Why does baptism for the dead bother you?

[madhatter85]

i am just glad, he did not tell the thief on the cross, " you must get down and be baptized in water". Or mabey Jesus knew one day an LDS would proxy baptize him.:drool:

Who's to say he didn't?

i do believe in water baptism, but not for salvation. People are not saved by the dunk, they are saved by the cross! ( now that will preach!)

Wrong, they are saved by the atonement. which happened in the garden of gethsemane. unfortuantely everyone thinks that they are saved by the cross, that is just how crist died, as many other people died just like him, what makes it so much different is that he was our savior and he took upon himself the sins of the world and saved us BEFORE he was crucified.

another thing to think about, most people think in acts, when 3000 got baptized, was that in water or the holy ghost? 3000 dunks! no, baptism of the heart.

Why? it says they were baptised, just like jesus got baptised.. what makes you think that they would have christ be baptised and then say oh, well theres 3000 of ya so were just gunna paraphrase it and, lets not baptise you but say we did...

 

[Runt]

Basically, the terms of the covenant involve our accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior, and recognizing that He alone has the power to redeem us of our sins and make us clean in the sight of God. We can't do it alone, no matter how hard we may try, but by entering into the covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ, we have the assurance that we don't have to.

I presume then that, according to Mormon theology, the contractual relationship with other Christians might enter into is much simpler; a promise, perhaps, to regard Christ with love as your personal savior and his promise, in return, of entrance into Heaven... but not, (as you describe below) a promise to give him everything you have to give in return for his promise to do the same for you?

I have heard this relationship described as one where two individuals enter into a partnership of sorts. One of them (the junior partner) is near broke, while the other (the senior partner) has resources which are essentially unlimited. They open a joint account at a bank. As a result, the once poor partner finds himself in a situation he could never have enjoyed without his wealthy partner. According to the terms of their agreement, he is free to use their assets as needed, as long as he is willing to contribute all of his personal funds to their joint account for the rest of his life.

I know that I am perhaps taking this metaphor too far, but what if the "junior partner" were to use the "senior partner's" assets to fund, say, a terrorist network or something? The "senior partner" would most certainly not allow the "junior partner" to abuse his promise of aid in such a way. Would, then, the covenantal relationship end, despite the fact that the "junior partner" might still be giving the "senior partner" all of his personal funds? I.E. what are some of the limits of the relationship, and some of the grounds upon which it might be terminated?

(I realize that no analogy is perfect, but I hope this one was useful to some extent.)

No analogy is perfect, but that one seemed to illustrate the point quite nicely.

That's right. We believe in three main "degrees of glory" or "kingdoms" within the Kingdom of Heaven. The lowest of these is the Telestial Kingdom, the next highest is the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the highest is the Celestial Kingdom.

Hehe, I think telomeres might be the bits of DNA that fall of during replication, or the juncture where strands of DNA meet during replication... but I knew there was a "tel" in there somewhere!

We believe in a spirit and a physical body. The spirit is eternal. It will never cease to exist and, in a sense, always has existed. We believe that God created our spirits from the essence of truth and light which is coeternal with Him, and that we existed in spirit form for billions of years before being born, living in His presence (but without a physical body). Genesis 2 describes God as having breathed life into Adam, causing him to be "a living soul." In other words, when the spirit of man enters into the physical body, the result is "a living soul." We believe that the spirit leaves the physical body at death, but does continue to exist as it did pre-mortally. It continues to have the same qualities it always had and is capable of learning, reasoning, feeling, thinking and making choices. (I suppose you could say that, when the spirit leaves the body at death, the soul temporarily ceases to exist.) At the time of the resurrection of all mankind, each spirit re-enters the body where it resided during mortality, although the body, through the process of resurrection, becomes perfected, renewed and immortal. The result is once again "a living soul." This time, though, the living soul is no longer subject to death. The spirit will reside eternally in this new body, and will live forever in one of the three heavenly kingdoms I previously mentioned.

So the soul is an embodied spirit, essentially? And after the resurrection, the spirit will be eternally embodied because the flesh will no longer be subject to death? Will all spirits that go to Heaven be resurrected? Or will only those which have been baptized (or baptized-by-proxy, to try to bring this back on topic) be resurrected?

Is the spirit where personality resides? You mentioned that the spirit thinks, reasons, feels, makes decisions, has free will, etc.... all qualities that modern psychology would argue are characteristics belonging to the mind, which itself arises from and is affected by the body (neurological development). Do you disagree with this summation? Is there a body and a spirit (which combined form the "living soul") and that which science calls the "mind" is really the "living soul"?

If so, this brings up an interesting possibility when it comes to the "body-mind-spirit" continuum that many religions speak of. If we accept the views of modern psychology that the body and mind are distinct yet inseparable, the former having given rise to the latter and both having the ability to affect the other---and the view that the spirit possesses some of the qualities which we would normally attribute to the mind---could we then say that that which psychology calls the "mind" is really the "living soul"---i.e. the spirit embodied in the flesh?

That's good to know. I'm getting the distinct impression that you are, in fact, making the effort to understand. I don't mean to be touchy, either. How about if you avoid references to the "tooth fairy" in the future, and I try to be less sensitive.

Yeah... sorry about that. That wasn't really a fair comparison, I know. I admit that for me God is an imaginary entity, but comparing him to the Tooth Fairy had the effect of stripping the idea of God of nearly all of its vast complexity and maturity. Also, I thoughtlessly made it sound as though I regarded your belief in God as no more than a mere child's delusion... when I know you're an adult and I know faith is much more sophisticated than that (and may or may not have at its roots a very real, divine entity...) Man, so much trouble, all caused by two stupid words.

 

[Katzpur]

I presume then that, according to Mormon theology, the contractual relationship with other Christians might enter into is much simpler; a promise, perhaps, to regard Christ with love as your personal savior and his promise, in return, of entrance into Heaven... but not, (as you describe below) a promise to give him everything you have to give in return for his promise to do the same for you?

That would be fairly accurate, but I feel compelled to add that we reap what we sow. The simpler (i.e. less demanding) contract does not have the power to produce the same results as the more demanding one. In Joseph Smith's words, "Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation..."

The interesting thing about Mormonism, when compared to other Christian faiths, is that we do not see God's majesty as existing at the expense of man's dignity. According to one LDS scholar, in establishing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith "made religion the advocate, rather than the enemy, of all that is best in human yearning. [He] ignited something in thousands of men and women that connects them to God and to each other in powerful ways. The God of Joseph Smith was not a threat to human potential, but a being who gloried in that potential, and whose work was to bring it to fruition. That was why Joseph's message resonated and caught hold like a burning fire."

One of the unique doctrines of Mormonism is that man and God are not of different species. We teach that we are God's literal spirit offspring and that there is nothing in the world that would make Him happier than to see us attain all that is within our potential to attain.

I know that I am perhaps taking this metaphor too far, but what if the "junior partner" were to use the "senior partner's" assets to fund, say, a terrorist network or something? The "senior partner" would most certainly not allow the "junior partner" to abuse his promise of aid in such a way. Would, then, the covenantal relationship end, despite the fact that the "junior partner" might still be giving the "senior partner" all of his personal funds? I.E. what are some of the limits of the relationship, and some of the grounds upon which it might be terminated?

Well, I'd have to say first of all that the junior partner's responsibility extends beyond just a financial contribution. I realize I didn't make that very clear. When we covenant to give Christ all we have, we're not thinking in terms of money but of a 100% faithful commitment to fulfilling the "mission statement" he has set down for our partnership. Clearly, using the assets He has made available for the purpose of doing evil would indicate lack of good faith on our part. In terms of Christ's grounds for terminating the relationship, I'd say that as long as we continue to do our best, repenting whenever we fall short, we need not worry about Christ severing the relationship. He knows we're far from perfect, but it is because of his perfect love for each of us that he offered us the opportunity to enter into the relationship in the first place.

So the soul is an embodied spirit, essentially?

Yes, that's it exactly. I'm going to add one final comment and I hope it doesn't take you back to square one in terms of your confusion. There are times when we Latter-day Saints use the words "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably. When we do, it's generally a case of our using the word "soul" when we really should (according to our theology) be using the word "spirit." When this happens, it's generally pretty easy to determine from the context in which the word is used, what it is intended to mean.

And after the resurrection, the spirit will be eternally embodied because the flesh will no longer be subject to death?

Correct.

Will all spirits that go to Heaven be resurrected? Or will only those which have been baptized (or baptized-by-proxy, to try to bring this back on topic) be resurrected?

Every human being who has ever lived will be resurrected -- no exceptions.

Is the spirit where personality resides? You mentioned that the spirit thinks, reasons, feels, makes decisions, has free will, etc.... all qualities that modern psychology would argue are characteristics belonging to the mind, which itself arises from and is affected by the body (neurological development). Do you disagree with this summation? Is there a body and a spirit (which combined form the "living soul") and that which science calls the "mind" is really the "living soul"?

You know, I'm really not sure, but I tend to agree with this statement.

If so, this brings up an interesting possibility when it comes to the "body-mind-spirit" continuum that many religions speak of. If we accept the views of modern psychology that the body and mind are distinct yet inseparable, the former having given rise to the latter and both having the ability to affect the other---and the view that the spirit possesses some of the qualities which we would normally attribute to the mind---could we then say that that which psychology calls the "mind" is really the "living soul"---i.e. the spirit embodied in the flesh?

I'll give that a tentative "yes."

Yeah... sorry about that. That wasn't really a fair comparison, I know. I admit that for me God is an imaginary entity, but comparing him to the Tooth Fairy had the effect of stripping the idea of God of nearly all of its vast complexity and maturity. Also, I thoughtlessly made it sound as though I regarded your belief in God as no more than a mere child's delusion... when I know you're an adult and I know faith is much more sophisticated than that (and may or may not have at its roots a very real, divine entity...) Man, so much trouble, all caused by two stupid words.

No worries. I've actually enjoyed our discussion very much and appreciate the fact that you've actually made the effort to understand a set of beliefs you have no intention of embracing. It's a nice change from what I get from a lot of people.

 

[Runt]

The interesting thing about Mormonism, when compared to other Christian faiths, is that we do not see God's majesty as existing at the expense of man's dignity. According to one LDS scholar, in establishing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith "made religion the advocate, rather than the enemy, of all that is best in human yearning. [He] ignited something in thousands of men and women that connects them to God and to each other in powerful ways. The God of Joseph Smith was not a threat to human potential, but a being who gloried in that potential, and whose work was to bring it to fruition. That was why Joseph's message resonated and caught hold like a burning fire."

One of the unique doctrines of Mormonism is that man and God are not of different species. We teach that we are God's literal spirit offspring and that there is nothing in the world that would make Him happier than to see us attain all that is within our potential to attain.

I think I'm a little confused once again. You mention that many other Christian faiths have a tendency of placing humans and God on opposite ends of the spectrum between a dignified nature and a (for lack of a better word) debased nature. The God of most Christian faiths is majestic, good and beautiful, while humans, despite being made in his image and having the potential (through him) to rise above their flawed natures, are base, evil and vile. I suppose I'm curious as to how the Mormon Church looks differently upon this subject. Do you reject the notion of Original Sin? Are humans essentially good beings that occasionally "miss the mark" (sin)? Other?

Yes, that's it exactly. I'm going to add one final comment and I hope it doesn't take you back to square one in terms of your confusion. There are times when we Latter-day Saints use the words "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably. When we do, it's generally a case of our using the word "soul" when we really should (according to our theology) be using the word "spirit." When this happens, it's generally pretty easy to determine from the context in which the word is used, what it is intended to mean.

I understand. Mormons, like everyone else, occasionally fall into the habit of resorting to "common language" rather than strictly adhering to your faith's specific tradition-bound terminology. This is a difficulty we discuss often in religious studies: the use of language (and the shortcomings of language) in the discussion of religion and religious experience.

Every human being who has ever lived will be resurrected -- no exceptions.

So one does not accept Jesus Christ and live a moral life simply to gain the reward of the afterlife? Instead, one does so to enter into a deeply-fulfilling spiritual relationship with Christ (which will, I assume, enrich not only this life but the afterlife as well after resurrection?)

No worries. I've actually enjoyed our discussion very much and appreciate the fact that you've actually made the effort to understand a set of beliefs you have no intention of embracing. It's a nice change from what I get from a lot of people.

Even when I don't agree with other people's religious beliefs, I find the complexity of the beliefs themselves---and the way in which they are internally consistent---to be endlessly fascinating. It's why I went into the field of religious studies, and why I'm lamenting that I'll be graduating in less than a year. I've enjoyed our conversation immensely; you’ve really helped enrich my understanding of Mormonism. My education has been sadly lacking when it comes to the Christian faiths (mostly due to my habit of selecting theory-based courses or classes which are about Eastern religion). So thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[Katzpur]

I think I'm a little confused once again. You mention that many other Christian faiths have a tendency of placing humans and God on opposite ends of the spectrum between a dignified nature and a (for lack of a better word) debased nature. The God of most Christian faiths is majestic, good and beautiful, while humans, despite being made in his image and having the potential (through him) to rise above their flawed natures, are base, evil and vile. I suppose I'm curious as to how the Mormon Church looks differently upon this subject. Do you reject the notion of Original Sin? Are humans essentially good beings that occasionally "miss the mark" (sin)? Other?

It's interesting to me to hear the perspective of an objective "outsider." I think your understanding of what most Christians believe about their relationship to God is very accurate. We Latter-day Saints definitely do not believe in Original Sin. As a matter of fact, while we recognize that Adam and Eve did transgress when they ate of the forbidden fruit, we see this action on their part in a different light than most Christians do. We believe that the "Fall" was part of God's plan all along and consequently do not view Adam and Eve with the same contempt as do the majority of Christians. We believe that, as Adam's and Eve's descendents, each of us is born with the propensity to sin. On the other hand, we make a very clear distinction between being born with the propensity to sin and actually being born into a sinful state. "Depravity" is a word you would never hear in an LDS worship service.

One uniquely LDS scripture states that "the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." You might say that while we believe the natural man is an enemy to God, we do not believe that the natural child is. We teach that children come into this world pure and clean, without sin of any kind and can only sin once they have reached the age where they are capable of making a distinction between good and evil. Consequently, we do not practice infant baptism and believe that all babies and small children who die do not require baptism for the remission of sins; they are eligible for the Celestial Kingdom by virtue of the fact that they died being incapable of having sinned.

It is probably not even our rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin that sets us apart from other Christians as much as it is our doctrine of Exaltation (similar but not identical to Deification or Theosis). Our prophets have taught that we are "gods in embryo," and that God's greatest desire is that we become like Him. While we believe that there will never be a time when we willl not worship Him as our God, we believe that, through our Savior's Atonement and through our own obedience and faithfulness, we too may ultimately become gods and goddesses. We do not see ourselves as merely His "creations" but as His literal "spirit offspring." Just as kittens grow up to be cats, and puppies grow up to be dogs, children of God have been given the potential to "grow up to be gods" so to speak. Not only do other Christians reject this doctrine, it is one of the primary reasons why so many of them refuse to even consider us part of the Christian family at all.

So one does not accept Jesus Christ and live a moral life simply to gain the reward of the afterlife? Instead, one does so to enter into a deeply-fulfilling spiritual relationship with Christ (which will, I assume, enrich not only this life but the afterlife as well after resurrection?)

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Even when I don't agree with other people's religious beliefs, I find the complexity of the beliefs themselves---and the way in which they are internally consistent---to be endlessly fascinating. It's why I went into the field of religious studies, and why I'm lamenting that I'll be graduating in less than a year. I've enjoyed our conversation immensely; you’ve really helped enrich my understanding of Mormonism. My education has been sadly lacking when it comes to the Christian faiths (mostly due to my habit of selecting theory-based courses or classes which are about Eastern religion). So thank you for taking the time to respond.

Ah! Now I understand why you have been so quick to pick up on the nuances of my explanations and have been able to restate my beliefs so accurately. Religious studies sounds like a positively fascinating major. Please feel free to use me as a resource any time.

 

[madhatter85]

i havent even read your essays and thesus' on whatever u guys are talking about because it's petty and non-informative.

 

[Katzpur]

i havent even read your essays and thesus' on whatever u guys are talking about because it's petty and non-informative.

Who are you talking to -- Runt and me?

 

[madhatter85]

yes....

 

[Runt]

i havent even read your essays and thesus' on whatever u guys are talking about because it's petty and non-informative.

I'm impressed you took the time to type that out. *waves*

 

[Runt]

It is probably not even our rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin that sets us apart from other Christians as much as it is our doctrine of Exaltation (similar but not identical to Deification or Theosis). Our prophets have taught that we are "gods in embryo," and that God's greatest desire is that we become like Him. While we believe that there will never be a time when we willl not worship Him as our God, we believe that, through our Savior's Atonement and through our own obedience and faithfulness, we too may ultimately become gods and goddesses. We do not see ourselves as merely His "creations" but as His literal "spirit offspring." Just as kittens grow up to be cats, and puppies grow up to be dogs, children of God have been given the potential to "grow up to be gods" so to speak. Not only do other Christians reject this doctrine, it is one of the primary reasons why so many of them refuse to even consider us part of the Christian family at all.

Okay, I have a question that is arising out of a debate I'm quite literally having with my friends this very moment. One is a former Mormon, two of us are religious studies folks. The (presently Mormon) friend I mentioned in an earlier post once explained to me (and this was when we were both quite young, 12 or 13 perhaps) that Mormons believe that men may become gods, but women may only become the wives of gods. I have heard something similar during the course of my religious studies education, as has my other religious studies friend. But my former-Mormon friend argues that no, the Mormon belief is that men and women are capable of rising to godhood, and your post seems to suggest the same.

What is the official church stance on this issue, and was there ever a time that it was different?

 

[nutshell]

Okay, I have a question that is arising out of a debate I'm quite literally having with my friends this very moment. One is a former Mormon, two of us are religious studies folks. The (presently Mormon) friend I mentioned in an earlier post once explained to me (and this was when we were both quite young, 12 or 13 perhaps) that Mormons believe that men may become gods, but women may only become the wives of gods. I have heard something similar during the course of my religious studies education, as has my other religious studies friend. But my former-Mormon friend argues that no, the Mormon belief is that men and women are capable of rising to godhood.

What is the official church stance on this issue, and was there ever a time that it was different?

Men and women rise to godhood together. It cannot be done without both. The crowning ordinance that allows for exaltation (becoming like god) is the Sealing ordinance in the temple. This is the "eternal marriage," and is a Mormon's crowning achievement. Only then is a person eligible to become like god and only then, if the husband and wife reach that status together as equals.

 

[Runt]

Men and women rise to godhood together. It cannot be done without both. The crowning ordinance that allows for exaltation (becoming like god) is the Sealing ordinance in the temple. This is the "eternal marriage," and is a Mormon's crowning achievement. Only then is a person eligible to become like god and only then, if the husband and wife reach that status together as equals.

Thanks! My friend just gave me an "I told you so" look.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, I have a question that is arising out of a debate I'm quite literally having with my friends this very moment. One is a former Mormon, two of us are religious studies folks. The (presently Mormon) friend I mentioned in an earlier post once explained to me (and this was when we were both quite young, 12 or 13 perhaps) that Mormons believe that men may become gods, but women may only become the wives of gods. I have heard something similar during the course of my religious studies education, as has my other religious studies friend. But my former-Mormon friend argues that no, the Mormon belief is that men and women are capable of rising to godhood, and your post seems to suggest the same.

What is the official church stance on this issue, and was there ever a time that it was different?

Without taking the time to actually look for an official statement, I feel entirely comfortable in stating that men and women (husbands and wifes) may attain godhood only as a married couple. No man may attain godhood without his wife and no woman may attain godhood without her husband. Since we see marriage as an eternal covenant just as we do baptism, both partners in that covenant must progress together or not at all. Oh, and to answer your other question, there was never a time that it was different.