Over at a certain not-to-be-named blog there is a group of Mormons patting each other on the back for the Mormon doctrine of universal salvation. Well, universal as long as a living Mormon endures hours of tedious rote worship inside a gawdy 80's-shopping-mall themed temple.
As they do - a thinking Mormon steps up with an unorthodox but perfectly logical opinion:
This, of course, ruffles a few feathers.jafnhar wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with the [LDS baptism for the dead] ceremony per se but it strikes me as unnecessary. The priest who would have baptized Radbod claimed to know something he did not. To insist that God cannot save the unbaptized is to claim that there is a limit to his power. To say that he won't is to claim knowledge which you do not have.
Jack wrote:On the other hand if he were all powerful then why the need for an atonement? He could forgive whomever he wanted and that would be the end of the argument. But he has designed things in such a way that we must participate in the process of being reconciled to him--and the foremost reason for so doing (in my opinion) is to protect agency.
This is what happens, brethren, when you stray from the correlated teaching materials and start thinking for yourself. Suddenly you'll turn Joseph's idea of vicatious baptism into the vile idea of complete Universalism. Just imagine the LDS religion without the threat of your family not being together forever. Imagine Mormonism without the 10% income tax. How can the corporation be expected to survive if Christ is truly Christlike??Kiwi wrote:Well, if you're an "absolute-sovereignty" type Protestant, I suppose you can believe that God can do whatever He wants.
However, Latter-day Saints believe that God is morally good, in a way that is meaningfully comparable to how He expects us to be morally good. Thus, when Jesus emphatically teaches Nicodemus that baptism is essential to salvation, we think that taking Him at His word is more humble than airily dismissing His teaching.