Why does baptism for the dead bother you?

[Bishka]

Yes thats what you like to believe. But its not a case of what you would like to believe - the truth is what matters. Yes would you like to show me some? Well you wouldn't know weather its proof or not if you haven't watched it

I gave you a link, you obviously haven't looked at it, have you?

Here, let me help you out.

FAIR

 

[Bishka]

Think about what?

What your religion is based on without the BoM

Jesus Christ. We've said it a dozen times, how many more would you like? :sarcastic

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Matthew 22:23-33

How does this say that there are no families in heaven? It doesn't, nice try though.

Jesus Christ -- yet with the Book of Mormon we have Him too.

In a slightly different way

So?

 

[Vjkingjr]

/offtopic
A person i can respect is a person of reason. people choose wether or not to believe evidence or not. Scientests say the world is billions of years old, and there is archeological proof of that.

I dont believe that Genesis gives an exact date of when the Earth was created Correct me if im wrong.

i think of it like this, you took apart a 100 year old wood shed, and built another shed out of it (including the nails ect..). the shed you built is only a few days old, but if your archeology expert came along and tested the shed, he would say that the shed was a hundred years old.

No he would say i can see where they have pulled the nails out and put them back in - I can also tell they have taken this shed apart etc.. He would then see that the wood was 100 years old.

Who's to say that the materials used to create the earth and the galaxy and the universe isn't billions of years old?

No-one. But what does that matter?

My point is that science cannot alone prove or disprove anything, just as Theology cant-
Back to topic - I love beign able to do baptisms for the dead because i get an incredible feeling doing it.

True, however, that video isnt just science based evidence - its also archaeological evidence and linguistic evidence.

Its not a bad vid.

 

[athanasius]

Apostolic tradition? you mean someone made up a ritual with no actual scriptural background and told people it needed to be done this way? ok.. and if you reread your "rebuttle biblical refrences" you'll see that they actually prove my point.

We do not pull our doctrine exclusively from the Book of mormon, We utilize it in conjunction with the bible, it helps to understand the bible better. we also utilize the "Doctrine and Covenants" which were revelations given to joseph smith and other prophets by God and Christ, regarding church orginization and religious parctices.

"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth."

each refrence in the D&C can be cross refrenced with passages from the bible and/or BoM.

Also, we believe the most precious and simple parts of the bible were taken out during the course of 2 millenia being translated and re-translated and translated again and again. (i'm refrencing the Book of mormon in first nephi here) the oldest version of the bible that we know of that was kept mostly to it's original form (or as close as you can get this day in age) is the king james version.

Another way to deduce that the scriptures have been perverted is the confusive nature and ambiguity of many many many of the texts. the truth is always simple, confusion and ambiguity is not of god. it is of other non-benevolent powers.

in regards to the infants, you totally sidestepped the matter instead of rebuking it properly. when paul is talkign about "inheriting sin" he is stating that every person is capable of sinning and will sin in thier lifetime.

another point in fact is that if you believe christianity, God gave all his children "free-agency" the right to choose one's own actions. implying that god would force one to "inherit" sin would go against the whole nature of free-agency.

"We believe that man will be punished for thier own sins and not for Adam's transgression." - Article of Faith (LDS Church)

Wow. I do not know where to start. Your historical ignorance really does you discredit. You obviously have no idea what apostolic tradition is if you think that it is just a bunch of made up rituals with no background. Apostolic tradition is oral tradition that is apostolic in nature, hence it can be traced back to apostolic times to the apostles and their immediate successors and thier successors. Hence it has background. The bible is apostolic tradition that was eventually written down(Lk 1 does a good job of displaying this). There are also apostolic traditions that were not written down. They were oral and handed down orally from Apostles to Bishops all the way down to our current day. This is also displayed in the Bible when Paul commands all christians to hold fast to both the oral traditions and the written traditions that they were taught(2 Thess 2:15). These oral teachings were also considered the word of God(1 Thess 2:13) and to be held to (2 Thess 2:15). The oral traditions not only had additional revelation not found in the bible explicitly but they also were a way for the early church to check the various scriptures passages to see how to properly interpret them. They were a interpretive grid. The oral traditions and apostolic succession of bishops was what the early Christians used in refuting the early heretics. The early heretics just quoted the same scriptures and put a twist on them just like you do. So they couldn't just uses scripture alone. But the early Christians were wise to check scripture against the apostolic traditions and then to look and see the apostolic succession that went all the way back to Jesus and the apostles, they looked to the Authority of the Catholic church(not Mormon Church) in deciding these important issues. That is just historical ancient Christianity. Its not mormonism.

So here is your problem. Why should anyone trust your novel late interpretation of the bible and what it means when we already have 2000 years of hindsight and oral apostolic tradition that clearly says nothing about what your saying about this doctrine. The early Christians that were taught by the apostles taught infant baptism and utilized the interpretations of scripture and tradition that I and the Catholic church do. But no orthodox Christian for the first 1900 years ever taught what your teaching about baptism for the dead in the mormon sense. This sounds dubious to take your late interpretation of any passage or doctrine and believe it over the universal (Catholic) historical church that was taught by the apostles and that gave us the bible and its canon as we know it. Your trying to pick fruit from a tree you didn't plant.That would be just as ignorant and arrogant as me saying that I can interpret the book of Mormon better than your church could.



Again if you wish to discuss infant baptism then I would be happy to debate this with you in a private forum one on one and show you the scriptural reasons for it, including the verses in Paul and the Gospels you yourself used to try to disprove it. I would love to show you the mountain of evidence from the early Christians writings and apostolic traditions . Again the apostolic tradition also shows that Original sin was contracted by all and that is how we are to interpret Pauls writings in romans. But I'll take you to the challenge. You are incorrect in interpreting this passage for two reasons. 1) You interpret it apart form its historical context as the fathers of the Church and tradition interpreted it. 2) You and your church lack any real authority to interpret the bible and you go against apostolic tradition and the historical Church that Jesus founded(the Catholic church) which shows us how to interpret it. Heck you and your church couldn't even give us the bible or the canon, you had to rely on Christ Catholic Church and Apostolic tradition to do that. So why should we listen to you?

Oh by the way truth is not always simple. That is why Peter talks about ignorant people easily twisting the scriptures and that is why we also had many heresies in the early Church.

This false doctrine of Baptism for the dead, (the mormon understanding of it) bothers me because as I have displayed it is a late doctrine(founded some 1900 years) to late and is not biblically or historically sound.

 

[Bishka]

*Waves*

This is not about why it is Biblically right. It's whether it bothers you or not.

 

[madhatter85]

Yar, it is wether it bothers you or not,
Also again you have refused to rebuke properly. your'e certainly more of a politician than a debater.
-Off topic again,
and your 4 page long essay on "Apostolic traditions" was incredibly unmoving. Especially the part about the apostle's "Sucessors" if you actually cared enough to read and unserstand the bible (which most abrahamic religions are based on) you would see that the apostles were all killed and in the bible it mentions that there would be a famine in the land, not of hunger but of the words of christ. All the apostles were killed, no successors. If you can't find that in the bible you need a new bible. thanks.


Oral traditions? so only spoken traditions?
I would debate with you in another topic on this but unfortuantely from what i have seen here it would be a waste of my time.

"My peace I leave, my peace I give to you. While we ate Reese's Pieces with the Lord. And I have a piece of lint in my peaceful EYE!" - Dane cook.

 

[Jacob]

It may be a little more settling if you understand the doctrine... People who have past on and have had there Baptismal work done for them will have the opportunity to accept the baptism.. it does not automatically mean that they are baptized into the mormon church. if your ancestor would have accepted the message of the Restoration and been baptized in the mormon church in this life... when this proxy work is done... they will accept it on the other side.. but if not, then they wont accept it.
Bottom line is I guess, that if you think its not true, then why worry..... and in the words of Paul to the corinthians
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? 1Corinthians 15:29 ---- if there is no ressurection then why do mormons baptize for the dead??? i think its because there is a ressurection and the dead who havent been baptized, need to be baptized before that happens...........

 

[madhatter85]

It may be a little more settling if you understand the doctrine... People who have past on and have had there Baptismal work done for them will have the opportunity to accept the baptism.. it does not automatically mean that they are baptized into the mormon church. if your ancestor would have accepted the message of the Restoration and been baptized in the mormon church in this life... when this proxy work is done... they will accept it on the other side.. but if not, then they wont accept it.
Bottom line is I guess, that if you think its not true, then why worry..... and in the words of Paul to the corinthians
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? 1Corinthians 15:29 ---- if there is no ressurection then why do mormons baptize for the dead??? i think its because there is a ressurection and the dead who havent been baptized, need to be baptized before that happens...........

Thank you for that, really why should it bother anyone if they don't think it's a true service. if they don't think it does anything, or if they think our doctrine is false, why should it matter to them if we do it since if they don't believe what we teach then what we do should be vain in thier eyes. correct?

 

[Bishka]

Thank you for that, really why should it bother anyone if they don't think it's a true service. if they don't think it does anything, or if they think our doctrine is false, why should it matter to them if we do it since if they don't believe what we teach then what we do should be vain in thier eyes. correct?

Correct.

They just like telling us we are wrong and 'weird'.

 

[Runt]

Thank you for that, really why should it bother anyone if they don't think it's a true service. if they don't think it does anything, or if they think our doctrine is false, why should it matter to them if we do it since if they don't believe what we teach then what we do should be vain in thier eyes. correct?

Imagine for a moment that you were dead, or that one of your family members was dead. Imagine that a Satanist (or perhaps not even a Satanist; perhaps a pagan, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim; someone NOT of your faith) were to perform a ritual after your death in which they baptized you in the name of Satan, in the name of Manannan Mac Lir, in the name of Buddha, or in the name of Allah. Does the notion of being baptized in the name of a faith that is not your own discomfort you at all? How about the notion that that faith has no respect or interest for your religious preferences in life, for your decided lack of an interest in being a part of their religion, for the fact that you might, even, find their religious beliefs distasteful. Are you truly comfortable with this?

 

[nutshell]

Apostolic tradition is oral tradition that is apostolic in nature, hence it can be traced back to apostolic times to the apostles and their immediate successors and thier successors.

Ever played the telephone game?

 

[Bishka]

Are you truly comfortable with this?

Yes, because it would mean nothing to me after I'm dead and gone. I can be baptized a Satanist, Catholic, or whatever. The thought doesn't bother me, because I have chosen my path. Rituals only have power if the person/soul lets them.

 

[nutshell]

Hmmmm...what about the inherent power of the cross over vampires?

 

[jonny]

Imagine for a moment that you were dead, or that one of your family members was dead. Imagine that a Satanist (or perhaps not even a Satanist; perhaps a pagan, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim; someone NOT of your faith) were to perform a ritual after your death in which they baptized you in the name of Satan, in the name of Manannan Mac Lir, in the name of Buddha, or in the name of Allah. Does the notion of being baptized in the name of a faith that is not your own discomfort you at all? How about the notion that that faith has no respect or interest for your religious preferences in life, for your decided lack of an interest in being a part of their religion, for the fact that you might, even, find their religious beliefs distasteful. Are you truly comfortable with this?

It doesn't bother me because I don't believe it would have any effect on me. If I believed it would, it would cause me discomfort.

 

[Jacob]

Imagine for a moment that you were dead, or that one of your family members was dead. Imagine that a Satanist (or perhaps not even a Satanist; perhaps a pagan, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim; someone NOT of your faith) were to perform a ritual after your death in which they baptized you in the name of Satan, in the name of Manannan Mac Lir, in the name of Buddha, or in the name of Allah. Does the notion of being baptized in the name of a faith that is not your own discomfort you at all? How about the notion that that faith has no respect or interest for your religious preferences in life, for your decided lack of an interest in being a part of their religion, for the fact that you might, even, find their religious beliefs distasteful. Are you truly comfortable with this?

If you go back to my last response you will see that the people that recieve this baptism still have the right to choose whether to accept the baptism or not... in the gospel of jesus christ alot of it has to do with agency.. the god given gift to man.. satan wishes to destroy our agency by taking away our freedom through sin.. if doing baptism for the dead and opening up the choice for those on the other side to accept baptism or not is taking away agency.. than i could understand your point.. but it actually gives agency.. allowing those that would have accepted baptism in this life but never had the chance with the situation or knowledge that they had in this life.. so casting a spell or hex on someone is taking away agency, but allowing someone the choice to accept or not a sacred ordinance of the gospel of jesus christ is opening up more freedom.

 

[athanasius]

Ever played the telephone game?

Yes I have. But apostolic traditions by the grace of God do not undergo corruption like mere human traditions. under the guidence of the Holy Spirit over time we may gain a deeper understanding of them as is the case with the nature of Christ and the Trinity But take any apostolic tradition , the Eucharist being a sacrifice and the real corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist for example, and I can trace it back from generation to generation and show how the doctrine was essentially the same all through the centuries unlike the telephone game. That is God's providence with his oral word.

However if you deny this then you have to deny the bible itself and its canon. Because the bible itself is a apostolic tradition that was handed down for decades and eventually written down. And the canon of scripture was a tradition not found in the bible. The full canon wasn't accepted until 382 Ad at the council of Rome under the decree of Pope Damasus I. it was then ratified again at many other Catholic councils such as Hippo(393) and Carthage(397) and Florence(1439). In other words it took apostolic tradition outside of the bible and the Catholic church, her Popes and councils for you to even know what the bible and the canon even was. So your rejection of of apostolic tradition is just silly and unworkable for the Christian. Especially given that Paul commands us to hold fast to it(2 Thess 2:15) and if you read the early apostolic Christians like Irenaeus writing a.d. 180 you will see this was clearly taught in the early ancient Christian/Catholic church that Jesus founded.

 

[Jacob]

My final point with Vicarious or Proxy work is this..... If you totally disregard Proxy work, or the act of performing ordinances in place of others than i would be real careful, because one man 2000 years ago suffered and died and "stood in our Place" paying for our since, the ultimate sacrifice and Proxy ever efectuated. if that man had not done that for us, baptism wouldnt even mean anything.. nor would repentance.. so be careful when bashing on this merciful practise and ordinance in attempt to bring the opportunity for those passed to recieve the blessings of baptism that we can so liberally enjoy in the flesh.

 

[DeepShadow]

I don't believe in spirits at all. It's the principle of the thing---the very notion, however fictional it may seem to be, of baptizing someone who didn't want to be baptized in life and very well may not want to be baptized in death---that bothers me.

Gee, good thing that's not what we're doing. How can I get this across? If the spirit is not willing, there is no baptism! Willingness is one of the prime ingredients for baptism, so without that we're just getting wet and saying the person's name. No baptism has taken place!

 

[lunamoth]

My final point with Vicarious or Proxy work is this..... If you totally disregard Proxy work, or the act of performing ordinances in place of others than i would be real careful, because one man 2000 years ago suffered and died and "stood in our Place" paying for our since, the ultimate sacrifice and Proxy ever efectuated. if that man had not done that for us, baptism wouldnt even mean anything.. nor would repentance.. so be careful when bashing on this merciful practise and ordinance in attempt to bring the opportunity for those passed to recieve the blessings of baptism that we can so liberally enjoy in the flesh.

I don't object to the proxy aspect. I object to the idea that the baptism a person has already had in life, either as an infant or consenting adult, is deemed insufficient. I think it would be better if this was done totally in secret and that you did not go about getting permission from living relatives.

 

[Bishka]

I think it would be better if this was done totally in secret and that you did not go about getting permission from living relatives.

You really think that? And what if one day it came to light what we were doing? Don't you think it is better we get permission to do it?