John Paul Ii Posthumously Baptized In Lds Temples.

[David Waltz]

Just this morning I read in the September 2006 Sunstone (issue 142) that John Paul II was posthumously baptized â??in four LDS temples, one year after his passingâ?, and that he â??was also endowed and sealed to his parents multiple timesâ? (p. 97).

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

Grace and peace,

David

[Olavarria]

I agree 100% with Pres. SMith and Elder McConkie. My questian is, what counts as a chance? Christ will judge that. I dont know about JP2 but MY only chance is in this life.

[Tsuzuki]

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Just to add my own two cents, the Gospel and the Church are not the same thing. Judging by the way John Paul II lived his life, I'd say he accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ a long time ago.

[HiJolly]

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

Grace and peace,

David

Who among us is qualified to say whether JPII rejected the "Gospel in this life"?

HiJolly

[Tsuzuki]

Who among us is qualified to say whether JPII rejected the "Gospel in this life"?

Gospel = Church for some people.

[thesometimesaint]

Tsuzuki:

The Church is the only body that can officially impliment the Gospel.

[HiJolly]

Who among us is qualified to say whether JPII rejected the "Gospel in this life"?

Gospel = Church for some people.

Yeah, I know. My Ggrandfather's journal has an entry in the late 1800's when he was in Colonia Juarez, Mexico, and they had Stake Conference. Two GA's were there, and one spoke on how the Church and the Gospel were two different things. Good stuff. His journals are so cool.

HiJolly

[Nighthawke]

Just this morning I read in the September 2006 Sunstone (issue 142) that John Paul II was posthumously baptized â??in four LDS temples, one year after his passingâ?, and that he â??was also endowed and sealed to his parents multiple timesâ? (p. 97).

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

Grace and peace,

David

I suppose because some member of the Church thought it would be okay to perform these ordinances and because baptisms for the dead are not vetted by Church Headquarters. Why multiple times? Because the computer program that is supposed to stop this from happening is still being worked on?

One of the most troublesome aspects of our temple activity is that as we get more and more temples scattered across the earth there is duplication of effort in proxy work. People in various nations simultaneously work on the same family lines and come up with the same names. They do not know that those in other areas are doing the same thing. We, therefore, have been engaged for some time in a very difficult undertaking. To avoid such duplication, the solution lies in complex computer technology. Preliminary indications are that it will work, and if this is so, it will be a truly remarkable thing with worldwide implications.

- Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2005 General Conference

Does this posthumous baptism bother you?

[Ref]

This is an interesting issue.

I would conclude that itâ??s pretty obvious JPII rejected the Lds â??doctrine or conceptâ? of Christianity by not accepting the Ldsâ?? baptism as policy of the catholic church while accepting the baptism of other Christian churches. As educated and well read/traveled as he was, it would be hard to begin arguing that JPII knew little of the Lds doctrines and claims. Yet he certainly did not believe an Lds baptism was proper for what he gave his life believing.

HiJolly stated: â??Who among us is qualified to say whether JPII rejected the "Gospel in this life?â?

While true, it begs the question of why the need to baptize him into the LDs records in the first place? Who amongst us is qualified to determine this need for him in the first place? For those who would say that such act does not mean anything until and unless â??he accepts it in the endâ?, then they must believe he had not â??accepted something necessary for salvation in the eyes of Godâ?. For those who conclude that JPII had probably accepted the â??gospel in this lifeâ?, is there any need for the Lds baptism at all?

Why would the Lds Church allow these kinds of â??ceremonial practicesâ? to continue, particularly when they know full well the one they are performing it for would never had want it done in the first place. In this case, with JPII, does it not have an "air of arrogance" in pushing ones beliefs onto others?

[David Waltz]

Hi Nighthawke,

You posted:

>>Does this posthumous baptism bother you?>>

Not in the least. My questions arose due to some pretty explicit statements in the Quad about postmortem salvation and their interpretation by LDS Presidents and Apostles.

Grace and peace,

David

[Daniel Peterson]

We have an obligaton to provide the ordinance for everybody who has ever lived.

We have no obligation, and are not qualified, to attempt to determine who has "already had his chance." That's for the Lord.

I would be quite surprised, frankly, if John Paul II had a very solid, let alone detailed, understanding of Mormonism. None of the cardinals I've met at the Vatican (and now in Australia) have shown any signs of possessing such a knowledge. Still, so far as I can tell, they're exceptionally good men.

[David Waltz]

Hey Tsuzuki,

You wrote:

>>Just to add my own two cents, the Gospel and the Church are not the same thing. Judging by the way John Paul II lived his life, I'd say he accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ a long time ago.>>

Would you mind explaining exactly what â??the Gospelâ? is? Concerning this definition, can one reject Joseph Smith Jr. as a true prophet of God while accepting â??the Gospelâ?? Can one reject that the true priesthood and itâ??s authority to perform valid ordinances was lost and later restored in the 19th century via Joseph and others?

Anyway, the above came to mind while pondering your post.

Grace and peace,

David

[lost sheep]

Just this morning I read in the September 2006 Sunstone (issue 142) that John Paul II was posthumously baptized â??in four LDS temples, one year after his passingâ?, and that he â??was also endowed and sealed to his parents multiple timesâ? (p. 97).

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

Grace and peace,

David

WHAT ?? Sealed to his parents several times? Baptised after death? You kidding right

[David Waltz]

Hello Daniel,

Thanks for responding. You wrote:

>>We have an obligaton to provide the ordinance for everybody who has ever lived.>>

Me: This I did not know. I guess I read too much into what Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

The dispensation of the fulness of times is the great era of vicarious ordinance work, a work which will continue during the millennial era until it has been performed for every living soul entitled to receive it. (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. p. 73 â?? emphasis added.)

>>We have no obligation, and are not qualified, to attempt to determine who has "already had his chance." That's for the Lord.>>

Me: This makes sense.

>>I would be quite surprised, frankly, if John Paul II had a very solid, let alone detailed, understanding of Mormonism. None of the cardinals I've met at the Vatican (and now in Australia) have shown any signs of possessing such a knowledge.>>

Me: You may very well be correct on this; yet, given John Paul IIâ??s incredible depth of knowledge, coupled with the decision to reject LDS baptisms as valid during his pontificate, I personally lean in the opposite direction.

>>Still, so far as I can tell, they're exceptionally good men.>>

This reminds me of the following:

â??These are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.â?

Grace and peace,

David

[Nighthawke]

Just this morning I read in the September 2006 Sunstone (issue 142) that John Paul II was posthumously baptized â??in four LDS temples, one year after his passingâ?, and that he â??was also endowed and sealed to his parents multiple timesâ? (p. 97).

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

Grace and peace,

David

WHAT ?? Sealed to his parents several times? Baptised after death? You kidding right

What about the frequent Requiem Masses held for Pope John Paul II since his death; are masses for the dead worth giggling over too?

[HiJolly]

I would conclude that itâ??s pretty obvious JPII rejected the Lds â??doctrine or conceptâ? of Christianity by not accepting the Ldsâ?? baptism as policy of the catholic church while accepting the baptism of other Christian churches. As educated and well read/traveled as he was, it would be hard to begin arguing that JPII knew little of the Lds doctrines and claims.

Pure baloney. You yourself are an excellent case in point.

Yet he certainly did not believe an Lds baptism was proper for what he gave his life believing.

From what I've heard, that's probably correct. Perhaps you're reading too much into that?

HiJolly stated: â??Who among us is qualified to say whether JPII rejected the "Gospel in this life?â?

While true, it begs the question of why the need to baptize him into the LDs records in the first place?

Is 'begging the question' to be equated with having faith?

Who amongst us is qualified to determine this need for him in the first place?

What you seem to be doing is arguing for no belief in anything. I categorically deny that approach to life.

For those who would say that such act does not mean anything until and unless â??he accepts it in the endâ?, then they must believe he had not â??accepted something necessary for salvation in the eyes of Godâ?.

That seems true enough.

Why would the Lds Church allow these kinds of â??ceremonial practicesâ? to continue, particularly when they know full well the one they are performing it for would never had want it done in the first place. In this case, with JPII, does it not have an "air of arrogance" in pushing ones beliefs onto others?

Not at all. Why in the world would you think so? What is it we know "full well"? How many implied assumptions can be nested in a single sentence? Wow.

HiJolly

[lost sheep]

Just this morning I read in the September 2006 Sunstone (issue 142) that John Paul II was posthumously baptized â??in four LDS temples, one year after his passingâ?, and that he â??was also endowed and sealed to his parents multiple timesâ? (p. 97).

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

Grace and peace,

David

WHAT ?? Sealed to his parents several times? Baptised after death? You kidding right

What about the frequent Requiem Masses held for Pope John Paul II since his death; are masses for the dead worth giggling over too?

A typical funeral I agree with, but being baptised after your dead sounds silly and is in no way Biblical. So yes I would laugh at someone baptising a dead person. John Paul was a good man, but in no way needs to be set up as a high priest to to be equal or take the same position as Jesus. Those folks need to confess their sins to Jesus, not the priest, they didnt sin against the priest did they, Jesus was the one who died on the cross.

[BCSpace]

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

He is baptised (as all ultimately will be) in case he accepts the gospel in the afterlife. Your "second chance" comment is indicative of a certain ignorance of our doctrine. To accept the gospel in the afterlife is NOT a second chance. If you had never heard it before (which could possibly include the testimony of the Holy Ghost after seeking the truth) , then you could be eligible for the CK. If you already had that opportunity in mortality, you will not be eligible for the CK but may be eligible for a lesser degree of glory.

We do not define, nor do we have any doctrine on what the one chance you could get in mortality consists of, though we do indeed like to speculate as anybody would.

[HiJolly]

A typical funeral I agree with, but being baptised after your dead sounds silly and is in no way Biblical. So yes I would laugh at someone baptising a dead person. John Paul was a good man, but in no way needs to be set up as a high priest to to be equal or take the same position as Jesus. Those folks need to confess their sins to Jesus, not the priest, they didnt sin against the priest did they, Jesus was the one who died on the cross.

I'm thinking you may not know your Bible as well as you think you do...

evidence one: Your claim of no baptism for the dead in the bible

evidence two: Your claim of no role of the priest in repentance

HiJolly

[lost sheep]

Given John Paul IIâ??s obvious stance on the CoJCoLDS (i.e. not the â??one true Church), why would he be baptized?

President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie were quite clear (citing numerous scriptures from the Quad) in many of their writings and addresses that there is no â??second chanceâ?, that those â??who reject the gospel in this life and then receive it in the spirit world go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.â?

Any thoughts?

He is baptised (as all ultimately will be) in case he accepts the gospel in the afterlife. Your "second chance" comment is indicative of a certain ignorance of our doctrine. To accept the gospel in the afterlife is NOT a second chance. If you had never heard it before (which could possibly include the testimony of the Holy Ghost after seeking the truth) , then you could be eligible for the CK. If you already had that opportunity in mortality, you will not be eligible for the CK but may be eligible for a lesser degree of glory.

We do not define, nor do we have any doctrine on what the one chance you could get in mortality consists of, though we do indeed like to speculate as anybody would.

WHAT? Are you making this up as you go, this is not Biblical at all

[emeliza]

Lost Sheep~

I am gathering you don't know much about the LDS Church. I suggest reading some articles on FAIR about Baptism for the Dead prior to commenting. You are coming across a bit badly.

[lost sheep]

A typical funeral I agree with, but being baptised after your dead sounds silly and is in no way Biblical. So yes I would laugh at someone baptising a dead person. John Paul was a good man, but in no way needs to be set up as a high priest to to be equal or take the same position as Jesus. Those folks need to confess their sins to Jesus, not the priest, they didnt sin against the priest did they, Jesus was the one who died on the cross.

I'm thinking you may not know your Bible as well as you think you do...

evidence one: Your claim of no baptism for the dead in the bible

evidence two: Your claim of no role of the priest in repentance

HiJolly

Show me in the Bible in the KJV where you talk to a priest or anyone when asking for forgiveness of your sins other than Jesus Christ. Dont say God either, we know they are all one in Spirit so dont go down a cow trail . Show me in the Bible where you baptise a dead man. You repent of your sins first, get baptised, then you will recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost from God, no priest is gonna lay hands on you and give iut to you, its not theirs to give away. After your dead friend, your judged, aint no going back for anything.

[lost sheep]

Lost Sheep~

I am gathering you don't know much about the LDS Church. I suggest reading some articles on FAIR about Baptism for the Dead prior to commenting. You are coming across a bit badly.

I was invited to see what they teach, I dont think, wait I know it aint Biblical. Looks more like a cult than Church. Yall sure can twist some stuff up. At least the Jehova Witness sound a little convincing, this junk yall teach sounds like a start wars movie If I come across badly, pray for me like the Bible tells you to,

Knock it off with the "cult" stuff... If you can't act like an adult you won't be long for these boards. -mods

[emeliza]

Show me in the Bible in the KJV where you talk to a priest or anyone when asking for forgiveness of your sins other than Jesus Christ. Dont say God either, we know they are all one in Spirit so dont go down a cow trail . Show me in the Bible where you baptise a dead man. You repent of your sins first, get baptised, then you will recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost from God, no priest is gonna lay hands on you and give iut to you, its not theirs to give away. After your dead friend, your judged, aint no going back for anything.

LOL--I was waiting for something along these lines from the first posting.

[HiJolly]

Show me in the Bible in the KJV where you talk to a priest or anyone when asking for forgiveness of your sins other than Jesus Christ. Dont say God either, we know they are all one in Spirit so dont go down a cow trail . Show me in the Bible where you baptise a dead man. You repent of your sins first, get baptised, then you will recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost from God, no priest is gonna lay hands on you and give iut to you, its not theirs to give away. After your dead friend, your judged, aint no going back for anything.

I apologize, I had forgotten my intention to no longer discuss things with you. Sorry.

HiJolly