LDS Mormonism and Non-Mormons

He is the way said:

We are doing what Jesus asked us to do namely keeping the commandments of LOVE given to us from God.

Click to expand...

Ah, back to the LOVE statement. Another distraction to not answer questions or address the discussion.

Seriously...I hate to say it, but interacting with He Is The Way is making me despise love. Er, pardon, LOVE.

Apparently this is a magic word shuts down all thinking and discussion of anything substantive.

BigDaddy4 said:

I agree that John's authority to baptize came from heaven. However, John was not a priest. That's more of you guessing based on your church's incorrect assumptions and resulting theology.

Big whoop. Neither was he a priest.

"Likely"?? Puh-lease. Here you are guessing again when there is evidence to the contrary. A priest couldn't serve until he was at least 25, but usually 30. So there is no way Zacharias could ordain John when John was a youth.

Click to expand...

Yes John's authority did come from heaven. All priesthood authority comes from heaven. The priesthood is the authority to act in God's name given to man by God.

(New Testament | Hebrews 5:4)

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

dzheremi said:

Seriously...I hate to say it, but interacting with He Is The Way is making me despise love. Er, pardon, LOVE.

Apparently this is a magic word shuts down all thinking and discussion of anything substantive.

Click to expand...

LOVE is the MOST substantive word in the Bible. God is LOVE and all of the commandments are based on LOVE. What the world needs now is more LOVE. Both members and non-members need to be more like God. Love is the only thing that there is just to little of. I can not emphasize the GREAT importance of the word LOVE enough. People who know me know that I will always continue to promote the gospel of LOVE because that is what Jesus Christ taught:

(New Testament | 1 John 4:20 - 21)

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

He is the way said:

Yes John's authority did come from heaven. All priesthood authority comes from heaven. The priesthood is the authority to act in God's name given to man by God.

(New Testament | Hebrews 5:4)

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Click to expand...

Relevance to John being an Aaronic priest??

BigDaddy4 said:

Relevance to John being an Aaronic priest??

Click to expand...

He had authority from heaven. That means that he had the Aaronic priesthood.

He is the way said:

He had authority from heaven. That means that he had the Aaronic priesthood.

Click to expand...

He had authority from heaven to baptize---that was his calling. His calling was not to be a priest and he had no anointing to be one. He fulfilled his mission. That JS thought he was anointed into the priesthood just goes to show that JS was not a prophet of God. The training they went through, the age, everything about the priesthood shows that John was not, nor ever was a priest. I bet you didn't even bother to read what the priest had to do to be priests. Samuel was in the temple from a child.

He is the way said:

LOVE is the MOST substantive word in the Bible.

Click to expand...

And yet, when you use it reflexively in places where it has no bearing on what is actually being talked about (in this case, whether or not Aaronic priests baptized people), it becomes completely worthless and without meaning. And you do this literally all the time. BigDaddy4 is right: it's a total dodge.

Either knock it off, or deal with the fact that nobody can take you even the slightest bit seriously, and that this has nothing to do with the claim that others aren't loving or trying to be more like God, and everything to do with the fact that you are not actually engaging in the discussions that we are trying to have here.

Since you love ripping Bible verses out of their context in some bizarre attempt to prove that your off-topic rambling and random capitalization is somehow relevant to what we're talking about even when it clearly isn't, I have a verse for you that might help guide you when considering the question (which you really should be asking yourself...please...) "Should I post a bunch of random nonsense that has nothing to do with anything but includes the word LOVE in all caps, or should I give a straightforward answer that actually engages with the question that I was asked?":

But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. (Matthew 5:37; emphasis added)

He is the way said:

He had authority from heaven. That means that he had the Aaronic priesthood.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. You have been proven wrong more than a few times now. Aaronic priests had certain training to go through. John did not have this training. Aaronic priests do not baptize as part of their duties.

You keep saying it doesn't make it true. History and the Bible do not support your incorrect position. Turn a blind eye if you wish, but that will only make you look foolish.

He is the way said:

Revelation 22:1 says nothing about baptism.

Click to expand...

It's a reference to the living water, by which Christ baptizes all who believe in Him.

He is the way said:

Okay, the Bible does have this scripture from Paul:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:26 - 29)

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 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?

It is completely clear that Paul was using baptism for the dead as a defense for the resurrection. Do you not understand what Paul is saying? If not I apologize.

Click to expand...

He made reference to newly baptized Christians who are newly named after dead Christian saints, in arguing for the resurrection. He never argued for anyone being proxy baptized for the dead, nor did he promote the proxy baptism practice that is carried out by Mormons.

He is the way said:

There are two commandments that everyone needs to keep:

(New Testament | Matthew 22:37 - 40)

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

No one is exempt from these commandments, no one.

Click to expand...

There are other commandments too. Neither you, nor any other member of the LDS, keeps the most essential of the other commandments, which relates intimately with these two greatest commandments.

He is the way said:

(New Testament | John 21:25)

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Click to expand...

Proxy baptisms for the dead are not any of the many other things which Jesus did.

He is the way said:

Okay, the Bible does have this scripture from Paul:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:26 - 29)

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 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?

It is completely clear that Paul was using baptism for the dead as a defense for the resurrection. Do you not understand what Paul is saying? If not I apologize.

Click to expand...

Paul is talking about Christians being baptized in the name of Christian saints who have died. The Orthodox Church still keeps this practice to this day. Everyone who is baptized takes the name of a Christian saint who has come before. The reason for your confusion is due to the obscurity that is produced when the ancient Greek text is translated into English.

This passage of Biblical text does not say that people are baptized in behalf of the unbaptized. What it really means is that new Christian converts, when they are baptized, take the name of a Christian saint who came before and died. My friend Wulfgar was given the name Peter, and his brother Baren was given the name Paul when they were baptized. Thus, Wulfgar and Baren, originally named after non-Christians, were "baptized for the dead" saints, or another way to say it: they were baptized for the benefit of the name of the saint whose name they took.

mmksparbud said:

He had authority from heaven to baptize---that was his calling. His calling was not to be a priest and he had no anointing to be one. He fulfilled his mission. That JS thought he was anointed into the priesthood just goes to show that JS was not a prophet of God. The training they went through, the age, everything about the priesthood shows that John was not, nor ever was a priest. I bet you didn't even bother to read what the priest had to do to be priests. Samuel was in the temple from a child.

Click to expand...

This is just an opinion, there is nothing to back up that claim.

dzheremi said:

And yet, when you use it reflexively in places where it has no bearing on what is actually being talked about (in this case, whether or not Aaronic priests baptized people), it becomes completely worthless and without meaning. And you do this literally all the time. BigDaddy4 is right: it's a total dodge.

Either knock it off, or deal with the fact that nobody can take you even the slightest bit seriously, and that this has nothing to do with the claim that others aren't loving or trying to be more like God, and everything to do with the fact that you are not actually engaging in the discussions that we are trying to have here.

Since you love ripping Bible verses out of their context in some bizarre attempt to prove that your off-topic rambling and random capitalization is somehow relevant to what we're talking about even when it clearly isn't, I have a verse for you that might help guide you when considering the question (which you really should be asking yourself...please...) "Should I post a bunch of random nonsense that has nothing to do with anything but includes the word LOVE in all caps, or should I give a straightforward answer that actually engages with the question that I was asked?":

But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. (Matthew 5:37; emphasis added)

Click to expand...

I have very much engaged in this discussion and as I said John's authority is from heaven. Heaven's authority is the priesthood therefore John held the priesthood. My yes, in the scripture you quoted, is that the gospel, whether a person is a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints or a non-member, (as this is the topic of this thread) is that the entire gospel is about LOVE. Those who do not understand this can not know the God of Love. If some people do not want to take this seriously as Jesus warned in the parable of the sower:

(New Testament | Matthew 13:13 - 23)

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
18 ¶ Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

The gospel is the gospel of LOVE as is the fruit of the gospel. Perhaps there are people who do not want to know because it does not agree with their objectives. Jesus taught about LOVE through His entire ministry and still people were offended. Instead of LOVING Him they sought to kill Him. Anything that is not of LOVE is not of God because God is LOVE. So yes yes yes LOVE and no no no hate.

BigDaddy4 said:

No, it does not. You have been proven wrong more than a few times now. Aaronic priests had certain training to go through. John did not have this training. Aaronic priests do not baptize as part of their duties.

You keep saying it doesn't make it true. History and the Bible do not support your incorrect position. Turn a blind eye if you wish, but that will only make you look foolish.

Click to expand...

You said: "John did not have this training." Do you have a reference to back up your claim?

You said: "Aaronic priests do not baptize as part of their duties" And again, do you have a reference to back up your claim?

truefiction1 said:

It's a reference to the living water, by which Christ baptizes all who believe in Him.

Click to expand...

It is a reference to the living water, nothing more.

truefiction1 said:

He made reference to newly baptized Christians who are newly named after dead Christian saints, in arguing for the resurrection. He never argued for anyone being proxy baptized for the dead, nor did he promote the proxy baptism practice that is carried out by Mormons.

Click to expand...

You said: "He made reference to newly baptized Christians who are newly named after dead Christian saints, in arguing for the resurrection."

Wow, that is called twisting the scriptures.