John Paul Ii Posthumously Baptized In Lds Temples.

[Katzpur]

Just my two-cents worth... If anybody's going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom, Pope John Paul II will.

[RedSox]

I remember being floored when I heard that he visited the man who attempted to assasinate him, in order to tell the man that he forgave him. Great story. Anyone with that type of humility and charity has "got what it takes." I'm glad the work was done....even if it was done four times.

As for the agreement with the Jews: I think temple work should avoid causing bad will between the LDS and others. There is no sense it placing a cloud over temple work. Besides, since our ability to actually do ALL the temple work for every person who has lived is impossible (until god gives us a helping hand), omitting some portion of the dead now will not prevent their work from being done at all.

[Pax Romana]

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?

There's no reason to be rude.

[Katzpur]

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?

What would be the point of putting your name on a list? Surely you don't think anything is going to be accomplished by someone being baptized on your behalf! Or am I wrong about that?

[Pax Romana]

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?

What would be the point of putting your name on a list? Surely you don't think anything is going to be accomplished by someone being baptized on your behalf! Or am I wrong about that?

What you've kinda gotta understand is people can get... tetchy, for lack of a better term, about what happens after they're dead. Why do you think people treat a dead body with such respects? Why does it matter, really? It's just a body. A shell, a thing whose purpose has passed right?

Why do people get so upset at having graves disturbed?

Can't you see how somebody who maybe didn't understand the practice and it's purposes could find it offensive?

[zippythepinhead]

I think that only Jesus Christ can judge whether one has had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. If I am a non member and the Mormon Missionaries come knocking at my door, and I say no thanks does that mean Terrestrial Kingdom for me (2 bedroom flat with color TV and room service)

[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?

There's no reason to be rude.

I wasn't attempting to be rude, rather I was trying to be sarcastic. Like the point Daniel C. Peterson was trying to make, what is the difference between praying for me after I'm dead or having somebody baptized for me after I'm dead. To the average person, there shouldn't be a difference. But what about praying for me while I'm alive, is that right?

Is it wrong for my evangelical friends to pray and ask God to help me find the light? Should I ask them to stop praying for me because it bothers me and if I do ask them to stop praying for me and they still continue to pray for me, is it a sin on their part and why should I care if they pray for me, what harm is it doing?

[TOmNossor]

Ok, here is my impression of a bull in a china shop.

I want to re-repeat these words for Cal. They express what I think on the matter quite well. This is getting scary Cal!

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.

Two important things here. (â??Fair and Just Opportunityâ? is a quote of Mormon Doctrine by McConkie in his â??Second Chanceâ? entry I believe.)

It seems to me that LDS simply must recognize that a â??Fair and Just Opportunityâ? in this life is predicated upon Spiritual witness not merely intellectual understanding. While I see the CoJCoLDS as the answer to the intellectual question of where God has revealed truth closest to the underlying truth of ALL, a LDS simply must acknowledge that alignment with Godâ??s church is a spiritual encounter with the personal and loving God not (at least not merely) an intellectual encounter with God and the world.

Second, which I also think should sound familiar to you, David, I think the JPII moved forward the kingdom of God both in its fullest manifestation, the CoJCoLDS, and in its wonderful manifestation the Catholic Church. While the conversion of JPII and you, David, would make my view of God and His action upon this world simpler, there would be beauty lost. I do not demand that God convert all true seekers to the CoJCoLDS just so my seeking can end with a resounding and dogmatic, â??See it is US, we are right!!!â? I expect to never end my seeking, and to only be comforted in the love of God my Father not the dogmatic, â??I have found the only way to return to God.â? (Of course I will continue to make intellectual arguments in defense of the truth as God has revealed it to me, intellectually and spiritually).

Now, just so this doesnâ??t get too scary, I want to back off these words by Cal:

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.

Perhaps you are more honest than I am, and likely you and David are smarter than I am, but I will not concede that Davidâ??s view is more correct.

I agree that from D&C 76 alone his view is more correct, but I do not think a single scripture can stand alone AND I do not think scripture even within the D&C is putting forth a systemic theology.

I struggled with D&C 76 long ago. Somehow I mentioned this to a 20 something friend who was a temple worker (sort of unusual). I cannot remember any other theological discussions we had, but I do remember this. He said that our Temple practices simply demand that the view of D&C 76 that seems most clear is not the best read of our doctrine and practice.

Dr. Peterson stated that all will receive their Temple work. We teach that such is necessary so that they my either accept of reject the gospel without some ordinance lacking. Salvation is an encounter with God. Ordinance work and covenants are powerful signposts toward this encounter and communion with God, but they should not be viewed as qualifying or disqualifying only necessary. All will receive their work and make their SPIRITUALLY informed choices.

Now, one of the reasons I am willing to seemingly back off of what David offered from JFS is that I embrace in parallel with post Vatican II (in fact with more fervor than conservative post Vatican II Catholics because I am a LDS and I can) the idea that there is no salvation outside the CoJCoLDS, but we cannot know exactly what the boundaries of the CoJCoLDS are. I think one way of acknowledging JPIIâ??s likely CK presence is through suggesting that JPII did accept the gospel. He missed a few of the aspects of truth that LDS possess and Catholics do not, but he sought and achieved communion with God and became one (IN THIS LIFE) who will accept the fullness of the gospel when he encounters it. This aligning oneself with the loving God as God communes with us here is the becoming that results in salvation in the CK.

Finally:

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.

I simply must give you the chance to say this differently.

I know that you desire to be in communion with God in accordance with the will of God. If that means that you find yourself in the CK and JPII in some other kingdom, I am quite convinced that this is more inline with your desire to subordinate your will ot the will of God than what might be read into your above statement.

I cannot fathom how I having lived and believed as I live and believe will not be thrilled to be in the same kingdom as JPII, but I want Godâ??s will and God willing, communion with God.

Charity, TOm

[Pax Romana]

There's no reason to be rude.

I wasn't attempting to be rude, rather I was trying to be sarcastic. Like the point Daniel C. Peterson was trying to make, what is the difference between praying for me after I'm dead or having somebody baptized for me after I'm dead. To the average person, there shouldn't be a difference. But what about praying for me while I'm alive, is that right?

Is it wrong for my evangelical friends to pray and ask God to help me find the light? Should I ask them to stop praying for me because it bothers me and if I do ask them to stop praying for me and they still continue to pray for me, is it a sin on their part and why should I care if they pray for me, what harm is it doing?

Actually I was more objecting to the use of the term 'vile gentiles' than anything else you had to say. But in light of your sarcasm I suppose that was un-needed.

But as I said in an earlier post, perhaps the lack of understanding of this ordinance and it's purposes (plus the fact that people get ...uptight...(I really must find a better word to try and describe what I mean) about what happens to them after they die (body and soul) I'd say it's farily easy to see how some could find it offensive.

just my .02

[flameburns623]

As a former LDS person I have to say that a lot of this discussion is puzzling to me.

After I am passed away, any LDS person who so chooses may have themselves baptised by proxy on my behalf if they feel led so to do.

Any Roman Catholic may have Masses or say personal devotions on behalf of my soul if they feel led so to do.

Any Jewish person may say Kadish on my behalf if they feel led to do so.

Any Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Pagan tree-worshipper may do whatever devotions, prayers, or rituals they deem appropriate on my behalf (with the sole caveat that they may not desecrate my corpse in the process nor obligate my surviving family members in any way) if they feel led so to do.

Why is anyone--anyone--ANYONE concerned with what other people may or may not do on behalf of the dead? It is IMHO a pious and devout thing to have concern for others, especially for those departed. At worst, it reflects well on the devoutness of the person performing the rite. At best it may serve some efficacious purpose for the departed soul.

[simply_disappear]

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?

Mainly because we believe that as we exit this existence that we go to a place where we learn the truth of the gospel. There those who didn't have the opportunity to learn and accept the gospel truth will have that opportunity but it won't mean a thing unless the saving ordinance of baptism is performed. So, we baptize and allow the individual to either accept or reject the ordinance on their own.

[Son]

Mainly because we believe that as we exit this existence that we go to a place where we learn the truth of the gospel. There those who didn't have the opportunity to learn and accept the gospel truth will have that opportunity but it won't mean a thing unless the saving ordinance of baptism is performed. So, we baptize and allow the individual to either accept or reject the ordinance on their own.

I thought we came here to learn the truth of the gospel. It is an earthly lesson isn't it?