Sin

[LeSellers]

You say this is a "prison" yet, people in prison are judged already, right?

We weren't the ones who called it prison, that was Peter, in the Bible.

No, they were not already judged, at least not their final judgment. You might recall that even in our modern, English law world, those who are arrested, and indicted, are in prison (although we call them jails at that point, and ignoring the principle of "bail"

[volgadon]

Something doesn't sound right to me. You say this is a "prison" yet, people in prison are judged already, right?

Prison in ancient times was primarily a holding place for people until they could be judged.

One misunderstanding is that both places are called, "sheol" or Hell or Hades by the Jewish teachers of that time.

Actually, sheol was rarely used by preachers and sages of those times. They employed the concepts of Paradise and Gehenna. These were temporary stages.

[LeSellers]

Joh:3:18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

How does Mormons deal with this?

Wow! No one here has ever seen this verse! Thank you so much for pointing it out. [/sarcasm]

Belief does not guarantee baptism: I know several people who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith who have chosen not to be baptized. One man chooses not to be until his mother, a devout Catholic, has died, to avoid issues with her.

One may also be baptized without belief: we have seen examples here of that phenomenon.

While the two often and ideally would always go hand-in-hand, they too frequently do not.

Belief alone will not save you: you must be baptized to meet Christ's requirement.

So, when Peter says "baptism doth now also save us", what do you imagine he meant? Because, it seems to me, that you ignore this passage at your peril. (Of course, your having no authority to baptize will have colored your interpretation, I'm sure.)

And how do you reconcile the article I copied from one of your own? The baptism-is-not-a-requirement-for-salvation meme is a recent invention, and it was never even conceived of until the Priesthood-barren Reformers had to downplay it and denigrate those who understood the scriptures on the subject.

Lehi

[evangelist]

Wow! No one here has ever seen this verse! Thank you so much for pointing it out. [/sarcasm]

Belief does not guarantee baptism: I know several people who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith who have chosen not to be baptized. One man chooses not to be until his mother, a devout Catholic, has died, to avoid issues with her.

One may also be baptized without belief: we have seen examples here of that phenomenon.

While the two often and ideally would always go hand-in-hand, they too frequently do not.

Belief alone will not save you: you must be baptized to meet Christ's requirement.

So, when Peter says "baptism doth now also save us", what do you imagine he meant? Because, it seems to me, that you ignore this passage at your peril. (Of course, your having no authority to baptize will have colored your interpretation, I'm sure.)

And how do you reconcile the article I copied from one of your own? The baptism-is-not-a-requirement-for-salvation meme is a recent invention, and it was never even conceived of until the Priesthood-barren Reformers had to downplay it and denigrate those who understood the scriptures on the subject.

Lehi

What do you mean by the priesthood, do you mean this ritual or ceromony??

Link deleted. That was the last straw. We aren't going to tolerate temple content being posted on this board. The board guidelines are clear about that.

one love