John Paul Ii Posthumously Baptized In Lds Temples.

[emeliza]

The LDS don't believe in needing a Priest to confess our sins to on a normal basis. I don't go into a confessional. That is the Catholic Church. The LDS Church believes if you have a particularly bad sin it is wise to go to your Bishop to talk about it and get help with it.

The LDS do believe in Baptisms for the Dead. We believe that everyone should get a chance to hear and accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is in the Bible in 1 Corinthians.

Once again, I suggest going back to the main web pages of FAIR and looking at the Topical Guide for articles that explain Baptism for the Dead and how we do believe they are Biblical. You don't have to accept our ideas, but rather than blast us on an LDS website, it would be a good idea to get a full idea of what we are talking about first. Then after you have read about it, come back and share your opinions.

[lost sheep]

No problem at all. Thats the typical response I get when confronted by your boys on bikes when they talk to me. They normally dont have an answer.

[selek]

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.

For someone who supposedly came here with a dearth of information and a sincere desire to learn, you surely do seem to have a lot of semi-knowledgeable opinions.

I think we can upgrade from watch to warning.

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

The TEW (Troll early warning) system is now activated...

We are under a troll warning condition. This means that there a troll in the vicinity is likely. Keep on the lookout for posters without a history making accusatory posts, then leaving the discussion unfinished.

Please be advised this is only a warning. People with a real life may not have time to respond to their own threads and only appear as trolls. Also people who have been indoctrinated by anti-mormon ministries may have TTS (Temporary Troll Syndrome) which is characterized by having a single issue and the desire to debunk all mormonism in a single thread.

Trolls will eventually prove their existance by a complete lack of regard for reason and civility when pushing their point. However, if a troll is actually spotted we will broadcast a troll alert. At which time you will be instructed in emergency troll baiting procedures.

Thank you and now back to your regular broadcast discussion...

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

[lost sheep]

I dont mind being called a Troll I am a born again Penetcost full of the Holy Ghost and go staright to the man when in prayer, Jesus Christ is my advocate Yes I spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came, I was baptised in Jesus name and looking for the Rapture everyday.

[Obiwan]

Tsuzuki:

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

The only "earthly" body to empliment "Eternal" ordainances.

---------

But as to the question at hand, the answer is simple.

When the "veil" is lifted from a mans eyes, he will certainly fully accept the gospel.

However, it is Gods Judgement of mans "works" which is based on what they know in life which determines "where" they will end up in Heaven.

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?

I would have to actually see the exact quotes you believe you are quoting to determine if you are correctly understanding them. Reason I say this is because half of the entire purpose of the Temple is to perform "saving" ordainces for ALL MEN, in the Church or not. In other words, LDS would not be performing "Celestial" ordainances in the Temple on behalf of the dead if the dead could not receive of those ordainances.

Meaning, an LDS does not go into a Telestial room within the Temple standing in proxy for a deceased person. They go into a Celestial one.

[urroner]

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

A very Christ-like attitude you're displaying and you say you started your own church. Interesting. First you say you don't understand what we believe and then, without any serious attempt to understand what we believe, you ridicule us. Like I said, very Christ-like of you. I'm sure Christ is bursting with pride for what you are doing for him.

[urroner]

Does baptism make it possible for men to go to the Telestial or the Terrestial Kingdoms or does it make it possible for them to go to the Celestial Kingdom? Baptism for the dead, as mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29 is to provide all those who have died without being baptized, the chance to accept it and enter the Celestial Kingdom and receive all of God's blessings.

BTW, who are we to judge whether someone has truly accepted or rejected the gospel. When I was a missionary, I as many people if they wanted to hear about the Church and they said no, is that rejecting the gospel? I taught many the discussions and they declined to get baptized, are they going to Hell?

A friend of mine was recently ex'ed. If he dies before being baptized again, is he bound for Hell in a handbasket.

While I lived in Utah as a youth, the father of a friend of mine never joined the Church. He went to Church every Sunday, went to all the activities, sent three of his sons on missions, held a calling in the ward, helped many of those who were having problems, and even took the deacons around on Fast Sunday to collect fast offerings. He never got baptized because he said he never had a witness from God and he prayed all the time. Had FHE every Sunday night and made sure his home teachers gave his family, including himself, priesthood blessings. Is too sad and depressing that there are those who almost gleefully damn the man to Hell. He died some time ago and a year later, his wife and kids did his temple work and were sealed to him. Maybe the temple president who performed the sealing ceremony should have told them they were wasting their time since their husband and father was going to rot in Hell.

It really peeves me when people are so willing to judge others and place them firmly in Hell and they do it with such eagarness. What is wrong with that picture? I guess I didn't get the email that Jesus sent out about having somebody else place their butt in the judgment seat. Could somebody please forward that email to me. Maybe my server wasn't working that day.

[emeliza]

It really peeves me when people are so willing to judge others and place them firmly in Hell and they do it with such eagarness. What is wrong with that picture? I guess I didn't get the email that Jesus sent out about having somebody else place their butt in the judgment seat. Could somebody please forward that email to me. Maybe my server wasn't working that day.

Funny, but way too true. We all judge to some extent, but lets leave the heaven and hell judgments to Jesus please. If you really want to judge someone, judge them on their hair cut. (Just kidding)

[urroner]

If you really want to judge someone, judge them on their hair cut. (Just kidding)

And what is wrong with my hair lady!!!!!!!???????

[Tsuzuki]

Tsuzuki:

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

So only Mormons can love God and their neighbor? Is charity a Priesthood ordinance?

[Tsuzuki]

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 “the Gospel” is? Concerning this definition, can one reject Joseph Smith Jr. as a true prophet of God while accepting “the Gospel”? Can one reject that the true priesthood and it’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

"...'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me'..." - Joseph Smith—History 1:19 (God said this.)

Are we now to give Joseph Smith our lip service? Joseph Smith restored the Church, but he has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel. That's all Christ.

[Ref]

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

An obligation???

An obligation imposed or commanded by what or whom?

An obligation that, at best, canâ??t possibly be achieved and is a failure from its own premise.

An obligation that has already been formally compromised and abandoned by the Lds Church with its 1995 agreement with the Jewish community. Is there any reason to believe that if the Catholic church made the same request, especially for those like JPII who any rationale thinking person would know such â??proxy baptismâ? would not be appreciated, the Lds church would not capitulate again?

An obligation that is compromised for the sake of â??Public Relationsâ??

Now, what again is an â??obligationâ??

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

Then why the need for this supposed â??obligationâ?. For the millions to billions that you will never be able to ever provide this ceremonial baptism for, what is the rationale for the Lords ability to make a decision? If He can do this for those who were never baptized into the Lds church by your proxy ceremony, why the need for such ceremony at all?

I would be quite surprised, frankly, if John Paul II had a very solid, let alone detailed, understanding of Mormonism.

Please.

Here was a man who was more traveled, more studied in theology, received more audiences with world religious and non-religious than probably anyone in the Lds church. If he ordered the policy to not accept Lds baptisms, do you believe it was just a whim or that he understood the theological and historical reasons for doing such? Why not other churches?

Remember, as religions go, the Lds religion is a very quick read by what the Lds church will officially declare and stand behind as its â??doctrinesâ?. It and they have only been around for less than 200 hundred years.

None of the cardinals I've met at the Vatican (and now in Australia) have shown any signs of possessing such a knowledge.

Well that certainly seems like a very comprehensive and authoritative basis to evaluate the most heralded Christian leader our world has seen in the past several centuries. Is there anything else you could â??enlightenâ? us with as it pertains to what you claim to know about JPII?

[urroner]

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

An obligation???

An obligation imposed or commanded by what or whom?

An obligation that, at best, canâ??t possibly be achieved and is a failure from its own premise.

An obligation that has already been formally compromised and abandoned by the Lds Church with its 1995 agreement with the Jewish community. Is there any reason to believe that if the Catholic church made the same request, especially for those like JPII who any rationale thinking person would know such â??proxy baptismâ? would not be appreciated, the Lds church would not capitulate again?

An obligation that is compromised for the sake of â??Public Relationsâ??

Now, what again is an â??obligationâ??

If God commands something, then He will provide the way to do it.

As far as it being impossible, I think not. This is one of the reasons for the Millenium. During the Millenium, all the undone work for the dead will be done. If we are not allowed to do it now, it will be done then.

[Hawkmoon]

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,

I believe this is a case where the poster's alias is more appropo than they realize.

[Ref]

If God commands something, then He will provide the way to do it.

Where did â??Godâ? command it?

If you believe that God commanded it, why capitulate a commandment of God and agree not to do this for the likes of the Jewish community with the â??Wiesenthalâ? agreement of 1995?

Is Godâ??s command subordinated to public relations?

As far as it being impossible, I think not. This is one of the reasons for the Millenium. During the Millenium, all the undone work for the dead will be done. If we are not allowed to do it now, it will be done then.

Then this seems to be more of a â??make workâ? belief than a necessity for Godâ??s will. Given the earths history and the billions of people that the Lds church will never be able to identify for this ceremony, its probably safe to say that those baptized via proxy by the Lds Church will be a fraction of all those who have ever lived. Donâ??t you think God knew this in the first place and would take care of them anyway? Proxy baptism or not? Really, just curious.

[tundramom]

Tsuzuki,

Uh sorry, but that quote is not from Joseph Smith. It's from GOD via Isaiah. Chapter 29

13 The Lord says:

"These people come near to me with their mouth

and honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

Their worship of me

is made up only of rules taught by men.

Don't attribute something to Smith when he merely quoted another.

in Christ

Steph

[Tsuzuki]

Tsuzuki,

Uh sorry, but that quote is not from Joseph Smith. It's from GOD via Isaiah. Chapter 29

13 The Lord says:

"These people come near to me with their mouth

and honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

Their worship of me

is made up only of rules taught by men.

Don't attribute something to Smith when he merely quoted another.

in Christ

Steph

I thought it was clear from the text that God was the one talking.

[tundramom]

If it's attributed to Joseph Smith in the quote it isn't clear in the text that it's attributed to God. IMNSHO

in Christ

Steph

[Tsuzuki]

If it's attributed to Joseph Smith in the quote it isn't clear in the text that it's attributed to God. IMNSHO

in Christ

Steph

I'll go add some extra quotes to make things more clear.

[Selah]

Please say that this isn't true. Did anyone that performed the "baptism" ask The dearly separted Pope's family if it were okay to do? Did they ask th RCC? Why make this assumption that it is ok to do? Nobody asked the Hollocust survivor's if this would be ok onece they had died. Why make the same assumption about the Pope or anybody else for that matter? How do I stop it from happening to me once I am gone or my already dead relatives?

There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING biblical about this practice. PLease don;t quote the standard verse because that is far too often taken out of context when the LDS try and use this as a backup point. I promise I will get into why that is tomorrow. Where is good 'ole Theo on this when you need him to respond? I fully believe that this practice is arrogant and presumputious at best. And how do I stop it from happening to me when I am dead becasue I do not want it done.

What I want to know is did the person that stood in proxy for PJP2 "feel" that the Pope accepted this "ordinance" When you proseletize to living people, I have no problem with it. I may not agree with your beliefs but it is your right as an American to do what you feel you need to. I think this right however ends with living people because then they have the ability to accept or reject what you tell them. You will next say that the person can accept or reject it in spirit prison as well but I say that the dead have the right to rest peacfully and that includes NOT having someone take their name to the temple to perform things based on an ASSUMPTIVE belief of the LDS.

[Bernard Gui]

Please say that this isn't true. Did anyone that performed the "baptism" ask The dearly separted Pope's family if it were okay to do? Did they ask th RCC? Why make this assumption that it is ok to do? Nobody asked the Hollocust survivor's if this would be ok onece they had died. Why make the same assumption about the Pope or anybody else for that matter? How do I stop it from happening to me once I am gone or my already dead relatives?

There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING biblical about this practice. PLease don;t quote the standard verse because that is far too often taken out of context when the LDS try and use this as a backup point. I promise I will get into why that is tomorrow. Where is good 'ole Theo on this when you need him to respond? I fully believe that this practice is arrogant and presumputious at best. And how do I stop it from happening to me when I am dead becasue I do not want it done.

What I want to know is did the person that stood in proxy for PJP2 "feel" that the Pope accepted this "ordinance" When you proseletize to living people, I have no problem with it. I may not agree with your beliefs but it is your right as an American to do what you feel you need to. I think this right however ends with living people because then they have the ability to accept or reject what you tell them. You will next say that the person can accept or reject it in spirit prison as well but I say that the dead have the right to rest peacfully and that includes NOT having someone take their name to the temple to perform things based on an ASSUMPTIVE belief of the LDS.

So, what becomes of non-Catholics who die without

Catholic baptism?

Bernard

[Selah]

according to Catholic belief they can still go to heaven. I grew up a Catholic and practiced is fervently so I know.

[Daniel Peterson]

Please say that this isn't true. Did anyone that performed the "baptism" ask The dearly separted Pope's family if it were okay to do? Did they ask th RCC? Why make this assumption that it is ok to do?

Would someone need to get the approval of the Roman Catholic Church or of the late pope's family in order to pray for his soul?

Nobody asked the Hollocust survivor's if this would be ok onece they had died. Why make the same assumption about the Pope or anybody else for that matter? How do I stop it from happening to me once I am gone or my already dead relatives?

Simple. You destroy the principle of religious freedom in every country where the Latter-day Saints have built a temple. You require legal approval before anybody can pray for anybody else, living or dead, or light a candle, or perform a proxy baptism. That should end the practice.

There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING biblical about this practice. PLease don;t quote the standard verse because that is far too often taken out of context when the LDS try and use this as a backup point.

You're quite right that, if the relevant biblical passage is ruled inadmissible, there is nothing biblical about the practice.

By using the same technique, if I were to expunge from the Bible all verses relevant to the notion of resurrection, I could prove that the doctrine of resurrection is nonbiblical.

I promise I will get into why that is tomorrow.

This should be good. You'll have a number of biblical commentators who disagree with you. You might, for example, consult the entry on baptism for the dead in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which was written by Krister Stendahl, the eminent New Testament scholar who served both as Lutheran bishop of Stockholm and as dean of Harvard Divinity School. The poor benighted fellow actually thinks that 1 Corinthians 15:29 -- if I even dare mention that forbidden verse -- clearly refers to a practice of vicarious baptisms on behalf of the dead.

I fully believe that this practice is arrogant and presumputious at best.

Whereas I, by contrast, do not. However, I do find it rather arrogant and presumptuous to take such an attitude as you do toward the religious practices of others, and particularly to seek to stop them from practicing their religion.

And how do I stop it from happening to me when I am dead becasue I do not want it done.

That's simple. You uproot the principle of the free exercise of religion in every nation where the Latter-day Saints have temples. You require that those who want to pray for somebody else, or light a candle for somebody else, or perform a proxy baptism for somebody else first obtain government permission to do so. That should put a crimp in the Mormons' style!

When you proseletize to living people, I have no problem with it. I may not agree with your beliefs but it is your right as an American to do what you feel you need to. I think this right however ends with living people because then they have the ability to accept or reject what you tell them.

You believe that Latter-day Saint priesthood ordinances are so powerful that the departed have no ability to resist them?

Amazing. I have not seen such faith -- no, not in all Israel.

You will next say that the person can accept or reject it in spirit prison as well but I say that the dead have the right to rest peacfully and that includes NOT having someone take their name to the temple to perform things based on an ASSUMPTIVE belief of the LDS.

So you grant the authority of the Latter-day Saint priesthood to reach beyond the veil of death?

You're almost a Mormon.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

An obligation???

An obligation imposed or commanded by what or whom?

An obligation, we believe, that was imposed by God.

An obligation that, at best, canâ??t possibly be achieved and is a failure from its own premise.

We believe that God giveth no commandment unto the children of men save he shall prepare a way that they may accomplish the thing which he hath commanded them.

An obligation that has already been formally compromised and abandoned by the Lds Church with its 1995 agreement with the Jewish community.

This is all bound up with the timetable of the Lord.

I realize that you don't believe that. But we do. And the subject is our belief, and our practice, not yours.

Is there any reason to believe that if the Catholic church made the same request, especially for those like JPII who any rationale thinking person would know such â??proxy baptismâ? would not be appreciated, the Lds church would not capitulate again?

Yes.

But I don't share your confidence -- derived from a ouija board, perhaps? -- that John Paul II, now departed, does not appreciate being offered the benefit of vicarious baptism. Perhaps he does. Perhaps he doesn't. He's free to accept it or to reject it. We, however, who don't communicate with the dead as you apparently do, have no choice but to perform the ordinance for all. God is the judge. We aren't.

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

Then why the need for this supposed â??obligationâ?.

The Lord commands. We obey.

Not a very difficult concept to understand.

For the millions to billions that you will never be able to ever provide this ceremonial baptism for, what is the rationale for the Lords ability to make a decision? If He can do this for those who were never baptized into the Lds church by your proxy ceremony, why the need for such ceremony at all?

I don't share your conviction that we won't be able to perform vicarious baptisms for all.

I would be quite surprised, frankly, if John Paul II had a very solid, let alone detailed, understanding of Mormonism.

Please.

Here was a man who was more traveled, more studied in theology, received more audiences with world religious and non-religious than probably anyone in the Lds church. If he ordered the policy to not accept Lds baptisms, do you believe it was just a whim or that he understood the theological and historical reasons for doing such?

If you have evidence of John Paul II's intimate and direct involvement in that decision, I hope you'll share it with us. I'm unaware of it.

But it's not relevant in any case. What his attitude was while in mortality may or may not be his attitude now that he's moved on. It's not for us to judge or to pre-judge.

Remember, as religions go, the Lds religion is a very quick read by what the Lds church will officially declare and stand behind as its â??doctrinesâ?. It and they have only been around for less than 200 hundred years.

And if you have any evidence of what John Paul II had read about Mormonism, I hope you'll share it with us.

None of the cardinals I've met at the Vatican (and now in Australia) have shown any signs of possessing such a knowledge.

Well that certainly seems like a very comprehensive and authoritative basis to evaluate the most heralded Christian leader our world has seen in the past several centuries. Is there anything else you could â??enlightenâ? us with as it pertains to what you claim to know about JPII?

I realize that sneering is second nature to you, but, if you can take a pause from it for just a second, you might want to consider providing some actual evidence for your claim.

Although I attended a worship service in Rome with John Paul II at the invitation of the then third-ranking leader in the Vatican, Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, I did not actually meet the pope. But I can promise you that Cardinal Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity and a life-long campaigner for ecumenical and interfaith relations, did not seem to have been much of a student of Mormonism, though he was very friendly (both in Rome and, when I met him last, in Sydney in September). Nor did Jorge Cardinal Mejia, the director of the Vatican Archives and the Vatican Apostolic Library. Nor did Joseph Francis Cardinal Stafford (although, as the former archbishop of Denver, he's more familiar with Mormonism than his Vatican colleagues). And Walter Cardinal Kasper, the very significant German theologian who succeeded Cardinal Cassidy as president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, expressed interest in discussions with Mormon scholars because, he said, "We know very little about you, and nobody here at the Vatican has ever met with any of you."

If you have reason to believe that Pope John Paul II had made any kind of study of Mormonism, please do share it. Otherwise, I think it highly unlikely that he had much contact with Mormons and Mormonism when he was bishop of Cracow in Communist Poland, and the Vatican doesn't seem to be a hotbed of Mormon studies.

[Bernard Gui]

according to Catholic belief they can still go to heaven. I grew up a Catholic and practiced is fervently so I know.

If we Mormons will be allowed into heaven, what was the point of John Paul rejecting the validity of LDS baptisms?

Bernard