John Paul Ii Posthumously Baptized In Lds Temples.

[thesometimesaint]

Pax Romana:

"Still, I hope you'll forgive me for saying (in my admittedly biased way) that if JP2 can't get in on his own, I don't see what hope there is for the rest of us wink.gif"

Nobody gets in on their own.

[Ref]

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.

Can one put their head any deeper into the sand than with this comment? Are you serious or just looking for any easy, yet ignorant, way out? If you have any evidence that he was not involved with this directive, please share it with us as well!! [see how easy we can play apologetics?!!!]

Please, do yourself a favor and check out one of many religious news services from about July 2001 and you will find the Vaticanâ??s issuance and explanation of this directive.

You would really attempt to convince someone that a matter of significant theological impact would not be under the authority of the Pope when it is issued by the Vatican??? You obviously know little about the Catholic Church.

Here is but one source for you: http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/0107/ZE010727.htm#8601

Again, why would the Pope want to be â??proxy baptizedâ? into the only church, whos baptism he deemed unqualified for Christianity?

But it's not relevant in any case.

And the sand gets deeper!

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.

Which is exactly what the Lds church is doing with this proxy baptism. They have judged JPII lacking in some fashion with respect to fulfilling the requirements of or accepting the gospel of Christ.

Tell us though, what do you believe JPII is lacking for that he needs such a baptism?

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."

The fact Cardinal Kasper knew little of â??youâ? and any of â??your fellow Mormon scholarsâ? is quite different than knowing anything about the Mormon Church. The fact that, as you have already stated, the secular academic community ignores mormon scholarship should be a leading and consistent reason why the non-secular theological community may know little or pay little attention to mormon scholars as well. I mean when the topic of Christian Theology comes up, there are very few, if any, Lds theologists that come to mind. Has there ever been an Lds Prophet or apostle that has received any degree or studied in any recognized school of theology? The Cardinalâ??s comment should come as no surprise but are not relevant to the Popes knowledge of Lds theology. It would be of no surprise if most US catholic priests, bishops and members would not recognize the name Gordon Hinkley, but would have read about and had some level of understanding of Mormon teachings.

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.

So you would have us believe the Popeâ??s directive to not accept Mormon baptisms (while accepting virtually all other baptisms) was without any reason nor basis, and merely targeted the Lds church for what? His own personal grudge? You give our worldâ??s most respected leader of Christianity very little credit.

By the way, what recognized school of theology would be a hot bed for Mormon studies?

[emeliza]

Lost Sheep, may I ask what denomination YOU are?

Lost Sheep's answer from earlier on the thread

I am a born again Penetcost

Not sure if he means Pentecostal or not, but that is how I took it. (He misspelled it too...so who knows)

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Can one put their head any deeper into the sand than with this comment? Are you serious or just looking for any easy, yet ignorant, way out? If you have any evidence that he was not involved with this directive, please share it with us as well!! [see how easy we can play apologetics?!!!]

In other words, all sneering and posturing aside, you don't really have any evidence that John Paul II was personally involved in a study of Mormonism that led him to direct that a committee of the Roman Catholic Church issue the statement in question, but you some imagine, since (in your apparent view) the Roman Catholic Church is a Mom-and-Pop operation, that popes are intimately involved in every report from every Vatican commission.

Please, do yourself a favor and check out one of many religious news services from about July 2001 and you will find the Vaticanâ??s issuance and explanation of this directive.

"The Vatican," yes. Pope John Paul II personally and centrally? Evidence, please.

You would really attempt to convince someone that a matter of significant theological impact would not be under the authority of the Pope when it is issued by the Vatican???

You seem to alternate, depending on which stance would best serve your agenda, between contending that Mormonism is of no interest to scholars anywhere and claiming that taking a stance on our doctrine and claims is "a matter of significant theological impact."

I personally lean toward the view that Mormonism doesn't loom large on the Vatican radar screen. I have actual reasons for my view. Do you have any reasons for yours?

You obviously know little about the Catholic Church.

That's one possible reason for our disagreement, yes.

Again, why would the Pope want to be â??proxy baptizedâ? into the only church, whos baptism he deemed unqualified for Christianity?

Perhaps because his perspective has changed?

Anyway, you're simply repeating your question. I have no reason -- and, for all your strutting and preening, you've provided none -- to suspect that John Paul II had any deep familiarity with Latter-day Saint doctrine and claims.

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.

Which is exactly what the Lds church is doing with this proxy baptism. They have judged JPII lacking in some fashion with respect to fulfilling the requirements of or accepting the gospel of Christ.

We make no personal judgment at all. We're simply aware that John Paul II did not receive baptism at the hands of those holding the Aaronic priesthood. And we believe that all who reached the age of accountability ultimately need to receive that baptism.

Tell us though, what do you believe JPII is lacking for that he needs such a baptism?

He lacks that baptism.

The fact Cardinal Kasper knew little of â??youâ? and any of â??your fellow Mormon scholarsâ? is quite different than knowing anything about the Mormon Church. The fact that, as you have already stated, the secular academic community ignores mormon scholarship should be a leading and consistent reason why the non-secular theological community may know little or pay little attention to mormon scholars as well.

You've now switched back to your usual "Mormonism is insignificant" mantra.

I mean when the topic of Christian Theology comes up, there are very few, if any, Lds theologists that come to mind.

I'm sure you think that I should find that embarrassing.

Has there ever been an Lds Prophet or apostle that has received any degree or studied in any recognized school of theology?

No more than Amos or Jeremiah or Peter did.

The Cardinalâ??s comment should come as no surprise but are not relevant to the Popes knowledge of Lds theology.

Cardinal Kasper was of the opinion that there was nobody in the Vatican who knew much about Mormonism. That's why he thought that discussions would be valuable.

So you would have us believe the Popeâ??s directive to not accept Mormon baptisms (while accepting virtually all other baptisms) was without any reason nor basis, and merely targeted the Lds church for what? His own personal grudge? You give our worldâ??s most respected leader of Christianity very little credit.

I have enormous respect for John Paul II. But I doubt very much that he had significant personal involvement in a report from a Vatican committee about Mormonism.

I've asked you for evidence of his deep personal involvement, but all I get from you is bluster and smugness.

By the way, what recognized school of theology would be a hot bed for Mormon studies?

Claremont and Durham come to mind.

[Pantsman]

Nevermind

[Pax Romana]

Pax Romana:

"Still, I hope you'll forgive me for saying (in my admittedly biased way) that if JP2 can't get in on his own, I don't see what hope there is for the rest of us wink.gif"

Nobody gets in on their own.

poor word choice on my part.

[urroner]

Oh great king of Krispy Kremes, is Ref's conversation with you a case of "ipsedixitism" or am I mistaken to what it means?

[thesometimesaint]

Pax Romana:

No problem.

[David Waltz]

Hello latterdayteancum,

You posted:

>>Here is an idea: Stop playing Jesus.>>

Me: I am not â??playing Jesusâ? at all; what I am doing is exercising my personal opinion on the matter. How you can be so quick to place the former head of the Roman Catholic Church into the CK instead of the Terrestrial K is a bit confusing to me. JPII believed beyond any doubt that the Catholic Church was/is the only true visible Christian Church; that their bishops and priests have the only valid orders; that the CoJCoLDS could not be the one true Church. If you think JPII was uninformed, well, that is certainly your right, but I am 99.99% sure he was well informed; this belief coupled with statements from President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lead me to be believe that if the CoJCoLDS is in fact the one true Church, JPII (and other devout, informed Catholics) will wind up in the Terrestrial K, and not the CK (D&C 76 seems pretty clear on this). But, of course, it is Jesus Christ as THE JUDGE who will decide.

>>I find your remarks on the worthiness of John Paul II both judgemental and arrogant.>>

Me: Hmmmmâ?¦JPII put his religious thoughts for all to read in dozens, upon dozens of books, encyclicals, letters, Apostolic Constitutions, et al. I own, and have read a considerable amount of his teachings (btw, have you?) upon which I have formulated a personal opinion on the matter. If you think such a formulation is â??judgemental [sic] and arrogantâ?, well, IMHO it is you who is being judgmental, and perhaps arrogant as well.

>>Are you the one that leads critics to believe that Mormons teach only Mormons are going to heaven?>>

Me: LOL, not at allâ??never have, nor will I ever espouse such.

David

[latterdayteancum]

I am not â??playing Jesusâ? at all; what I am doing is exercising my personal opinion on the matter. How you can be so quick to place the former head of the Roman Catholic Church into the CK instead of the Terrestrial K is a bit confusing to me.

Im not placing him in any kingdom, and that is precisely my point. You are exercising your personal opinion to determine what kigdom he will be placed in, which can only be determined by the Lord. In that way, you are "playing Jesus." I am taking the position that I am not the Savior and therefore do not have the privilege of speculating about someone else's salvation. Not to mention neither of us know John Paul II personally.

JPII believed beyond any doubt that the Catholic Church was/is the only true visible Christian Church; that their bishops and priests have the only valid orders; that the CoJCoLDS could not be the one true Church. If you think JPII was uninformed, well, that is certainly your right, but I am 99.99% sure he was well informed; this belief coupled with statements from President Joseph Fielding Smith and Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lead me to be believe that if the CoJCoLDS is in fact the one true Church, JPII (and other devout, informed Catholics) will wind up in the Terrestrial K, and not the CK (D&C 76 seems pretty clear on this). But, of course, it is Jesus Christ as THE JUDGE who will decide.

But, of course, it is Jesus Christ as THE JUDGE who will decide.

If Christ is the Judge, than why are you judging? Why do you feel it necesarry to take your limited knowledge of John Paul II and make a judgement as to his salvation?

The Savior said:

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

11 And ye ought to say in your heartsâ??let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

D&C 64:10,11

Your comments in this thread are in direct violation of this commandment.

Me: Hmmmmâ?¦JPII put his religious thoughts for all to read in dozens, upon dozens of books, encyclicals, letters, Apostolic Constitutions, et al. I own, and have read a considerable amount of his teachings (btw, have you?) upon which I have formulated a personal opinion on the matter. If you think such a formulation is â??judgemental [sic] and arrogantâ?, well, IMHO it is you who is being judgmental, and perhaps arrogant as well.

While the wicked may take the truth to be hard, I am not arrogant by teaching the commandments of God. You might be confusing my arrogance with the arrogance of God. If I were to say to you that because you make comments that violate the commandments of God you are (in my opinion of course because that makes it justifiable!) not going to the Celestial Kingdom - that would be arrogant and judgemental. And no, I don't feel that way because I believe it a sin to judge someone's salvation.

Are you the one that leads critics to believe that Mormons teach only Mormons are going to heaven?>>

Me: LOL, not at allâ??never have, nor will I ever espouse such.

Ah...but you do, sir. Because those not of our faith are going to read your comments and get the impression that members of the Church judge others not of our faith and feel it proper to condemn them to a lower kindgom. I don't think they will care much for the justification that it is just your opinion or your vast library about John Paul II.

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh great king of Krispy Kremes, is Ref's conversation with you a case of "ipsedixitism" or am I mistaken to what it means?

Mmmmm, slurp, munch . . . Ref's posts are ipsedixitism on parade.

Thank you for pointing that out.

(And now to the next box of donuts.)

[Beowulf]

Oh come on, Urroner, are you going to make me look that word up?

This has been an entertaining thread. It seems to have attracted a fair number of fools and (dare I say it) trolls?

But of course, the answer (before it got bogged down in speculations about omnipotent Vatican scholars) is that we LDS do it because we are commanded by God to do it, for all mankind (which Dan so graciously explained).

Beowulf

[urroner]

Oh come on, Urroner, are you going to make me look that word up?

Beowulf

ipsidixitism - a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)

[tundramom]

I think for me I just find it unnecessary. I don't think any of us can know for sure where another human being ends up, but my bet is JPII must be shaking his head right about now.

in Christ

Steph

[Daniel Peterson]

I think for me I just find it unnecessary.

Scarcely a surprise, since you reject Mormonism.

By the same token, I find masses for the dead unnecessary, along with Buddhist prayer wheels, the veneration of cows, and the avoidance of pork.

Like you, I tend not to believe in things that I don't believe in, and to reject the things that I reject. I also don't do the things that I don't do.

[Ref]

In other words, all sneering and posturing aside, you don't

really have any evidence that John Paul II was personally involved in a study of Mormonism that led him to direct that a committee of the Roman Catholic Church issue the statement in question, but you some imagine, since (in your apparent view) the Roman Catholic Church is a Mom-and-Pop operation, that popes are intimately involved in every report from every Vatican commission.

Perhaps a suttle difference between the Lds Prophet and the Pope. Directives regarding baptism, issued by the Catholic church, are very much reviewed, approved and understood by the Pope. Perhaps your experience within the Lds church is that such is not the case with your prophet. Perhaps all that is needed is a letter from Michael Watson?

You seem to alternate, depending on which stance would best serve your agenda, between contending that Mormonism is of no interest to scholars anywhere and claiming that taking a stance on our doctrine and claims is "a matter of significant theological impact."

You misunderstood. The significance here is the act of baptism, not Mormon theology. As Iâ??ve already stated, the Mormon theology and history is a pretty quick read. Iâ??m quite certain it did not take JPII long to understand why it would not quality as a Christian baptism. Iâ??m quite certain, with respect to theological issues, this would not take him any time at all.

Again, why would the Pope want to be â??proxy baptizedâ? into the only church, whos baptism he deemed unqualified for Christianity?

Perhaps because his perspective has changed?

Anyway, you're simply repeating your question. I have no reason -- and, for all your strutting and preening, you've provided none -- to suspect that John Paul II had any deep familiarity with Latter-day Saint doctrine and claims.

See above and apply common sense!

Cardinal Kasper was of the opinion that there was nobody in the Vatican who knew much about Mormonism. That's why he thought that discussions would be valuable.

So now you are saying no one in the Vatican understands Mormonism. Not the Pope, or any of the staff within the Vatican.

Would you have us believe then, that the directive to not accept the LDS baptism, and only the Lds baptism, was purely without reason or basis? Are you saying it was merely a prejudicial act out of the blue against the Lds Church?

Can you see where your arguments are void of reason?

This has been an entertaining thread. It seems to have attracted a fair number of fools and (dare I say it) trolls?

But of course, the answer (before it got bogged down in speculations about omnipotent Vatican scholars) is that we LDS do it because we are commanded by God to do it, for all mankind (which Dan so graciously explained).

A command that is easily and conveniently abandoned when public pressure is applied: ie; the 1995 Wiesenthal Agreement!!!!!

I think for me I just find it unnecessary. I don't think any of us can know for sure where another human being ends up, but my bet is JPII must be shaking his head right about now.

Well that does seem to be a logical conclusion. But of course, tundra, you did not have the intimate relationship with JPII that some on this thread seem to infer!

[latterdayteancum]

Well that does seem to be a logical conclusion. But of course, tundra, you did not have the intimate relationship with JPII that some on this thread seem to infer!

Who would have ever thought that us Mormons would have to stand up for a Catholic Pope. This is ridiculous.

I find it hillarious that you are putting our theology and actions down because we teach doctrine that is accepting of people of all faiths. Shame on us... To believe that even though we disagree with Catholicism, we shouldn't damn its members and leadership to hell.

So, Ref, I guess you would appreciate our theology better if we taught salvation for the dead applied to all, except Catholics?

To understand salvation for the dead you must study what we believe will happen during the Millenium. In your limited and ignorant perspective I can see how it seems absurd. And how issues such as your "Wiesenthal Agreement" may also seem to contradict our theology.

As to your "Wiesenthal Agreement." Any agreement the Church makes of this kind is out of respect and sincere love for that faith. So again, you mock us because we actually respect others beliefs. Wow, what a horrible thing to do!

You may disagree with the LDS doctrine of salvation for the dead, but to say that it is a futile effort is to put limits on God. God can accomplish anything He wants. If He says that all the people that have lived on this earth must make certain covenants with Him, than how idiotic would it be of me to say to Him "It can't be done."? Again, how horrible of LDS theology to not place limits on the Lord!

The LDS Church teaches that during the Millenium this work will be completed. The Millenium will be when Christ has come and is reigning on earth. Let's say the LDS Church is in fact what it claims to be. Do you really feel that a way could not be provided by Christ to perform baptisms for all of God's children, even those that are not performed before he comes due to the task itself or because the Church has honored requests out of respect and love for others?

If so, discussing salvation for the dead with you is futile. And my only suggestions would be to study the passages of the Bible that discuss faith. Because putting limits on God to me shows a severe lack of it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps a suttle difference between the Lds Prophet and the Pope. Directives regarding baptism, issued by the Catholic church, are very much reviewed, approved and understood by the Pope.

On the basis of his own careful personal study of Mormon doctrine and history? Call for evidence.

Perhaps your experience within the Lds church is that such is not the case with your prophet. Perhaps all that is needed is a letter from Michael Watson?

You're never one to miss a chance for a contemptuous dig. But this one is oddly aimed. I'm certainly not the person who claims that official doctrine is set in private letters from a secretary in the Church Administration Building. In fact, I've expressly argued against that weird and weirdly recurring idea.

As Iâ??ve already stated, the Mormon theology and history is a pretty quick read. Iâ??m quite certain it did not take JPII long to understand why it would not quality as a Christian baptism. Iâ??m quite certain, with respect to theological issues, this would not take him any time at all.

Uh huh. Any idea which books he read? Titles, please.

Cardinal Kasper was of the opinion that there was nobody in the Vatican who knew much about Mormonism. That's why he thought that discussions would be valuable.

So now you are saying no one in the Vatican understands Mormonism. Not the Pope, or any of the staff within the Vatican.

I simply quoted Walter Cardinal Casper, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, who ventured his opinion that nobody at the senior level of the Roman Catholic Church had much experience with, or knowledge of, Mormonism. If you think that judgment unfair or untrue, take it up with Cardinal Kasper. I have his e-mail address.

(Please, though, allow for the fact that I'm headed out of town tomorrow morning for ten days in the Washington DC area, and that I will not be following this message board during that time.)

Would you have us believe then, that the directive to not accept the LDS baptism, and only the Lds baptism, was purely without reason or basis? Are you saying it was merely a prejudicial act out of the blue against the Lds Church?

No. I've never said anything of the sort. Although I don't think that the reasons given were particularly cogent, that's beside the point -- which was that I have no reason (and you've supplied none) to suppose that that decision, by a Vatican committee, was made on the basis of any personal expertise on Mormonism possessed by John Paul II.

Can you see where your arguments are void of reason?

No.

This has been an entertaining thread. It seems to have attracted a fair number of fools and (dare I say it) trolls?

But of course, the answer (before it got bogged down in speculations about omnipotent Vatican scholars) is that we LDS do it because we are commanded by God to do it, for all mankind (which Dan so graciously explained).

A command that is easily and conveniently abandoned when public pressure is applied: ie; the 1995 Wiesenthal Agreement!!!!!

The baptism of the Jewish dead has been postponed. At some future date, according to the Lord's timetable, it will be taken up again. (That will be, I'm confident, at a time when the Jewish people will no longer object.) We also signed an agreement not to proselyte in Israel. But we refused to sign an agreement pledging that we would never do it.

We follow the Lord's timetable. All must hear the gospel. All must be offered baptism. But some will hear the gospel and receive the offer before others. And, right now, it's the "day of the Gentiles." So it's no great shock to us that the Jews will, on the whole, come later.

But of course, tundra, you did not have the intimate relationship with JPII that some on this thread seem to infer!

Meaning yourself?

(Incidentally, I think you mean to imply, rather than to infer.)

You're the one who keeps confidently informing us of John Paul II's thorough understanding of Mormonism and of his direct personal participation in formulating Vatican policy regarding LDS baptisms. I'm the one who, based on a fair amount of experience in the Vatican (including experience with the director of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, the prefect of the Vatican Apostolic Library, and four senior cardinals of the Vatican Curia), sees no reason to believe that anybody at that level in the Catholic hierarchy has any particular expertise on Mormonism. I'm the one who keeps asking you for even a shred of actual evidence to support your claim.

That some staffers at the Vatican did some research on Mormonism in preparing their document about Mormon baptisms, I have no doubt. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the Polish pope Karol Wotyla (aka Johannes Paulus II) possessed any significant personal expertise on Mormonism. I know of absolutely nothing to suggest that he did.

[Calm]

David,

JPII believed beyond any doubt that the Catholic Church was/is the only true visible Christian Church; that their bishops and priests have the only valid orders; that the CoJCoLDS could not be the one true Church. If you think JPII was uninformed, well, that is certainly your right, but I am 99.99% sure he was well informed

I would hesitate to state that being wellinformed in doctrine would be considered a sufficient chance to accept or reject what LDS believe is the Gospel and which acceptance is a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom.

The core of the LDS understanding is that it is the Spirit that gives true knowledge and understanding of the Gospel. Men may be learned, but may still lack in something fundamental.

I believe that JPII was a sincere seeker after the Lord and His Will and I don't doubt from what I've heard about him that he was worthy as any and more than most to receive spiritual knowledge of any kind, but I'm not sure if he ever asked the right questions and I do believe that the Lord tends to follow the "ask and you will receive" method. I consider it also possible that the Lord withheld a particular spiritual witness or instruction from him even though the Lord likely gave him constant spiritual guidance in other things; this being done for God's own purposes whether it was for the long term benefit of JPII or for others.

We have evidence...well, evidence according to the LDS perspective...that God withheld some specific spiritual direction/knowledge for thousands of years from masses of people and yet it seems to me this was not based on the people's sincerity in seeking God or their worthiness, but rather on some eternal plan of salvation that includes a mortal life that involves more than just learning the ultimate truth about God, but also the ultimate truth about ourselves and our brothers and sisters. This last may be best accomplished at times by us struggling on our own on some issue with incomplete knowledge and working with others who are involved in the same struggle. Strength is built in the body by working muscles, spiritual strength is likely built by working spiritual skills and that means the Lord isn't going to be doing all the work or even most of the work for us (as opposed to doing the work of the Atonement for us).

I would hope that there are no LDS out there who believe that we LDS are anywhere close to a complete spiritual knowledge either, just that we have a more complete knowledge of certain aspects that the Lord sees as essential for this day and age in order that his work proceeds as he ordains.

[David Waltz]

Hi Cal and latterdayteancum,

I am sincerely trying to understand why some have problems with my personal assessment of which heavenly kingdom our former Blessed Pope, John Paul II, might end up in, based upon what his actual beliefs were, if the CoJCoLDS is Christâ??s one, true Church.

I am not trying to â??play Jesusâ? in this assessment, but rather, exercising my right to form a personal opinion on the matter. I may be very well wrong in this assessment, but so far, I have not seen solid evidence presented to the contrary (though I think Cal had some excellent points to ponder over).

President Joseph Fielding Smith had some very interesting, thoughts/opinions on the matter:

NOW IS DAY OF OUR SALVATION. Our scriptures are very explicit in their declaration in relation to the requirements made of sons and daughters of God. They who overcome all things are to be crowned as sons and daughters of God and be members of the Church of the Firstborn.

We are taught in the Book of Mormon: "For behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation; . . . this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors." These people to whom Amulek was speaking had heard the truth and were not altogether ignorant of the plan of salvation, because they had gone out of the Church by apostasy. So he declared unto them that this is the day for them to repent and turn unto God or they would be lost.

The Lord, in his mercy, grants to every soul the privilege of repentance and the blessings of the gospel. If men do not receive this privilege here, they will receive it in the spirit world, for it must come to all. If they reject it here, they may not receive the fulness in eternity.

THOSE WHO HAVE A FUTURE DAY OF SALVATION. On January 21, 1836, Joseph Smith received the following revelation: "All who have died without a knowledge of the gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."

What a wonderful ray of light is here thrown on the question of man's redemption! If Joseph Smith had made no other contribution to the world than to restore this divine truth, it would have stamped him as one of the greatest benefactors of the race.

One very significant thing in this revelation, which should be remembered, is the fact that the Lord did not say that all who are dead are entitled to these blessings in the celestial kingdom, if they hear the gospel in the spirit world, but all who would have received the gospel had they been given the opportunity in this mortal life. The privilege of exaltation is not held out to those who have had the opportunity to receive Christ and obey his truth and who have refused to do so.

OFFER OF SALVATION MADE EITHER NOW OR IN SPIRIT WORLD. The justice of the Lord is manifest in the right he grants to all men to hear the plan of salvation and receive it. Some have that privilege in this life; if they obey the gospel, well and good; if they reject it, then in the spirit world the same opportunities with the same fulness do not come to them.

If they die without that opportunity in this life, it will reach them in the world of spirits. The gospel will there be declared to them, and if they are willing to accept, it is counted unto them just the same as if they had embraced it in mortality. In this way justice is meted out to every man; all are placed on an equality before the bar of God.

Those who have the opportunity here, those unto whom the message of salvation is declared, who are taught and who have this truth presented to them in this lifeâ??yet who deny it and refuse to receive itâ??shall not have a place in the kingdom of God. They will not be with those who died without that knowledge and who yet accepted it in the spirit world.

SOME NOT ELIGIBLE FOR VICARIOUS SALVATION. There are too many people in this world, who have heard the message of the gospel, who think they can continue on to the end of this mortal life, living as they please, and then accept the gospel after death and friends will perform the ordinances that they neglect to perform for themselves, and eventually they will receive blessings in the kingdom of God. This is an error.

It is the duty of men in this life to repent. Every man who hears the gospel message is under obligation to receive it. If he fails, then in the spirit world he will be called upon to receive it, but he will be denied the fulness that will come to those who in their faithfulness have been just and true, whether it be in this life or in the spirit world.

SECOND CHANCE LEADS TO TERRESTRIAL KINGDOM. Moreover, we learn that those who rejected the gospel when it was offered them in ancient times, but afterwards accepted the "testimony of Jesus" in the spirit world when it was declared to them, and who were honorable men of the earth, are assigned to the terrestrial glory, not the celestial.

Then again, we are informed that the wicked of the earth who do not repent in this life and who do not receive the gospel, shall be assigned to the telestial kingdom. In that kingdom they will become "servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end."

All of these, however, will be called upon to repent. They will have to suffer the torments of the damned until they do, and through that suffering they will be brought to repentance and to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and the Son of God. Every knee must bow and every tongue confess, no matter which kingdom the inhabitants of the earth enter.

FALSE NOTIONS ABOUT SALVATION FOR DEAD. Salvation for the dead is grossly misunderstood by many of the Latter-day Saints. It is due to the justice of our Eternal Father that a chance for salvation and exaltation is given to every soul. Some of the spirits rejected their privilege and rebelled in the former existence and had to be punished. All the others were granted bodies and the privilege of abiding in covenants here that would give them salvation, with the provision that any of the number coming to earth who, for causes over which they had no control, were denied the privileges of obedience to gospel covenants in the mortal life should have that privilege in the spirit world after death. But the Lord did not offer to those who had every opportunity while in this mortal existence the privilege of another chance in the world of spirits.

The endowment and sealing work for the dead is for those who died without having had the opportunity to hear and receive the gospel; also, for those who were faithful members of the Church who lived in foreign lands or where, during their life time, they did not have the privilege to go to a temple, yet they were converted and were true members of the Church. The work for the dead is not intended for those who had every opportunity to receive it, who had it taught to them, and who then refused to receive it, or had not interest enough to attend to these ordinances when they were living.

So many of the members of the Church have the thought that if they do not do the work for dead friends, they are sure to be neglected and the opportunity will never come to them. We should remember that in his justice the Lord will never permit one soul to be lost who is worthy of salvation. Every person who is entitled to the blessings will receive them. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 181-185.)

I suppose there is a slight chance that the Holy Father, John Paul II, did not understand the Gospel as taught by the CoJCoLDS. But, I personally lean in the direction that he most likely had a BASIC understanding of what they believe; I am also quite sure that where such basics differed with Catholic teaching, that he rejected them.

In ending, it is the sincere hope of some of my devout Catholic brothers and myself, that if we are in error in believing that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ will ultimately place us in the same heavenly kingdom as our departed Holy Father.

Grace and peace,

David

[Calm]

I am sincerely trying to understand why some have problems with my personal assessment

I think for myself I just have problems with anyone using real people as examples for who is slated for what kingdom. Or making some sort of assessment of any sort.

It's not the only issue I'm uncomfortable about drawing anything more than vague conclusions about, but it's probably the one with the most emotional reaction to.

Intellectually, I can accept that given what we know if there are no extentuating circumstances that we don't know about, it is likely your assessment is correct.

I just put a lot of faith in unknown extenuating circumstances, lol.

Maybe this is such an emotional issue because a refusal to make judgments of this sort allow LDS to remain peaceful when people they love and admire do not convert or even devert. If we start seriously considering the Terrestial Kingdom as the destiny of men like the Pope, then I think many of us would start worrying a lot more for those we love.

I prefer to let God do all of it for me--the judging and the worrying.

[latterdayteancum]

In ending, it is the sincere hope of some of my devout Catholic brothers and myself, that if we are in error in believing that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ will ultimately place us in the same heavenly kingdom as our departed Holy Father.

Grace and peace,

David

And in the end it is my sincere hope that all of us, especially John Paul II, will enter our Father's kingdom. And I am sorry that you disagree with my desire to believe that is possible.

[David Waltz]

Hey latterdayteancum,

You posted:

>>And in the end it is my sincere hope that all of us, especially John Paul II, will enter our Father's kingdom. And I am sorry that you disagree with my desire to believe that is possible.>>

Me: I do not disagree with your "desire to believe that is possible"; and I do not deny that it is possible.

Grace and peace,

David

[Selah]

My main thing is how do I stop it from being done on my behalf after I am dead? Can I write a letter or something? Put my name on a "Do Not Baptize" list?

[urroner]

My main thing is how do I stop it from being done on my behalf after I am dead? Can I write a letter or something? Put my name on a "Do Not Baptize" list?

Don't die.

Is there a way I can convince my Catholic and Evangelical friends not to pray for me while I'm alive and after I'm dead. Is there a "Do Not Pray For Me You Vile Gentiles" list?