Work for the Dead

[Chum]

Apropos of nothing, I want to express how annoyed I get when - after hours of diligently trying to find some sister's maiden name, it turns out to be the same as their married name.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Chum
edit: Looking at YOU Rose (nee)Zielinski & your 2nd marriage to Anthony Ignatius Zielinski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Well, my friend you do pull quotes from interesting sites! My question was, what group teaches that infants go to hell because they are unbaptized. I am not sure if this is your answer to my question or something else? I looked at the About us button on this page. It clearly says it is a "nondenominational Bible based site." That means it is part of no group that has oversight or accountability for anything they say. It looks to me like they are a group of five or six folks. My whole post in its entirety was about infants who die without baptism going to Hell. I did a search on the website you quoted from and found nothing about the topic. I know the schools these guys graduated from; my parents graduated from one of them. I am positive they don't believe that infants with or without baptism go to hell. Do you want me to ask them and report back?  They even equivocate on adult unbelievers - "seem to indicate"  is not "indicates" - however I am happy to write them and report back their response to the infant question. Or perhaps I am making a mistake in thinking your post quoting them was a response to my question? I have been wrong before! Ha! 😄

Yes it was addressed to you, seems obvious it must have been a reply.

So it's ok for adult nonbelievers to burn but not babies with original sin?

Why then care about original sin at all? Why would babies get a free ride?  If they do get a free ride, at what age does the free ride expire?

These are honest questions.

If you don't like this site, I am sure they are everywhere

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes it was addressed to you, seems obvious it must have been a reply.

So it's ok for adult nonbelievers to burn but not babies with original sin?

Why then care about original sin at all? Why would babies get a free ride?  If they do get a free ride, at what age does the free ride expire?

These are honest questions.

If you don't like this site, I am sure they are everywhere

Sometimes you completely lose me. When did I say or imply that it is "ok for adult nonbelievers to burn but not babies with original sin?" When have I ever discussed original sin on this forum? That is not something I am even interested in. I thought I was fairly non-supportive of the site you quoted. They seem to represent no one but the five of themselves. They call themselves Evangelicals; but everything I read on the site indicates they are Fundamentalists. Big difference!

I hope I have been clear enough in my posts to stress that I believe Christ is merciful and will perfectly judge each human according to what He (Christ) does that we don't and can't - a perfect balance of mercy and judgment. I know your questions are honest. I don't doubt that at all. I think that when addressed to me they sometimes ignore much of what I say in most posts. Perhaps you simply don't believe what I say is what I believe because it doesn't fit your truth (small t) about non-LDS Christians. You often decry the concept of truth - but appear to have very strong personal truths that are very important to you. I also am not deep enough for you. That is ok; I am not deep. I am intensely curious and very uncertain. I think both of those are strengths; I doubt that you do.

I strongly believe in and hope for the fulfillment of I Peter 3:9 - Like Christ, I want no one to perish, but that all come to repentance, whatever that means in a particular place and time over the millennia, including all those millennia and all those places prior to the atonement. It isn't ok for anyone to burn. I do believe there will those who do not enjoy the presence of the Godhead for eternity, but I have no idea who or why? I am no person's judge.

I don't know how anyone will be judged; I don't need to know how anyone will be judged. I am neither a universalist, nor do I believe in a literal burning forever hell. I believe that is a poetic or apocalyptic device; not to be interpreted literally. There are at least three different words for hell used in the Bible - very different words with very different meanings sheol, gehenna, and hades. I don't find that confusing; I just find it indicative of the complicated nature of what the Bible is trying to say about eternity. To use your term, no one gets a free ride. Christ will judge the infant and the octogenarian with perfect mercy and justice. I do not fear that any injustice will be done to anyone. These are honest answers. I enjoy this site; I spend a considerable amount of time here and have for years. I have tried to grow and change my tone when posting. I not sure where your last comment is coming from. I like this site - there I said it again.

I believe that when I read your posts you have very strong apriori beliefs and opinions about non-LDS Christians that are pretty narrow and negative. I don't fit your mold. I don't agree with much that you write about non-LDS Christians. That seems to irritate you. I seem to irritate you. I am truly sorry about that. I don't know how to fix it. I wish I did.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Navidad

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have heard this same illustration given at a number of LDS funerals. Would you mind sharing with us who the "some" were? Of what faith group?

I have personally been told this on a number of occasions. The last time it happened, the man was Russian Orthodox by faith.

[Chum]

38 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have personally been told this on a number of occasions. The last time it happened, the man was Russian Orthodox by faith.

Oh yeah. I had a born again biker friend who had been a Russian Orthodox Jew. That guy could be seriously dark.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholicism has wrestled with the state of those who aren't baptized. Limbo was one solution given, but it was never dogma.

I believe you but I wish this was true.

Wanna scare the bejoobies out of 7 year olds?  Oh wait, I guess people actually thought that what they were taught was "dogma".

Hey the same thing happens with us too- like Blacks and the priesthood etc.

But of course none of this stuff is ever "dogma", right?

9 hours ago, Chum said:

Father twins and then come back to me.

Seriously?  AMATEUR!

How about 4 grandchildren under 10 for 12 hours a day?  Ever been a grandpa who kids love you like crazy, but discipline?   HA! 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Chum said:

Apropos of nothing, I want to express how annoyed I get when - after hours of diligently trying to find some sister's maiden name, it turns out to be the same as their married name.

yeah you gotta watch them Poles. 

We get the north and the south.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sometimes you completely lose me. When did I say or imply that it is "ok for adult nonbelievers to burn but not babies with original sin?" When have I ever discussed original sin on this forum? That is not something I am even interested in. I thought I was fairly non-supportive of the site you quoted. They seem to represent no one but the five of themselves. They call themselves Evangelicals; but everything I read on the site indicates they are Fundamentalists. Big difference!

I hope I have been clear enough in my posts to stress that I believe Christ is merciful and will perfectly judge each human according to what He (Christ) does that we don't and can't - a perfect balance of mercy and judgment. I know your questions are honest. I don't doubt that at all. I think that when addressed to me they sometimes ignore much of what I say in most posts. Perhaps you simply don't believe what I say is what I believe because it doesn't fit your truth (small t) about non-LDS Christians. You often decry the concept of truth - but appear to have very strong personal truths that are very important to you. I also am not deep enough for you. That is ok; I am not deep. I am intensely curious and very uncertain. I think both of those are strengths; I doubt that you do.

I strongly believe in and hope for the fulfillment of I Peter 3:9 - Like Christ, I want no one to perish, but that all come to repentance, whatever that means in a particular place and time over the millennia, including all those millennia and all those places prior to the atonement. It isn't ok for anyone to burn. I do believe there will those who do not enjoy the presence of the Godhead for eternity, but I have no idea who or why? I am no person's judge.

I don't know how anyone will be judged; I don't need to know how anyone will be judged. I am neither a universalist, nor do I believe in a literal burning forever hell. I believe that is a poetic or apocalyptic device; not to be interpreted literally. There are at least three different words for hell used in the Bible - very different words with very different meanings sheol, gehenna, and hades. I don't find that confusing; I just find it indicative of the complicated nature of what the Bible is trying to say about eternity. To use your term, no one gets a free ride. Christ will judge the infant and the octogenarian with perfect mercy and justice. I do not fear that any injustice will be done to anyone. These are honest answers. I enjoy this site; I spend a considerable amount of time here and have for years. I have tried to grow and change my tone when posting. I not sure where your last comment is coming from. I like this site - there I said it again.

I believe that when I read your posts you have very strong apriori beliefs and opinions about non-LDS Christians that are pretty narrow and negative. I don't fit your mold. I don't agree with much that you write about non-LDS Christians. That seems to irritate you. I seem to irritate you. I am truly sorry about that. I don't know how to fix it. I wish I did.

Sorry.

I guess it does bother you after all. 

"Interests:I am very interested in the history of religious conflict, especially here in Mexico."

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sometimes you completely lose me. When did I say or imply that it is "ok for adult nonbelievers to burn but not babies with original sin?" When have I ever discussed original sin on this forum? That is not something I am even interested in.

Sorry, you seem to find meanings I never intended, you didn't follow my point, I am sure it was too confusing 

My point was to show that many Protestants believe in baptism or burn.  There are many sites that show this.

I will stop bothering you.

I have promised before, sorry.

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, you seem to find meanings I never intended, you didn't follow my point, I am sure it was too confusing 

My point was to show that many Protestants believe in baptism or burn.  There are many sites that show this.

I will stop bothering you.

I have promised before, sorry.

I am leaving for a day trip to the states. However, I want to tell you before I go that I admire you and your thinking very much. I just am sorry that I seem to irritate you. Genuinely sorry. And I genuinely don't know how to fix it.

You make comments with such certainty like "many Protestants believe in baptism or burn." I struggle whether or not to respond, because comments like that misrepresent what Protestants teach. There are many Protestants (especially among the Fundamentalists) who teach "believe in Christ's atonement or burn." I just can't think of a single Protestant group that teaches "baptism or burn." Perhaps there are some Apostolic groups with which I am not familiar who teach this? But, I doubt they would consider themselves Protestants.

When you say such things, I can either respond to them with what I believe to be true, or ignore them and have that kind of statement go unchallenged. You seem to enjoy challenges from so many on the board, just not from me. Lutherans experience a kind of sort of baptism for salvific purposes, but equivocate on that all the time. They would never say non-baptized infants or adults will burn solely for their lack of baptism. If you can find a site sponsored by a Protestant group that teaches "baptism or burn" I will recant! I won't be the first Mennonite in history to have done so! 😄

[webbles]

19 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes. Not only is it terrible, but it is also judging the state of salvation of someone (infant is in hell), and we are explicitly taught NOT to do that, so it is sinful, too.

Catholicism has wrestled with the state of those who aren't baptized. Limbo was one solution given, but it was never dogma. There is also the idea of baptism by desire -- if the person would have desired baptism but did not have the chance, then it is as if they are baptized. This is also speculation, not dogma.

In the end, I trust to a perfectly just and merciful God.

The first time I heard about baptism of desire was on a catholic radio show.  They were discussing baptism for the dead and why the latter day saints were incorrectly reading the bible.  They mentioned the baptism of desire and I was fascinated by it.  To me, it sounded extremely like baptism for the dead, except without the physical need for a proxy baptism.  I assumed that it was dogma, based off of what was said in the radio show.  The show mentioned that there were three baptisms in catholicism: baptism of water, baptism of blood, and baptism of desire.  The first is dogma but are the other two dogma or not?

[Chum]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

18 hours ago, Chum said:

Father twins and then come back to me.

Seriously?  AMATEUR!  How about 4 grandchildren under 10 for 12 hours a day?  Ever been a grandpa who kids love you like crazy, but discipline?

I see opportunities for sleep in your scenario.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I assumed that it was dogma, based off of what was said in the radio show.  The show mentioned that there were three baptisms in catholicism: baptism of water, baptism of blood, and baptism of desire. 

I don't remember this. Either we weren't taught it or it didn't stick in my tween-sized head.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I don't remember this. Either we weren't taught it or it didn't stick in my tween-sized head.

Agree.

It was a stumbling block for me in my youth, and I think I would have found baptism of desire illogical.

If baptism is not necessary, why have it at all? 

It still seems to me to me as a "patch" for a flawed doctrine, which the LDS take on directly.

In the end, I don't see any real practical difference between ours and theirs.

Everybody needs to be baptized, and everyone eventually IS baptized, one way or another.

Both ideas are a kind of Universalism patch in their respective systems 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 12/8/2021 at 11:07 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Working forever as an exalted God populating planets doesn't appeal to me, either. I'll take peace forever, like the moments I catch sometimes when I'm on monastic retreat.

Perhaps that's why you're LDS and I'm Catholic. God will give us the heaven we want, ha.

If there's music in heaven, we've got you beat. Gregorian chant and polyphony vs. the LDS hymnal  

EXCEPT for the Sibelius- "Be still my soul"

Majestic harmonies 

I get tears EVERY time

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

The first time I heard about baptism of desire was on a catholic radio show.  They were discussing baptism for the dead and why the latter day saints were incorrectly reading the bible.  They mentioned the baptism of desire and I was fascinated by it.  To me, it sounded extremely like baptism for the dead, except without the physical need for a proxy baptism.  I assumed that it was dogma, based off of what was said in the radio show.  The show mentioned that there were three baptisms in catholicism: baptism of water, baptism of blood, and baptism of desire.  The first is dogma but are the other two dogma or not?

All three (baptism of water, blood, and desire) are dogma. Traditionally, the baptism of desire specifically refers to catechumens who are not yet baptized.

From the catechism (bold mine):

Quote

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

These catechumens are assured salvation. This is dogmatic.

I said the baptism of desire is not dogmatic when it comes to including those who have never heard of the Church. From the next line in the catechism (bold mine):

Quote

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This doesn't have the certainty of "assures."

This still leaves out infants, though, so applying the baptism of desire to an infant that dies is quite the speculative stretch.

Here's what the catechism says about infants who die before baptism:

Quote

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This is pretty much my stance. I trust in the perfect justice and mercy of God.

[poptart]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

All three (baptism of water, blood, and desire) are dogma. Traditionally, the baptism of desire specifically refers to catechumens who are not yet baptized.

From the catechism (bold mine):

These catechumens are assured salvation. This is dogmatic.

I said the baptism of desire is not dogmatic when it comes to including those who have never heard of the Church. From the next line in the catechism (bold mine):

This doesn't have the certainty of "assures."

This still leaves out infants, though, so applying the baptism of desire to an infant that dies is quite the speculative stretch.

Here's what the catechism says about infants who die before baptism:

This is pretty much my stance. I trust in the perfect justice and mercy of God.

Was that always the case though?  I heard that wasn't always the case in say the middle Ages but things change, thank God.  I never did understand the whole limbo thing, considering how Christ said suffer not the little ones to come to me, I'd think God wouldnt allow an innocent child such a cruel fate.  Older I get more I appreciate my infant baptism and the Catholic one I got later (long story...)  So many now in this country have no baptism, proper Catechism nor moral instruction at all.  Even names, most of my irl friends who are Christian are either Catholic or LDS, Christian names just like me.  I don't mean to judge, seeing parents who did come from Christian backgrounds deny their children their rightful Christian heritage doesn't sit well with me.  If it wasn't for mom that very much would have been me.

Happy advent btw.

[Stargazer]

On 12/8/2021 at 7:14 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Catholicism has wrestled with the state of those who aren't baptized. Limbo was one solution given, but it was never dogma. There is also the idea of baptism by desire -- if the person would have desired baptism but did not have the chance, then it is as if they are baptized. This is also speculation, not dogma.

This speculation actually matches LDS doctrine. From a revelation to Joseph Smith, D&C 137:7 --

Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

 

On 12/8/2021 at 7:14 PM, MiserereNobis said:

In the end, I trust to a perfectly just and merciful God.

As do I.

[Peacefully]

On 12/9/2021 at 5:48 AM, Navidad said:

I am leaving for a day trip to the states. However, I want to tell you before I go that I admire you and your thinking very much. I just am sorry that I seem to irritate you. Genuinely sorry. And I genuinely don't know how to fix it.

You make comments with such certainty like "many Protestants believe in baptism or burn." I struggle whether or not to respond, because comments like that misrepresent what Protestants teach. There are many Protestants (especially among the Fundamentalists) who teach "believe in Christ's atonement or burn." I just can't think of a single Protestant group that teaches "baptism or burn." Perhaps there are some Apostolic groups with which I am not familiar who teach this? But, I doubt they would consider themselves Protestants.

When you say such things, I can either respond to them with what I believe to be true, or ignore them and have that kind of statement go unchallenged. You seem to enjoy challenges from so many on the board, just not from me. Lutherans experience a kind of sort of baptism for salvific purposes, but equivocate on that all the time. They would never say non-baptized infants or adults will burn solely for their lack of baptism. If you can find a site sponsored by a Protestant group that teaches "baptism or burn" I will recant! I won't be the first Mennonite in history to have done so! 😄

I was brought up in the Church of Christ and it was definitely baptism or burn, but only after the age of accountability. Unfortunately, we kind of had to guess on that. I felt the spirit at church camp when I was eleven and decided to be baptized. They baptized me in the camp swimming pool:) My grandfather was a C of C preacher and I remember some fire and brimstone preaching. I also remember one preacher telling a few of us kids that if a person was on their way to be baptized and were killed in a car wreck they were going to hell. Scary stuff for a kid. Messed with my head for a long time! When I found the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, I felt it was a kinder, gentler church that spoke of a loving God instead of a wrathful, angry God and that was appealing and made sense to me. It has been over 30 years since I was a member of the CofC so I don’t know if they are as hardcore now. Many of my extended family are still members so I’ve attended many C of C funerals (too many these days) usually conducted by my cousin who is still a C of C preacher. Luckily, more about love and family instead of fire and brimstone at the funerals. To your point, back in the day members of C of C would not have considered themselves Protestant. Not sure about now. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Peacefully