faith, do you? Are you seriously going to allow the same to be done back? Very Christ-like...
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yank, I mean this in the nicest possible way (which I acknowledge isn’t very nice), but your post perfectly illustrates the attitude that many of the non-LDS folk are finding troubling. It basically boils down to, “I haven’t read/listened to your actual concerns, but here’s what I think you think and why it’s wrong.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:family member rule has, according to the articles, only been in effect since 1995. What about all those people before it?
And the agreement only appeared a few years ago. Are you angry about things as they are now, or as they were twenty years ago, in which case things should change to be...as they are now.
I'm ignoring the name-calling.
And no, I'm not pulling this out of air. As it is now, you can only submit names if it is a family member. The conflict with family member scenario is not a rare example among many - it is the only possibility. So, honestly, if two brothers disagree, who gets the right to the grandfather?
My personal opinion is that if some family members object that strenuously, let it go. It'll work out.
---
Yank, seriously, read the thread. I think it would be better. Hatrack got faster while you were gone.
quote:Every newer translation of that text shows it clearly that Paul was speaking out against it
HCSB: Otherwise what will they do who are being baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are people baptized for them?
NIV: Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
NASB: Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
NLT: If the dead will not be raised, then what point is there in people being baptized for those who are dead? Why do it unless the dead will someday rise again?
AMPLIFIED: Otherwise, what do people mean by being [themselves] baptized in behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
quote: Yank, I mean this in the nicest possible way (which I acknowledge isn’t very nice), but your post perfectly illustrates the attitude that many of the non-LDS folk are finding troubling. It basically boils down to, “I haven’t read/listened to your actual concerns, but here’s what I think you think and why it’s wrong.”
To be honest, my post mostly reflects the fact that I'm on a public library computer and don't have *time* to read the thread, or I certainly would. I am deeply sorry if I have given the impression that I don't care what others think, or that I do not want to listen to their concerns.
posted
"Equal right to not be disparaged? Absolutely"
Some may consider changing people's religion without consulting them is somewhat disparaging.
The type of "equality" you describe is based on an uneasy truce, where you tolerate other religions only in exchange for their toleration of yours. This type of "fair weather" equality is illusory.
While these baptisms are an act of kindness from your POV, they are a reminder to the Jewish people that their religious freedom is merely tolerated as a necessary evil.
posted
No one's religion is being forcibly changed. At all.
--------
I'm not sure what you want, then. Different belief systems mean you don't believe the same thing. Often, those things are mutually exclusive. What are you asking for?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think mostly what people are asking for (at least, as far as the original question in this thread is concerned) is that the LDS church honor the agreement into which they voluntarily entered.
Posts: 2661 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the follow up has been LDS defending against accusations that they're hateful and rape the dead.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'd be a lot more offended by the REAL view, rather than the "forcibly change religion" view.
I think the idea of baptism for the dead benefits mostly those who would have embraced it if they heard it, to give everyone a chance. Since we are the same people after as we were before, I suspect those who reject in this life will reject it in the next. For those that had a chance on earth and rejected it, I think the baptism would be a largely fruitless exercise. A nice thought, but you know? Probably ineffective.
Wouldn't someone be more offended by that? I know when my brother explained it to me (when we did the work for my grandmother), I was irritated as all get out because he wasn't holding out a lot of hope for its effectualness. I think the conversation ended with something like, "For crying out loud, don't say that to Mom!"
posted
Taal, you're being intentionally ignorant. Why don't you show the separate translations of the whole chapter for each one? Paul is clearly pointing out the error of the practice with regard to the teaching of Christ's resurrection and baptism itself. Thanks for showing just how stupid using a single verse out of context is.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different beliefs are fine, as long as you apply those unique beliefs to yourself and not to others who do not subscribe to your faith. Would you like it if a follower of the ancient Egyptian faith took out your organs after you died?
The baptism gives off the impression that if Mormons were in charge, we would all be baptized, whether we like it or not, dead or alive.
*before you kill me*
Hey, at least the Mormons have shown enough restraint to wait until we're dead. Other religions have not been as kind.
posted
Are people intentionally choosing to ignore the concept that the LDS are just offering a service that can be just as easily be DENIED in the afterlife?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How the HELL does it seem appropriate, when he's talking about resurrection and how baptising the dead does not resurrect them? Why don't you educate me, since my own two years of study, as well as the years of study on the subject of others, including those mentioned by others in this thread, don't seem to get it?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
vwiggin, I really, really don't think we are talking about the same thing. From your posts, it sounds like you are talking about something that can be done against an individual's will. Since LDS baptism for the dead doesn't work like that and never has (the only-family-members thing is newish, but not the general principle), that can't be what you're talking about.
If someone's soul could be redirected by a third party - not the person, not the Lord - I agree that would be crappy. Who's doing that?
posted
It's also been interpreted that Paul's discussing their lack of belief in a resurrection in general, and that the acts they're doing would be POINTLESS if there wasn't a resurrection.
Like saying that "Why do you keep putting food out for the dog to eat if you don't even own a dog? Why then do you put food out?"
In this case, he's telling them that they DO own a Dog, and that's the purpose why they're putting the food out.
That's one interpretation, and is just as valid as any others.
posted
I want to say something. I'm going to take a page from Tom Davidson's book.
If the god that someone believes in would really, truly, punish a person or allow harm to come to a person because an LDS baptism by proxy was done to them after they were dead, then it is not a god worth my worship. That is capricous and that god doesn't really care about the people who so carefully followed all of their rules in life.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one's religion is being forcibly changed. At all.
This ONLY applies in views that support it. There are a non-zero number of people who believe that the Mormon Baptism can change things. Can change the dead. Might be able to change their souls. IS ONLY A CHOICE WITHIN MORMONISM. Remember this. A CHOICE IN YOUR VIEWPOINT. May not be a choice in other peoples' viewpoints!! And since we're talking religion, everyone's viewpoint is equally valid in this discussion.
quote:But if you baptise me after I'm dead, and my theology states that I can no longer make choices, then I have been baptised into your religion by my theological views... regardless of what you believe about the ceremony.
Note the last "you" means Mormon. Your belief of what the ceremony does is your belief, not reality. We don't know what the reality is. For Paul, it means he has been baptized into your religion.
quote:but the only thing that really matters, the soul, can get ass ****ed in the hereafter... It is my belief that the body has no value after life. Do whatever the hell you want to the body after life. Just don't mess with the soul.
For Kayla, she also holds a belief that is inconsistent with yours. Her soul matters, and your ceremony matters to her soul. It's not a choice for her soul. It's defilement.
quote:What if your proxy baptism changes the dead? Kind of like expelling a poltergeist? Then harm is done.
That's from me. I'm agnostic. Not atheist. I have no idea what's in the afterlife. But my beliefs do not preclude the concept that Mormon Baptism is a ritual, a ceremony that can have effects on my soul if done to me. Think of it as a Name Calling, an energy ritual. Your intention is to offer my soul a choice. But what if the energy is actually something else entirely? An energy that has the ability to cause my soul ill?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Taal, you're being intentionally ignorant. Why don't you show the separate translations of the whole chapter for each one? Paul is clearly pointing out the error of the practice with regard to the teaching of Christ's resurrection and baptism itself. Thanks for showing just how stupid using a single verse out of context is.
I've looked at about a dozen Bible Commentaries with regards to this verse. From the variety of explanations I encountered, I would say that the verse is anything but "clear". If all who do not accept your interpretation are "intentionally ignorant", it would seem, from my experience at least, that you are including the majority of theologians and commentators in your swipe. Please try to attack the argument, not the person. To put it crudely, pissing people off never convinces them.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, the fact that you would not believe in the God makes no difference as to the reality of the God (unless the # of followers is proportional to the likelihood of the God coming into existence).
And for my own personal example, I don't necessarily believe in God, I believe in the possibility of interactions between those living and those dead.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
When something happened in time is rather meaningless. Christ died for my sins a couple thousand years before I was born and could even contemplate committing a sin.
It is the same with baptism for the dead: it doesn't really matter when it happens in relation to when the person accepted the Gospel and it doesn't take effect until the person accepts it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
