LDS Mormonism and Non-Mormons

[truefiction1]

I don't mean to come away as sounding arrogant. When people make unsubstantiated claims it does rattle me a bit. It makes me wonder about the objectives they are pursuing. I realize that this is a debate forum and I believe that I conduct myself in a proper manner. Pointing out Biblical scriptures that others may not have considered is one of the points I like to make. I do realize that people have been taught differently and want to stand up for their beliefs as do I want to stand up for my beliefs. Some people say that we see things through the filters that we were taught to use. Having been a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints for most of my life and having diligently sought God through supplication, I have experienced increased knowledge from many resources. I am not saying that that makes me better than anyone else. On the contrary I know that I have a long way to go and I am slowly working towards that goal. I have shown over and over that Paul used baptism for the dead as a resource for teaching about the resurrection. Both the resurrection and baptism for the dead are taught by Paul.:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:27 - 29)

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?

In this rhetorical question put forth by Paul in His Epistle, he merely made reference to something that was practiced by some. The majority of the historical evidence, however, shows that it was not widely practiced by the Church at large, but only in an isolated pocket of believers, and was eventually discontinued even by them. Paul used the practice to argue for the truth of the resurrection which is to come, but he did not directly teach that the practice was necessary or essential. You're arguing in reverse from what Paul did. He argued in behalf of the resurrection on the basis of the practice of baptizing people in behalf of the dead. Mormons are using Paul's argument for the resurrection to argue in behalf of baptizing people in behalf of the dead on the basis of the resurrection. But the resurrection as a doctrine is an essential thing. The practice of baptizing people in behalf of the dead is not essential, and Paul never taught that is was an essential practice. Since it was never a universal Church practice, it cannot be considered essential. Nor can it be considered essential if the practice ceased to be performed altogether.

But let's face it: the real reason that you aren't willing to consider the distinct possibility that this practice of baptizing the dead is nonessential, is that the Church, in your conviction, is not the Church at all, but the apostate impostor, and so most of what the Church practices or does not practice is due to the almost total corruption and obscuring of the Gospel of Christ. This, as I have said, is the very foundation/basis of the existence of Mormonism and its only means of continuation.

Christ's Church does not fall away. It is built upon Rock.

 

[He is the way]

It's not about authority, it is about capability. God alone is capable of teaching people after they have died. We cannot teach dead people, so we can't baptize them because baptism goes hand in hand with teaching. They must go together.

God gives His authority to His Apostles, who transmit their authority to the bishops in the Church. No such Apostolic authority was transmitted through them to any of your priests. So even if it was a matter of authority, your priests have received no such authority from God, because all authority in the Church must come through Christ's Apostles and their successors, the bishops.

You said: "God alone is capable of teaching people after they have died."

So I suppose you believe that there is no interaction at all in the spirit world?

You said: "God gives His authority to His Apostles, who transmit their authority to the bishops in the Church. "No such Apostolic authority was transmitted through them to any of your priests."

Just saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[He is the way]

Yes, but baptism is for those who can receive instruction in Christ's commandments: "Baptize all nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you" is about what Jesus Christ told his Apostles to do. We cannot teach the dead any of Christ's commandments, nor can the dead experience baptism. That is why the Church does not practice baptism for the dead, even if some Christians were practicing it who did not know at the time that it was not in the least beneficial for the dead to have someone baptized in their behalf.



The pagan men of Athens Whom Paul preached to in the Book of Acts 17:3

Paul did indeed speak to the superstitious people of Athens. However, there is no mention of them doing any baptisms.

 

[He is the way]

Oh? changed your tune? This was the original post

You know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul and is mentioned as a defense for the resurrection----He is the way

Now changed to this:

You know fine well that I posted the scripture about baptism for the dead, and here it is again---He is the way

Why would anyone give Mormons any credence on anything? Arrogance, as the Mormon Church teaches, is sometime sadly --- obvious.

In post #518 You said: "Where does it say the must be baptized again? You are imagining things if you see baptized anywhere in the whole of that passage."

To which I responded in post #520: "You know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul and is mentioned as a defense for the resurrection.

And I had already posted the scripture about baptism for the dead before that.

 

[He is the way]

In this rhetorical question put forth by Paul in His Epistle, he merely made reference to something that was practiced by some. The majority of the historical evidence, however, shows that it was not widely practiced by the Church at large, but only in an isolated pocket of believers, and was eventually discontinued even by them. Paul used the practice to argue for the truth of the resurrection which is to come, but he did not directly teach that the practice was necessary or essential. You're arguing in reverse from what Paul did. He argued in behalf of the resurrection on the basis of the practice of baptizing people in behalf of the dead. Mormons are using Paul's argument for the resurrection to argue in behalf of baptizing people in behalf of the dead on the basis of the resurrection. But the resurrection as a doctrine is an essential thing. The practice of baptizing people in behalf of the dead is not essential, and Paul never taught that is was an essential practice. Since it was never a universal Church practice, it cannot be considered essential. Nor can it be considered essential if the practice ceased to be performed altogether.

But let's face it: the real reason that you aren't willing to consider the distinct possibility that this practice of baptizing the dead is nonessential, is that the Church, in your conviction, is not the Church at all, but the apostate impostor, and so most of what the Church practices or does not practice is due to the almost total corruption and obscuring of the Gospel of Christ. This, as I have said, is the very foundation/basis of the existence of Mormonism and its only means of continuation.

Christ's Church does not fall away. It is built upon Rock.

You said: "The practice of baptizing people in behalf of the dead is not essential,..."

I, for one, believe it is indeed essential. Was John the baptist a fraud? Where is it stated that baptism is not essential?

 

[Jamesone5]

In post #518 You said: "Where does it say the must be baptized again? You are imagining things if you see baptized anywhere in the whole of that passage."



To which I responded in post #520: "You know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul and is mentioned as a defense for the resurrection.

And I had already posted the scripture about baptism for the dead before that.

wow , You false pride means you cannot even get your words straight as to what you said

. Here again is what you said

post #520: "You know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul and is mentioned as a defense for the resurrection.

Are you afraid to read your own words?????

This would mean that I supposedly know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul---when I know of no such thing. And of course you posted it yet again for all the world to see.

You want to continue with this ridiculous conversation---- then by all means have a conversation with yourself. Does not matter what I say in response---you are accusing me of something I do NOT know "fine well'
.

 

[He is the way]

wow , You false pride means you cannot even get your words straight as to what you said

. Here again is what you said

post #520: "You know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul and is mentioned as a defense for the resurrection.

Are you afraid to read your own words?????

This would mean that I supposedly know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul---when I know of no such thing. And of course you posted it yet again for all the world to see.

You want to continue with this ridiculous conversation---- then by all means have a conversation with yourself. Does not matter what I say in response---you are accusing me of something I do NOT know "fine well'
.

Okay you don't know that Paul wrote this verse:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)

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?

You did not know this?

Well the dead do rise and that is why people are baptized for the dead:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:22)

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

You did not know this?

 

[truefiction1]

You said: "The practice of baptizing people in behalf of the dead is not essential,..."

I, for one, believe it is indeed essential. Was John the baptist a fraud? Where is it stated that baptism is not essential?

Did John the Baptist baptize dead people? I highly doubt that he ever baptized a single deceased person, because he baptized them in the Jordan River, where the people coming to him for baptism had to travel to. Deceased men don't travel.

 

[truefiction1]

Paul did indeed speak to the superstitious people of Athens. However, there is no mention of them doing any baptisms.

The point is: Paul used an aspect of their pagan religion to make a case for Christ, just as he used a practice of baptizing the dead to make a case for the resurrection. He did not, however, teach anyone to participate in pagan religion, or to baptize dead people.

 

[He is the way]

Did John the Baptist baptize dead people? I highly doubt that he ever baptized a single deceased person, because he baptized them in the Jordan River, where the people coming to him for baptism had to travel to. Deceased men don't travel.

Baptism is indeed essential and that is why we baptize people FOR the dead by proxy.

 

[He is the way]

The point is: Paul used an aspect of their pagan religion to make a case for Christ, just as he used a practice of baptizing the dead to make a case for the resurrection. He did not, however, teach anyone to participate in pagan religion, or to baptize dead people.

Which pagan people are you referring to?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Did John the Baptist baptize dead people? I highly doubt that he ever baptized a single deceased person, because he baptized them in the Jordan River, where the people coming to him for baptism had to travel to. Deceased men don't travel.

Maybe he baptized them as they floated by??

 

[truefiction1]

You said: "God alone is capable of teaching people after they have died."

So I suppose you believe that there is no interaction at all in the spirit world?

There is no teaching of the dead by living baptists. If those who are baptizing cannot also teach those who are receiving baptism, then the baptism isn't a baptism at all, because baptism cannot be disconnected from teaching. Christ commanded that those who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be taught to obey all that He has commanded. Living persons cannot teach deceased persons. It is an ontological impossibility. God alone can teach them who are deceased, so baptism of those who have died without receiving it from men rests upon God alone to take care of, in whatever way is possible to Him. We men can not do it.

You said: "God gives His authority to His Apostles, who transmit their authority to the bishops in the Church. "No such Apostolic authority was transmitted through them to any of your priests."

Just saying so doesn't make it so.

But my saying so isn't what matters. What really matters is the testimony of the Bible about this. The Apostles received their authority to teach within the Church from Christ, by Whom they were ordained for this ministry. They, in turn, passed the authority that Christ gave them on to their successors, who are the overseeing presbyters in the Church, by ordaining them for this ministry. Were any of your priests ordained by overseeing presbyters (bishops) in the ancient Church? No, but all of ours are ordained for this ministry, by unbroken lines of succession all the way back to the Apostles.

 

[Jamesone5]

Okay you don't know that Paul wrote this verse:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)

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?

You did not know this?

Well the dead do rise and that is why people are baptized for the dead:

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:22)

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

You did not know this?

BZZT---wrong answer as you want to avoid this;

post #520: "You know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul and is mentioned as a defense for the resurrection.

Now you want to move on and pretend you did not make the claim that you did about ME supposedly knowing this "fine well"

Once again you DO NOT get to speak for me.

 

[He is the way]

There is no teaching of the dead by living baptists. If those who are baptizing cannot also teach those who are receiving baptism, then the baptism isn't a baptism at all, because baptism cannot be disconnected from teaching. Christ commanded that those who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be taught to obey all that He has commanded. Living persons cannot teach deceased persons. It is an ontological impossibility. God alone can teach them who are deceased, so baptism of those who have died without receiving it from men rests upon God alone to take care of, in whatever way is possible to Him. We men can not do it.

But my saying so isn't what matters. What really matters is the testimony of the Bible about this. The Apostles received their authority to teach within the Church from Christ, by Whom they were ordained for this ministry. They, in turn, passed the authority that Christ gave them on to their successors, who are the overseeing presbyters in the Church, by ordaining them for this ministry. Were any of your priests ordained by overseeing presbyters (bishops) in the ancient Church? No, but all of ours are ordained for this ministry, by unbroken lines of succession all the way back to the Apostles.

We believe that spirits can teach other spirits and prepare them so they are ready when those ordinances are done for them.

We can also trace our priesthood authority all the way back to Jesus Christ.

 

[He is the way]

BZZT---wrong answer as you want to avoid this;

post #520: "You know fine well that baptism for the dead is taught by Paul and is mentioned as a defense for the resurrection.

Now you want to move on and pretend you did not make the claim that you did about ME supposedly knowing this "fine well"

Once again you DO NOT get to speak for me.

Do I need to post it again so you can see it?

 

[truefiction1]

Which pagan people are you referring to?

The men of Athens, as recorded in the Book of Acts:
"Then Paul stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and examined your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore what you worship as something unknown, I now proclaim to you." (Acts 17:22-23)

 

[He is the way]

The men of Athens, as recorded in the Book of Acts:
"Then Paul stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and examined your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore what you worship as something unknown, I now proclaim to you." (Acts 17:22-23)

They did not baptize at all.

 

[truefiction1]

We believe that spirits can teach other spirits and prepare them so they are ready when those ordinances are done for them.

Your belief is incorrect. When we die, we go either to the place where lazarus went or to the place where the rich man went. There is a great gulf fixed between those residing in these two places (actually they are not places, but spiritual states of being), so that those who are in hell are not able to be relieved by those who are in the place where the "just" repose. (refer to the story of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 16:19-31). Death is the cut off point. What your spiritual orientation is at the moment of your death, that is what it will likely remain forever.

 

[truefiction1]

They did not baptize at all.

They worshiped many different gods. Paul was upset by this, but rather than expressing his displeasure, he instead simply used one of the gods they worshiped, called "an Unknown God", as a means of teaching them about the resurrection. He did the same thing with those who were baptizing people for the dead: he merely used the example in order to make a case for the resurrection. He did not teach anyone that the act of baptizing someone for the dead should be done.

I'm sorry that you aren't able to mentally grasp what I've been saying about this. Paul taught that there is a resurrection. He did not teach anyone to baptize anyone for the dead.