Baptisms for the Dead - now by Aaronic Priesthood

[Rain]

 

On 12/22/2017 at 10:13 PM, LittleNipper said:

The Orthodox Jewish Bible reads like this:

²⁹ Otherwise, what will they do, the ones being given tevilah on behalf of the dead? If the Mesim really are not raised, why indeed are they given tevilah on behalf of the Mesim?

³⁰ Why also are we putting ourselves at risk and in danger every hour?

So, I'm not saying that there were not some peculiar sects practicing  baptism of the dead, but it would seem that those so engaged were also questioning life after death and were not regarded as part of the audience that Paul is writing to.

I'm very sorry; however, I can in no way condone Gnostic nor mystical ritualism. It supposes that we can control the destiny of the departed and we can not. We are given many chances throughout our lifetime ---- it is not about 2nd chances. People that reject the Lord are outcasts. If one never rejected the Lord ---- GOD sees that heart and deals with it according to HIS own legal inclination.

You are missing something in our beliefs. Baptism for the dead is not about 2nd chances. It is about the first chance - the chance that many did not receive in earth. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

You are missing something in our beliefs. Baptism for the dead is not about 2nd chances. It is about the first chance - the chance that many did not receive in earth. 

This is true.  Yet if we're honest many members do act as if the other is true, that it does provide a second chance.  How many of us seek to have that parent/grandparent/uncle or whoever baptized who constantly and consistently refused to have anything to do with the Church in this life?  And this despite them being given every opportunity by family who are members.

I can't blame LittleNipper for getting the wrong end of the doctrinal stick on that one.  Most of us members like to think it's about second chances too.

Edited December 24, 2017 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

On 12/22/2017 at 9:13 PM, LittleNipper said:

 

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by mfbukowski
Fergitaboutit

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is true.  Yet if we're honest many members do act as if the other is true, that it does provide a second chance.  How many of us seek to have that parent/grandparent/uncle or whoever baptized who constantly and consistently refused to have anything to do with the Church in this life?  And this despite them being given every opportunity by family who are members.

I can't blame LittleNipper for getting the wrong end of the doctrinal stick on that one.  Most of us members like to think it's about second chances too.

So we should judge  for whom we should do temple work?

What of those who had family problems with the "gospel" forced down their throats and no chance to make a real choice?

Is it a "second chance" for them or a first chance, or are those categories irrelevant in our limited capacity to judge others?  What is the practical difference in our actions if it is a first or second chance, or third or tenth?

In my opinion it is impossible to know.  If God wants to give someone a second chance it's fine with me- I will leave that up to Him.

I know you agree- I just wanted to make the point that the difference between a first or second or tenth chance is up to the Lord.

I frankly think doing temple work is more for us than it is for those on the other side.   We need to learn about our ancestors and love them and have the opportunity to serve others who are totally forgotten to be "saviors on Mt.Zion".  We needn't worry about second chances either way.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So we should judge  for whom we should do temple work?

I know you agree- I just wanted to make the point that the difference between a first or second or tenth chance is up to the Lord.

Of course I agree.  Just making the doctrinal point that members DO act as though it's a second chance, and nonmembers see that.

Not advocating limiting work, although I have my doubts of its acceptance by those who rejected the gospel offered them repeatedly.

Edited December 24, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

 

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This is true.  Yet if we're honest many members do act as if the other is true, that it does provide a second chance.  How many of us seek to have that parent/grandparent/uncle or whoever baptized who constantly and consistently refused to have anything to do with the Church in this life?  And this despite them being given every opportunity by family who are members.

I can't blame LittleNipper for getting the wrong end of the doctrinal stick on that one.  Most of us members like to think it's about second chances too.

I think we all get a lot of second, third etc chances as far as repentance and the atonement etc are considered.  My thought with baptism is that a chance is when we understand enough to make a choice of the gospel or not.  Since God is the only one who can tell where that understanding is then we do everything on this side that we can and have faith it works out for the best.  I think it kind of goes both ways  - some of those people consistently refused and never really got an understanding and some of us don't have enough faith that things will work out as they should.  

Edited December 25, 2017 by Rain

[LittleNipper]

On 12/23/2017 at 8:25 PM, mfbukowski said:

No it's definitely fixed and memorized- take it from a temple worker.    It's as fixed as the initiatories and endowment.  Often the sealer gives a talk to people attending, first, but then the actual sealing is definitely fixed.  

Memorized from what exactly? Who designed the wording? If nothing exists in the Bible stipulating the exact wording, where do the words originate and who deems them correct?

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

 

I think we all get a lot of second, third etc chances as far as repentance and the atonement etc are considered.  My thought with baptism is that a chance is when we understand enough to make a choice of the gospel or not.  Since God is the only one who can tell where that understanding is then we do everything on this side that we can and have faith it works out for the best.  I think it kind of goes both ways  - some of those people consistently refused and never really got an understanding and some of us don't have enough faith that things will work out as they should.  

I believe that the Holy Spirit motivates the individual towards salvation. When the person accepts salvation the Holy Spirit washes over that individual. That is the baptism that is required. When a person continually refuses to accept that Jesus is GOD in the flesh and died to save and arose again to bring eternal life, that individual has committed the unpardonable sin. He will not be saved and is eternally damned as unknown to the Lord. He will be thrown into utter darkness and eternal separation.

Edited December 25, 2017 by LittleNipper

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I believe that the Holy Spirit motivates the individual towards salvation. When the person accepts salvation the Holy Spirit washes over that individual. That is the baptism that is required. When a person continually refuses to accept that Jesus is GOD in the flesh and died to save and arose again to bring eternal life, that individual has committed the unpardonable sin. He will not be saved and is eternally damned as unknown to the Lord. He will be thrown into utter darkness and eternal separation.

This makes no allowance for those individuals never given a chance.  The pygmy born and died in the Congo in the year 1700.  The Mongolian that died as a child in 600 BC.  What of those with no opportunity to accept or reject Christ in life?

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Memorized from what exactly? Who designed the wording? If nothing exists in the Bible stipulating the exact wording, where do the words originate and who deems them correct?

Man must live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouthpiece of God.  Not just the ones selected by a group of clerics 400 years after Christ died.

That would be like a bunch of LDS bishops 200 years from now reading the Joseph Smith Papers project and picking which of his teachings the think are inspired enough to form a new canon for the LDS Church.

[california boy]

On 12/22/2017 at 8:04 PM, JLHPROF said:

It's amazing how many supposedly Mormon invented doctrine and practices actually are referenced by the ante-Nicene fathers.

Just today I was reading FairMormon's page full of references to the 3 heavens/degrees.  There are non-Mormon sites that have references to baptism for the dead in the same time period.  It's clear that the traditional Christian advocates of today pick and choose just as the Councils that selected the Canon did.

Everyone picks and chooses, even the Mormon church.  Is divorce allowed in the church?  Can women wear jewelry?  Make up?  There is a lot the church has decided are just the opinions of writers in the Scriptures and doesn't apply to them.  They only accept the scriptures they want to, just like every other sect.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Memorized from what exactly? Who designed the wording? If nothing exists in the Bible stipulating the exact wording, where do the words originate and who deems them correct?

Oh my gosh.

Merry Christmas and goodbye forever.

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Memorized from what exactly? Who designed the wording? If nothing exists in the Bible stipulating the exact wording, where do the words originate and who deems them correct?

Your superstitious veneration for the Bible - approaching, if not outright reaching, idolatry - is noted.

The Lord has raised up prophets in our day, just as in the past. He can, and does, reveal His will to His living prophets just as He did to ancient prophets in times past.

As much as we treasure the Bible, we are not shackled to it.

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Your superstitious veneration for the Bible - approaching, if not outright reaching, idolatry - is noted.

The Lord has raised up prophets in our day, just as in the past. He can, and does, reveal His will to His living prophets just as He did to ancient prophets in times past.

As much as we treasure the Bible, we are not shackled to it.

And your veneration of human understanding and the book of Mormon is most apparent. As much as you say you treasure the Bible, you seem to find it unnecessary and superficial --- without Divine revelation nor protection.

Edited December 26, 2017 by LittleNipper

[kiwi57]

19 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And your veneration of human understanding

Whatever gave you that idea?

19 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

and the book of Mormon is most apparent.

Of course, the Book of Mormon and human understanding are essentially unrelated topics. Latter-day Saints group the Book of Mormon with the Bible, just so you know.

19 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

As much as you say you treasure the Bible, you seem to find it unnecessary and superficial

That, I'm afraid, is a figment of your own imagination.

19 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

--- without Divine revelation

Again, whatever gave you that idea?

19 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

nor protection.

Ah, "protection." What exactly do you mean by that?

[theplains]

On 14/12/2017 at 5:56 PM, CV75 said:

I think so, especially since priesthood ordination for males is what qualifies them to serve in the temple, which is the highest aim for any member.

What qualifies women to serve in a temple since they are not ordained to the priesthood?

Jim

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

What qualifies women to serve in a temple since they are not ordained to the priesthood?

Jim

I know some people may assume I'm trying to insult someone here, but I'm not. I genuinely think that it's going to be very hard to get into this discussion without crossing over into the casting of pearls.

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng

"Two aspects of Joseph Smith’s teachings to the women of the Relief Society may be unfamiliar to members of the Church today. First is his use of language associated with priesthood. In organizing the Relief Society, Joseph spoke of “ordain[ing]” women and said that Relief Society officers would “preside over the Society.”23 He also declared, “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”24

These statements indicate that Joseph Smith delegated priesthood authority to women in the Relief Society.25 Joseph’s language can be more fully understood in historical context. During the 19th century, Latter-day Saints used the term keys to refer at various times to authority, knowledge, or temple ordinances.26 Likewise, Mormons sometimes used the term ordain in a broad sense, often interchangeably with set apart and not always referring to priesthood office.27 On these points, Joseph’s actions illuminate the meaning of his words: neither Joseph Smith, nor any person acting on his behalf, nor any of his successors conferred the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood on women or ordained women to priesthood office...."

"Joseph Smith said that his instructions to the Relief Society were intended to prepare women to “come in possession of the privileges & blessings & gifts of the priesthood.” This would be accomplished through the ordinances of the temple.38 These new ordinances taught the nature of God, the purpose of life, the meaning of eternal life, and the nature of humankind’s relationship to divinity. They brought men and women into a covenant relationship with God.

Joseph Smith’s teachings about temple ordinances provide further context for his priesthood-related teachings to the Relief Society. Joseph spoke of establishing a “kingdom of priests.”39 He had used similar terms earlier when speaking of the relationship of all the Saints to the temple.40 This “kingdom of priests” would be comprised of men and women who made temple covenants.

In the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith introduced temple ordinances and covenants to a core group of men and women. In May 1842, he officiated in the first temple endowments—a ritual in which participants made sacred covenants and received instruction regarding God’s plan of salvation.41 Joseph Smith began sealing (or marrying for eternity) husbands and wives and then initiated women into the endowment by the end of September 1843. He taught men and women that by receiving temple ordinances, culminating in the sealing ordinance, they entered into an “order of the priesthood.”42 By the time of his death, he had given these ordinances to several dozen men and women, who met together often to pray and to participate in temple ceremonies as they awaited completion of the Nauvoo Temple in December 1845.

Temple ordinances were priesthood ordinances, but they did not bestow ecclesiastical office on men or women. They fulfilled the Lord’s promise that his people—women and men—would be “endowed with power from on high.”43 That priesthood power was manifest in individuals’ lives in many ways and was available to adult members, regardless of marital status. The endowment opened channels of personal revelation to both women and men. It bestowed a greater measure of “faith and knowledge” and the “help of the Spirit of the Lord”—power that fortified the Saints for subsequent hardships they would face as they traveled 1,300 miles across a forbidding wilderness and settled in the Salt Lake Valley.44 It prepared endowed Latter-day Saints to go forth “armed with thy [God’s] power” to “bear exceedingly great and glorious tidings … unto the ends of the earth.”45Indeed, through the ordinances of the temple, the power of godliness was manifest in their lives...."

"In some respects, the relationship between Latter-day Saint women and priesthood has remained remarkably constant since Joseph Smith’s day. As in the earliest days of the Church, men are ordained to priesthood offices, while both women and men are invited to experience the power and blessings of the priesthood in their lives.56 Men and women continue to officiate in sacred ordinances in temples much as they did in Joseph Smith’s day. Joseph taught that men and women can obtain the highest degree of celestial glory only by entering together into an order of the priesthood through the temple sealing ordinance. That understanding remains with Latter-day Saints today.

The priesthood authority exercised by Latter-day Saint women in the temple and elsewhere remains largely unrecognized by people outside the Church and is sometimes misunderstood or overlooked by those within. Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood.

Since Joseph Smith’s day, Church prophets, exercising the keys of the priesthood, have adapted structures and programs in a world in which educational, political, and economic opportunities have expanded for many women.57 Today, Latter-day Saint women lead three organizations within the Church: the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary. They preach and pray in congregations, fill numerous positions of leadership and service, participate in priesthood councils at the local and general levels, and serve formal proselytizing missions across the globe. In these and other ways, women exercise priesthood authority even though they are not ordained to priesthood office.58 Such service and leadership would require ordination in many other religious traditions.

Priesthood blesses the lives of God’s children in innumerable ways. Priesthood defines, empowers, ennobles, and creates order. In ecclesiastical callings, temple ordinances, family relationships, and quiet, individual ministry, Latter-day Saint women and men go forward with priesthood power and authority. This interdependence of men and women in accomplishing God’s work through His power is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith."

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smiths-teachings-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng

"Two aspects of Joseph Smith’s teachings to the women of the Relief Society may be unfamiliar to members of the Church today. First is his use of language associated with priesthood. In organizing the Relief Society, Joseph spoke of “ordain[ing]” women and said that Relief Society officers would “preside over the Society.”23 He also declared, “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”24

Do you know if anyone has come forward as the author of this essay?   

[blueglass]

A similar story to vincenzo di francesca where Mangal Dan Dipty finds accidentally a book called, Is Mormonism Christian?  while studying at a theological seminary.  He writes a letter to the "men in charge" at salt lake city.  there were no missionaries as the church was not established in india in 1959, the missionary department sends him pamphlets and a copy of the book of mormon.  Elder Kimball visits in 1961, and he gives them a tour of the Taj Mahal, then on the last day he's finally baptized.  In his own words, "On January 7, 1961, I was baptized by Elder Kimball in the Yamuna River;  Sister Kimball was the official witness, though there were many curious onlookers. I was confirmed that evening."

http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-july-2016/2016-07-21-my-journey-as-a-pioneer-from-india-eng.pdf

Edited January 5, 2018 by blueglass

[Calm]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

Do you know if anyone has come forward as the author of this essay?   

No, though the two I do know (DNA and Race), they said they were the main contributors with others editing and adding to their work (Reeve iirc said he gave a 90 page paper), so even if one was identified there is no guarantee a particular point was theirs and not added by the reviewing committee or one of the GAs overseeing the revision of the Topics section.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[theplains]

On 05/01/2018 at 3:42 AM, kiwi57 said:

I know some people may assume I'm trying to insult someone here, but I'm not. I genuinely think that it's going to be very hard to get into this discussion without crossing over into the casting of pearls.

There is nothing religious I would refrain from telling you because I don't consider an honest discussion as
casting pearls before swine.  

Jim

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

There is nothing religious I would refrain from telling you because I don't consider an honest discussion as
casting pearls before swine.  

Jim

Everything on the internet is still public.  If you consider some things sacred you would refrain from discussing them with those who don't really want honest discussion.
Even on our wonderful board we often cast pearls before swine.