Objections To Baptisms For The Dead...

[3DOP]

Hi ZetaFlux.

If I may I would add to what blueadept has already suggested in reply to your recent message addressed to him.

blueadept,

You keep dodging the issue. I already said I understood why they had grave reservations about directly providing help in performing what they view as a false ordinance. Similarly, I will not go to a catholic church and partake of their sacrament. I would consider that mockery to God (on my part, not yours). On the other hand, it is my impression that the Catholic church would not be for legislating against us having the ability to worship according to our beliefs. They would not deny us that right. They would not deny us access to public records.

What I said I did not understand was: (1) why the Catholic church thought that providing these records would be directly aiding in our baptisms for the dead rather than simply making records open to the public at large (for genealogical research), and (2) why they don't view providing the records as a positive thing for humanity. As a corollary, I wonder what principle they use to decide when the negative actions of some should prevent them from providing a service.

For possible insight on what principles might decide the questions you are asking, you might begin at the Catholic Encyclopedia with its entry for Accomplice. It breaks down very briefly the distinction between formal and material cooperation as well as proximate and remote cooperation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01100a.htm

Just as a reminder, the examples given in the article are in reference to sins and crimes. In the case of LDS baptisms for the dead, we don't accuse you of sin yourselves, but of a false worship from which we are obliged to be distanced. I wish I could find you something more comprehensive on the internet. I am not sure where to look. I have a book of Moral Theology by Fr. Heribert Jone that extensively covers how we may and may not find ourselves permitted to attend or for good reason assist with non-Catholic rites and services.

For the record, I don't think I am obliged to agree with the decision of the bishops to prohibit LDS access. It is a debatable question as there are many factors that can come into play on an individual basis. I wish we could cooperate. I think we are doing the right thing. I know we aren't doing anything wrong. It seems reasonable to me, that after reviewing our beliefs about direct and indirect co-operation in illicit (at least for us) activities, that you might still disagree with the bishops' application of the principles. Certainly you are welcome to do so. But it seems like you could also appreciate that in cases of doubt as to whether an act is permissible or not, the safest road is to not commit the act. Please believe that we are motivated less by a desire to thwart LDS worship and more by a desire to obey our own consciences, which admittedly may be imperfectly informed on any particular moral question.

It seems unlikely that making all records public would be looked upon with favor by Catholics themselves at this time. I just know the culture. It is supposed to be that parish records are kept under lock and keys by a person very diligent in guarding their accuracy and upkeep. It has been that way for centuries I suppose. I know our parish still keeps everything on paper and big booklets. No computerized stuff. But it seems possible that it could be an avenue for the future by which Mormons might be able to obtain records without getting permission from the source. So long as we aren't doing it for the purpose of accommodating the LDS, I don't necessarily see a moral problem...but it would probably meet resistance...just cuz.

[LeSellers]

I know our parish still keeps everything on paper and big booklets. No computerized stuff. But it seems possible that it could be an avenue for the future by which Mormons might be able to obtain records without getting permission from the source.

I hope you realize that we would not do this. We don't proselytize in countries that do not give us permission to do so, unlike many who go in clandestinely, and we're not about to hack into a private database. At least, no one would with the permission or knowledge of the Brethren.

We, too, are an ethical people. In the 70s (as I recall), we did not accept a very large contribution from the Kennedy family for our hospital system because their money comes from a suspect, and in our eyes, an illegitimate, source.

Lehi

[3DOP]

I hope you realize that we would not do this. We don't proselytize in countries that do not give us permission to do so, unlike many who go in clandestinely, and we're not about to hack into a private database. At least, no one would with the permission or knowledge of the Brethren.

We, too, are an ethical people. In the 70s (as I recall), we did not accept a very large contribution from the Kennedy family for our hospital system because their money comes from a suspect, and in our eyes, an illegitimate, source.

Lehi

Heh. Lehi...no no no. I didn't mean "hack in". Zeta Flux had suggested that Catholic records be made public. When I said "without getting permission", I had in mind a situation where we might allow universal access and no one would need permission. It might relieve us of the accountability that seems to be a problem when records are directly requested.

[Zeta-Flux]

3DOP,

As long as nobody else can access these records either, including other genealogical societies, I can understand the stance. But is it really the case that nobody is allowed to access these records? Or is it just that Utah genealogical societies are not allowed to get them?

[LeSellers]

I didn't mean "hack in". Zeta Flux had suggested that Catholic records be made public. When I said "without getting permission", I had in mind a situation where we might allow universal access and no one would need permission. It might relieve us of the accountability that seems to be a problem when records are directly requested.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

Lehi

[Calm]

Heh. Lehi...no no no. I didn't mean "hack in". Zeta Flux had suggested that Catholic records be made public. When I said "without getting permission", I had in mind a situation where we might allow universal access and no one would need permission. It might relieve us of the accountability that seems to be a problem when records are directly requested.

My understanding is that one of the problems with parish records is that many places do not have the funds to put them into databases, microfilm them for future generations, etc. so while I think the idea is great, is it something really doable for Catholics generally?

This is one reason why in the past the LDS efforts have been looked on as a win-win situation in many places (I had a friend who worked with getting Armenian records duplicated, they were very grateful for the assistance, for example), LDS get to add to their genealogical database allowing for both personal searching and extraction work and those they copy records get a free copy that often they can't afford. This was made a very big deal of in a news article I read in Russia over a decade ago where it was bemoaning the fact that no one but LDS were concerned about the loss of this history of the Russian people and expressing gratitude for the LDS Church's efforts in this area and appreciation of the LDS affection for their dead even though they thought temple work was nonsense. Big contrast with what were often nothing more than anti-mormon attacks in the news at that time. Wished I had kept the article.

[Zeta-Flux]

cal,

More than that. If asked, the Church will not do extraction work on the records we copy in this way. (They will leave that work to the individual members in those cases.)

[3DOP]

3DOP,

As long as nobody else can access these records either, including other genealogical societies, I can understand the stance. But is it really the case that nobody is allowed to access these records? Or is it just that Utah genealogical societies are not allowed to get them?

Ordinarily, records are transmitted from one parish to another so that there will be a chain of record that shows what sacraments a particular individual has received. I got the impression from recent events that parishes ordinarily allowed access to researchers without much inquiry. I did not mean to imply by my "lock and key" expression that they were fiercely guarded so that outsiders cannot gain information. Rather that we have to take much care that they not be lost and that old records should be preserved properly. From what I have gathered, researchers who are not known to be accessing our ancestors for the purpose of providing a non-Catholic religious rite are still allowed. I would suppose that a promise not to use the records for that purpose would go a long way toward LDS researchers being readmitted.

[3DOP]

My understanding is that one of the problems with parish records is that many places do not have the funds to put them into databases, microfilm them for future generations, etc. so while I think the idea is great, is it something really doable for Catholics generally?

This is one reason why in the past the LDS efforts have been looked on as a win-win situation in many places (I had a friend who worked with getting Armenian records duplicated, they were very grateful for the assistance, for example), LDS get to add to their genealogical database allowing for both personal searching and extraction work and those they copy records get a free copy that often they can't afford. This was made a very big deal of in a news article I read in Russia over a decade ago where it was bemoaning the fact that no one but LDS were concerned about the loss of this history of the Russian people and expressing gratitude for the LDS Church's efforts in this area and appreciation of the LDS affection for their dead even though they thought temple work was nonsense. Big contrast with what were often nothing more than anti-mormon attacks in the news at that time. Wished I had kept the article.

Hey cal (Kenneth Michael came at 4:07 AM today. Thanks for the prayers.)

That is very interesting and might eventually be a reason that the Church could reevaluate its current position. I don't think it is very doable at this time for the reasons I explained to Zeta-Flux. But where I usually don't speak without confidence of authority behind me, this is just my opinion. I don't know. Was there contact between Rome and Salt Lake on this matter? I think Mormons would be mistaken to perceive our current position as a black and white case of right and wrong that is non-negotiable under all circumstances. This wasn't an act of the Church's teaching authority, but rather a disciplinary policy which could be re-evaluated.

For the record, I support the Church in this matter. I think she has made the correct decision to this point. But my point is that I actually have the liberty to make my own judgment on whether this is good policy. All faithful Catholics have to believe in certain defined articles of faith. This is by no means included. There is room for discussion.

Edited March 16, 2012 by 3DOP

[blueadept]

For the record, I support the Church in this matter. I think she has made the correct decision to this point. But my point is that I actually have the liberty to make my own judgment on whether this is good policy. All faithful Catholics have to believe in certain defined articles of faith. This is by no means included. There is room for discussion.

Agreed...

[Zeta-Flux]

I would suppose that a promise not to use the records for that purpose would go a long way toward LDS researchers being readmitted.

It is my understanding that the Church is more than willing to agree (1) not to do extraction work for the purpose of our ordinances if asked not to and (2) make the records publicly accessible to any and all people, free of charge.

[Calm]

Hey cal (Kenneth Michael came at 4:07 AM today. Thanks for the prayers.)

Yay! Hope all is well.

Was there contact between Rome and Salt Lake on this matter?

My memory says it was on an individual parish/diocese basis. And of course when I was in Russia, they were dealing more with the Russian Orthodox Church, I'm pretty sure that who the article was about. Edited March 17, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

This is one reason why in the past the LDS efforts have been looked on as a win-win situation in many places (I had a friend who worked with getting Armenian records duplicated, they were very grateful for the assistance, for example), LDS get to add to their genealogical database allowing for both personal searching and extraction work and those they copy records get a free copy that often they can't afford. This was made a very big deal of in a news article I read in Russia over a decade ago where it was bemoaning the fact that no one but LDS were concerned about the loss of this history of the Russian people and expressing gratitude for the LDS Church's efforts in this area and appreciation of the LDS affection for their dead even though they thought temple work was nonsense. Big contrast with what were often nothing more than anti-mormon attacks in the news at that time. Wished I had kept the article.

Was this in Russian? I wonder if might not be Sergey Antonenko's 2005 article in the prestigious Russian historical journal Rodina. The title is "Pamyat Ix v Rod i Rod," that is, Their Memory Throughout Generations. If so, the article was actually very positive, even in regards to proxy ordinances.

It was pretty big news in the LDS communities of Eastern Europe.

Antonenko briefly sketched the history of genealogy in Russia (and Ukraine too) and shared a quote by the 19th c. mystic, philosopher and transhumanist Nikolay Fyodorov on how only through our genealogy, that is, our heritage, are we able to reclaim our identity instead of being lost in the crowd.

Antonenko lamented the loss- often deliberate- of genealogical knowledge during the turbulent 20th c., and explained that the situation in the archives is critical. Almost everything is in paper, with only 1 copy. Once it is gone, it is gone permanently. The point of the article was to encourage people to accept help offered by the Utah Genealogical Society in preserving records. The article outlined LDS beliefs on genealogy and proxy work, how it is a bold, radical solution to the theological problem of what happens to those who weren't exposed to the teachings of Christ. Antonenko provided an example of baptisms for the dead from Russian history. In 1044, Yaroslav the Wise baptised the bones of his uncles Oleg and Yaropolk. They were believers in Christ, but were killed in a melee before they could be baptised. Yaroslav helped bring their religious choice to its logical conclusion. Antonenko explained that LDS proxy baptism is not a magical manipulation of dead souls or automatic switch of religions, that LDS considered marriage eternal and essential, no one can be sealed to someone who wasn't their spouse, that the work is done for one's actual ancestors and LDS have ancestors throughout the world, hence their global genealogical efforts. He cocnluded with a quote from a French genealogist saying in essence that he didn't care one way or the other about Mormon temple work, but is glad that someone went to the effort of gathering information on his ancestors that he would be hardpressed to find on his own efforts.

http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=1612&n=86

[Calm]

Sounds very, very familiar, especially the one copy thing and we were there in 2006 so it may be it, I wouldn't have read it in the original, but it might have been translated into a western paper, someone at church might have translated it and kept it for reference and passed it on to me to read or it might have been translated verbally to me. Too long ago for me to remember specifics, unfortunately. I'll have to ask my husband if he remembers. How cool you likely found it for me.

[volgadon]

Sounds very, very familiar, especially the one copy thing and we were there in 2006 so it may be it, I wouldn't have read it in the original, but it might have been translated into a western paper, someone at church might have translated it and kept it for reference and passed it on to me to read or it might have been translated verbally to me. Too long ago for me to remember specifics, unfortunately. I'll have to ask my husband if he remembers. How cool you likely found it for me.

If you were there in 2006, then I am almost certain that this is the article in question. I was in Russia that same time, but different mission. A branch president and friend of mind shared the article, which I thought rather impressive. Can't think of any other big articles on the subject, and I did keep an eye out for media mentions of LDS.

[georged]

The misunderstanding concerning the practice of baptism for the dead is largely due to the lack of the knowledge of the history of it. According to the world renown "The Interpreters Bible" (non-Mormon) in regard to 1 Corinthians 15:29, it states: "Baptism for the dead, that rapture of the cosmos, Paul turns to an interesting item of church practice in Corinth, and probably elsewhere too, and uses it to reinforce his main point..." The Catholic church abolished the practice in 250 AD, but despite this many true Christians still practiced it which led to the council of Carthage in 397 AD to prohibit any further practice as per it's 6th canon. Of course, this true Christian practice has been restored again as part of the great "restitution of all things" (see Acts 3:19-21)!

[3DOP]

Hi georgeed.

Welcome to the board. It is good to see a new arrival bring a thoughtful and substantive post.

I am not familiar with the 6th Canon of Carthage, but I agree with you that there is a lot of misunderstanding concerning this practice. For one, it should not be assumed that the Catholic Church, if she denied one usage of its practice in 250 or 397, denies all legitimate usage of baptism for the dead:

And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the first of Corinthians, chap. xv., appealing to it as praiseworthy and right.

---St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (a collection of tracts published in Geneva in the 17th Century for the purpose of instructing those in his neighborhood against the errors of the Protestants), p. 368, TAN Publishers, 1989

The first point which must be addressed in dealing with I Cor. 15:29 is whether the practice of baptism for the dead is praiseworthy and right. St. Francis affirms that it is so. Along with Mormons, Catholics are virtually alone in allowing for the practice.

The second point which must be addressed is in what the practice consists. The Catholic Church has apparently (and I do not doubt you) prohibited a practice similar to that to which Mormons are enjoined namely, a vicarious baptism in water. The passage in question lends itself to the possibility that this is what was intended, but that is by no means the only way in which the practise may be understood. Without quoting the entire passage from St. Francis, I will briefly explain that he demonstrates why Protestants have no way of properly interpreting I Cor. 15:29. Having rejected the Catholic canon of Scripture, they were also determined to no longer accommodate the teaching from 2 Maccabees, which clearly teaches that the dead are benefitted by the prayers and sacrifices of the living:

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.

If it was easy for the Protestants to chuck Maccabees and other canonical books, it was impossible to toss St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, although I bet they'd like to be rid of v. 29. And so, 200 years before Joseph Smith, we have the spectacle of Protestants trying to interpret I Cor. 15:29 while maintaining that there is nothing that the living may do for the dead. Rather than accept the Catholic teaching then, or the LDS teaching now, they continue to maintain that St. Paul refers to a condemned practice to prove a true teaching.

I doubt it would be worthwhile to expound the Catholic teaching further. We understand it to be purgatorial. The baptism spoken of being not sacramental in water, but a baptism of sacrifice such as Christ refers to in Mark 10:

Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of; or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized.

Clearly, Catholics and Mormons are not entirely agreed about I Cor. 15:29, but neither are we entirely disagreed. The Catholic Church disagrees with any who say that every reference to baptism in Scripture is a reference to water baptism. In some places, we hold, and I think it is entirely plausible to do so, that baptism may be a figurative reference to being "immersed" in something else but water, such as it seems when Christ refers in another place to his coming passion as a baptism:

I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be accomplished.

---Luke 12

Christ has already been baptized in water by the time He makes these statements. Seeing that Catholics hold the faithful would be in error to assume that I Cor. 15:29 is of necessity a baptism in water, it is not surprising that the Catholic Church would take steps to prohibit the practice if some should take it upon themselves to make such a presumption.

Edited March 17, 2012 by 3DOP

[georged]

Well, to be very frank and honest with you, the Catholic church has been wrong so much that I scarcely would know where to begin on that topic. However, it is obvious to me, that a church that would support the inquisition, the sale of indulgences, and state that it was a heresy to say that the earth was not the center of the universe, could hardly be considered as inspired! Having said that, I would refer you once again to "The Interpreters Bible" (non Mormon) and the previous quote affirming that baptism for the dead was, in fact, performed by the primitive church! However, like so many other ordinances, the Catholic church fulfilled the prophet Daniels prophecy of apostasy by "changing laws, times, and seasons" making it necessary for Peter's prophecy as recorded in Acts 3:19-21 concerning the "restitution of ALL THINGS" a further necessity since they did away with baptism by immersion, did away with the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, did away with baptism for the dead, and a host of other things too numerous to mention here, inculuding the true priesthood authority and the divinely ordered and established chuch that Christ set up! I heard them say on TV that christ set up his kingdom when He was upon the earth, and I agree with that! That was in the time of the "iron legs" as Daniel states. That begs the question as to why Christ's kingdom was set up again during the last days of "the feet part of iron and part of clay" (see Daniel chapter 2)! It was , as I said, because it was necessary to restore all things again!!!

[3DOP]

Well, to be very frank and honest with you, the Catholic church has been wrong so much that I scarcely would know where to begin on that topic. However, it is obvious to me, that a church that would support the inquisition, the sale of indulgences, and state that it was a heresy to say that the earth was not the center of the universe, could hardly be considered as inspired! Having said that, I would refer you once again to "The Interpreters Bible" (non Mormon) and the previous quote affirming that baptism for the dead was, in fact, performed by the primitive church! However, like so many other ordinances, the Catholic church fulfilled the prophet Daniels prophecy of apostasy by "changing laws, times, and seasons" making it necessary for Peter's prophecy as recorded in Acts 3:19-21 concerning the "restitution of ALL THINGS" a further necessity since they did away with baptism by immersion, did away with the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, did away with baptism for the dead, and a host of other things too numerous to mention here, inculuding the true priesthood authority and the divinely ordered and established chuch that Christ set up! I heard them say on TV that christ set up his kingdom when He was upon the earth, and I agree with that! That was in the time of the "iron legs" as Daniel states. That begs the question as to why Christ's kingdom was set up again during the last days of "the feet part of iron and part of clay" (see Daniel chapter 2)! It was , as I said, because it was necessary to restore all things again!!!

Hi again georged.

Obviously I would disagree with just about everything you mention above in relation to my faith. You appear to be persuaded by the usual misinformation. Heh. No worries, there are a lot of myths and misunderstandings which cause a lot of confusion. But one thing at a time and each a different thread if we need to pursue something else!

What about the subject of THIS thread about which you commented? I am not arguing that you should become Catholic on the basis of my reply. Notice where I said...

"The first point which must be addressed in dealing with I Cor. 15:29 is whether the practice of baptism for the dead is praiseworthy and right. St. Francis affirms that it is so. Along with Mormons, Catholics are virtually alone in allowing for the practice."

My aim here is truly modest. This is not about your immediate conversion to the Catholic faith but about seeing where we have points where we may mutually agree and even perhaps respect the other party's position. It does not seem like much to concede. I don't understand why you refer me again to this Interpreter's Bible to show something that I agree with you about. The primitive church practiced baptism for the dead. Fine. Granted. In fact I insist upon the point! I also conceded I didn't know about this canon at Carthage you mentioned. But my reply explained how it would be understood. Was my reply dissatisfactory? If I was not clear before, allow me to say quite openly that I find your biblical understanding of 1 Cor. 15:29 to be plausible. If you were already aware of how Catholics may practice baptisms for the dead, I thought there might be others who would not have known about it.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited March 19, 2012 by 3DOP

[Storm Rider]

Well, to be very frank and honest with you, the Catholic church has been wrong so much that I scarcely would know where to begin on that topic. However, it is obvious to me, that a church that would support the inquisition, the sale of indulgences, and state that it was a heresy to say that the earth was not the center of the universe, could hardly be considered as inspired! Having said that, I would refer you once again to "The Interpreters Bible" (non Mormon) and the previous quote affirming that baptism for the dead was, in fact, performed by the primitive church! However, like so many other ordinances, the Catholic church fulfilled the prophet Daniels prophecy of apostasy by "changing laws, times, and seasons" making it necessary for Peter's prophecy as recorded in Acts 3:19-21 concerning the "restitution of ALL THINGS" a further necessity since they did away with baptism by immersion, did away with the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, did away with baptism for the dead, and a host of other things too numerous to mention here, inculuding the true priesthood authority and the divinely ordered and established church that Christ set up! I heard them say on TV that Christ set up his kingdom when He was upon the earth, and I agree with that! That was in the time of the "iron legs" as Daniel states. That begs the question as to why Christ's kingdom was set up again during the last days of "the feet part of iron and part of clay" (see Daniel chapter 2)! It was , as I said, because it was necessary to restore all things again!!!

Geo, I would stand with DIP on this on so many levels. Just to be clear, I am a LDS and have been for decades. That there are significant disagreements between faithful Catholics and faithful LDS is without question. However, I would also say that we have so many things in common that there are no other Christian churches that come close to the doctrinal affinity we have with Catholics and the Orthodox.

When you attack another and point in derision, please remember that you will have at least three of your own fingers pointing back at you. As disciples of Christ we should be sources of peace in the world. First and foremost, as LDS we seek to represent our Master by our actions. Our words become meaningless when our actions speak so loudly of contention. There is nothing to attack here. This is not about Catholicism, but about Baptism for the Dead and how the Catholic Church has supported the doctrine in some instances throughout the generations. Rejoice where we have points in common, respect where we disagree, and stand firm beside those who worship Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world.

[blueadept]

Kudos Storm Rider....I'd give you more rep pts if I could.

There is nothing to attack here. This is not about Catholicism, but about Baptism for the Dead and how the Catholic Church has supported the doctrine in some instances throughout the generations. Rejoice where we have points in common, respect where we disagree, and stand firm beside those who worship Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world.

As was written from the news article in post 23 in regards to the Vatican reponse...

The two faiths share intrinsic viewpoints on key issues the United States is facing, particularly the pro-life position on abortion and an opposition to same-sex marriage.

I believe it's best to focus on the similarities of our faiths than the differences. I was proud to be standing next to my LDS wife on the street corner in favor of Prop 8.

Edited March 19, 2012 by blueadept

[3DOP]

Hey georged.

I sense you love your faith and would love for me to love it also. There is a sense in which a Restoration requires saying that nobody else is keeping the true faith. I get that too. I am just saying that even if I were LDS, I would have to back away from saying that LDS are the only ones who can currently claim to practice baptisms for the dead, interpreting it as praiseworthy and right. If you want to use this Interpreter's Bible argument against evangelicals go ahead.

In my opinion, if you give us Catholics a chance to defend ourselves, we can be a little bit peskier to get rid of without ever ragging on LDS beliefs. I think this is a case in point.

Best,

Rory, aka 3DOP

[Ares]

The misunderstanding concerning the practice of baptism for the dead is largely due to the lack of the knowledge of the history of it. According to the world renown "The Interpreters Bible" (non-Mormon) in regard to 1 Corinthians 15:29, it states: "Baptism for the dead, that rapture of the cosmos, Paul turns to an interesting item of church practice in Corinth, and probably elsewhere too, and uses it to reinforce his main point..." The Catholic church abolished the practice in 250 AD, but despite this many true Christians still practiced it which led to the council of Carthage in 397 AD to prohibit any further practice as per it's 6th canon. Of course, this true Christian practice has been restored again as part of the great "restitution of all things" (see Acts 3:19-21)!

Georged - please reread the board guidelines. It is not the purpose of this forum to critique others religions. You have come out of the gate in a very confrontational manner. It will get you banned from threads in the future.

[3DOP]

Geo, I would stand with DIP on this on so many levels. Just to be clear, I am a LDS and have been for decades. That there are significant disagreements between faithful Catholics and faithful LDS is without question. However, I would also say that we have so many things in common that there are no other Christian churches that come close to the doctrinal affinity we have with Catholics and the Orthodox.

When you attack another and point in derision, please remember that you will have at least three of your own fingers pointing back at you. As disciples of Christ we should be sources of peace in the world. First and foremost, as LDS we seek to represent our Master by our actions. Our words become meaningless when our actions speak so loudly of contention. There is nothing to attack here. This is not about Catholicism, but about Baptism for the Dead and how the Catholic Church has supported the doctrine in some instances throughout the generations. Rejoice where we have points in common, respect where we disagree, and stand firm beside those who worship Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world.

Hey guy!

Thanks for the support but how'd I go from 3DOP to DIP? I may have to report you if this continues. Heh. But really, I am glad you can see the point that I was making.

DIP

[altersteve]

Well, to be very frank and honest with you, the Catholic church has been wrong so much that I scarcely would know where to begin on that topic. However, it is obvious to me, that a church that would support the inquisition, the sale of indulgences, and state that it was a heresy to say that the earth was not the center of the universe, could hardly be considered as inspired!

If the Catholic Church teaches things that are good and true (which it does), then it is most certainly inspired to at least some extent. I have attended a couple Catholic worship services and I know the Spirit of God was present there. The Lord is pleased with His disciples who are members of the Catholic Church and all other faiths, and all others who strive to worship Him according to the truth He has revealed to them.

The negative aspects of any religion (including our own) do not cancel out the positive ones.

Edited March 19, 2012 by altersteve