DiscussMormonism.com

Muammar Gaddafi is dead, killed by some of the Libyans he oppressed and impoverished (despite huge oil revenues) for the last forty years. Libyans are not 18th-century Enlightenment gentry of English descent transplanted to a new continent, but, like they say:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The result may not a country all of us would like to live in (or even next to), but if it is a mess, it will be the Libyan's own mess, not a mess created by occupiers with no plan for what to do next. And no young Americans, Englishmen or other non-Libyans sent by NATO have died to achieve this result.

But here's a question for this board: How long will it take before Gaddafi is baptized by some keen young LDS people? I'd quite like that to happen to him, really, so he can enjoy eternity in the company of the exalted Schryver and bcspace, which I know is bound to give him keen pleasure. Has Osama bin Laden been given this wonderful privilege yet, and if not why not?

But here's a question for this board: How long will it take before Gaddafi is baptized by some keen young LDS people? I'd quite like that to happen to him, really, so he can enjoy eternity in the company of the exalted Schryver and bcspace, which I know is bound to give him keen pleasure. Has Osama bin Laden been given this wonderful privilege yet, and if not why not?

Since when in LDS doctrine does having the work done for you guarantee eternal life or prevent one from suffering in hell?

bcspace wrote:

But here's a question for this board: How long will it take before Gaddafi is baptized by some keen young LDS people? I'd quite like that to happen to him, really, so he can enjoy eternity in the company of the exalted Schryver and bcspace, which I know is bound to give him keen pleasure. Has Osama bin Laden been given this wonderful privilege yet, and if not why not?

Since when in LDS doctrine does having the work done for you guarantee eternal life or prevent one from suffering in hell?

I must confess that I assumed that the prospect of your eternal company would be quite sufficient to persuade anybody in the circumstances of those two gentlemen to take up the offer made to them. After all, given that to the baptizee it will be quite obvious that Mormonism is true, what's not to like?

Remind me, does the CoJCoLDS teach that there is a hell of eternal suffering in the sense that more common varieties of Christians do?

Since when in LDS doctrine does having the work done for you guarantee eternal life or prevent one from suffering in hell?

I must confess that I assumed that the prospect of your eternal company would be quite sufficient to persuade anybody in the circumstances of those two gentlemen to take up the offer made to them.

Being a free market capitalist (as God is) and not approving of Islam as a legitimate religion or warlordism or mass murder, I don;t see why you would so assume.

After all, given that to the baptizee it will be quite obvious that Mormonism is true, what's not to like?

Being judged according to one's deeds afterwards.

Remind me, does the CoJCoLDS teach that there is a hell of eternal suffering in the sense that more common varieties of Christians do?

Hell as a literal place as well as a state of suffering is LDS doctrine. Alma 40:14 for example. And yes, hell does last forever in LDS doctrine for some as opposed to merely between death and the resurrection. Revelation 20:14 for example.

Chap,

what does it matter to you? Are just concerned that there are LDS folks, apparently, who keep going against the guidelines and entering these names in for proxy work? I don't get why LDS people would do that other than they are just really naïve and eager people thinking guidelines shouldn't apply.

stemelbow wrote:Chap,

what does it matter to you? Are just concerned that there are LDS folks, apparently, who keep going against the guidelines and entering these names in for proxy work? I don't get why LDS people would do that other than they are just really naïve and eager people thinking guidelines shouldn't apply.

What does it matter to you why it matters to me?

But seriously, what are these 'guidelines'? Can I read them online, and do you think they would, if observed, stop anyone entering Bin Laden, and Gaddafi for baptism?

by the way, don't you agree that anyone who finds themselves being offered baptism in the context of an LDS-style afterlife ("Hi - you are in Spirit Prison ... please choose from one of the following options ..) will realize that the LDS religion is the true one?

How could they miss that point? And having grasped that obvious fact, why wouldn't they accept baptism, given time to think about it and ask for further information if they want it, which one can surely assume is the case?

Chap wrote:What does it matter to you why it matters to me?

It doesn't really. I was just curious.

But seriously, what are these 'guidelines'? Can I read them online, and do you think they would, if observed, stop anyone entering Bin Laden, and Gaddafi for baptism?

The guidelines the church put out years ago saying we should be entering names of those who are related to us and no longer live. Those ones. I'm sure they're online somehwere.

by the way, don't you agree that anyone who finds themselves being offered baptism in the context of an LDS-style afterlife ("Hi - you are in Spirit Prison ... please choose from one of the following options ..) will realize that the LDS religion is the true one?

Beats me what it'll be like. I don't think it'll quite be as you seem to think.

How could they miss that point? And having grasped that obvious fact, why wouldn't they accept baptism, given time to think about it and ask for further information if they want it, which one can surely assume is the case?

Beats me.

stemelbow wrote:

Chap wrote:by the way, don't you agree that anyone who finds themselves being offered baptism in the context of an LDS-style afterlife ("Hi - you are in Spirit Prison ... please choose from one of the following options ..) will realize that the LDS religion is the true one?

Beats me what it'll be like. I don't think it'll quite be as you seem to think.

You don't know what it will be like, but you know enough to think my surmise is wrong? So what do you think you know? If you knew nothing, you would have no grounds for thinking I am wrong. Fess up.

But seriously, what are these 'guidelines'? Can I read them online, and do you think they would, if observed, stop anyone entering Bin Laden, and Gaddafi for baptism?

Why would you want to stop it? What do you think is going to happen to Bin Laden or Gaddafi after it happens?

bcspace wrote:

But seriously, what are these 'guidelines'? Can I read them online, and do you think they would, if observed, stop anyone entering Bin Laden, and Gaddafi for baptism?

Why would you want to stop it? What do you think is going to happen to Bin Laden or Gaddafi after it happens?

Please pay attention. I don't want to stop it. Quite the reverse. I asked:

Chap wrote:How long will it take before Gaddafi is baptized by some keen young LDS people? I'd quite like that to happen to him, really, so he can enjoy eternity in the company of the exalted Schryver and bcspace, which I know is bound to give him keen pleasure.

I just want you to have some really interesting company in the CK.