Serious question: How to prevent temple ordinances on dead?

[_asbestosman]

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that you don't have some God-given right to have no one ever offend you.

I agree as far as that goes. I just don't think that means we can safely ignore being offensive.

Maybe I'm wrong. It appears there is a God-given mandate to avoid being offensive:

Matthew 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

see also Luke 17:1

And yet, I think logically you cannot avoid all offenses so you have to weigh the consequences on both sides. The scirptures also say:

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

[_Blixa]

B&L:

I'm sorry to respond so late with condolences. I've been lurking on and off and missed this threrad at its inception. You have my warm wishes and heartfelt sympathy. I'm sorry this thread had to attract some of the filth it has. The arrogance of some people knows no bounds. I have to say some of the responses here shocked even me.

[_Jason Bourne]

Answer this question, Jason. Can LDS achieve the Celestial Kingdom/exaltation to godhood, if they fail to do the work of vicarious baptism in this life on earth?

Yes.

Can an LDS person enter the Temple to perform vicarious baptism without a TR? Can an LDS person secure a TR without tithing?

Gottchya on that one. Sorry I missed the point.

[_Jersey Girl]

Answer this question, Jason. Can LDS achieve the Celestial Kingdom/exaltation to godhood, if they fail to do the work of vicarious baptism in this life on earth?

Yes.

Can an LDS person enter the Temple to perform vicarious baptism without a TR? Can an LDS person secure a TR without tithing?

Gottchya on that one. Sorry I missed the point.

I'm sorry. I was thinking in circles when I wrote the post you're responding to here, still bristling from Nehor's conduct and your "shameful" remark. Having said that, yes, I know that performing vicarious baptism isn't a requirement for exaltation. I think you understand the reasoning behind the second remark that you replied to. At least I think so.

Jason, quite frankly, I think I've earned a right to be cynical regarding so many things about LDS doctrine and ordinances. Who did Jesus baptize, Jason? The living or the dead? Your church cherry picked one line of scripture and built an entire doctrine around it.

You say in another post that your church doesn't only use the Bible as scripture. How well I know. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where Christ or anyone, alluded to additional scriptures. I do see however, several cautions regarding the preaching of "another" Gospel and Rigdon gave you exactly what the Bible warns against. Another Gospel. I know you haven't seen proof of that yet, but there is no question in my mind that you will.

While the LDS church and it's members feel they are performing a unique service to others in performing vicarious baptism, that unique service is seen as an affront to those of other faiths and to those with no faith at all who do not want the names of their loved ones on any sort of LDS affiliated records or rolls. Your Articles of Faith imply that people are free to worship what they will and yet, while the practice of vicarious baptism upholds that freedom in this life, it reaches through into the eternities to disrespect the choices that people made while living on this earth. The very choices and freedom that the Articles of Faith claim for all.

I'm sure that I'm rambling and so I will stop. I'll try to write more about this another time.

Jersey Girl

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm sorry. I was thinking in circles when I wrote the post you're responding to here, still bristling from Nehor's conduct and your "shameful" remark.

No problem.

My "shameful" comment was a bit strong. Sorry.

Having said that, yes, I know that performing vicarious baptism isn't a requirement for exaltation. I think you understand the reasoning behind the second remark that you replied to. At least I think so.

Yes

Jason, quite frankly, I think I've earned a right to be cynical regarding so many things about LDS doctrine and ordinances.

Well you are welcome to be cynical about whatever you wish. In some cases I may agree and in others I do not. This is one I do not think deserves cynicism.

Who did Jesus baptize, Jason? The living or the dead? Your church cherry picked one line of scripture and built an entire doctrine around it.

You are welcome to view it that way. Mormons think that it was revealed to Joseph Smith to restore an ancient Christian practice. Clearly there is only one verse in the Bible that alludes to this-1Cor 15:29 so it is clear that Mormons don't base the practice on the Bible alone.

You say in another post that your church doesn't only use the Bible as scripture. How well I know. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where Christ or anyone, alluded to additional scriptures.

I think you need to re thing that. First, the New Testament itself was new scripture to those who received the gospels, Acts, Revelation and the Epistles.

I do see however, several cautions regarding the preaching of "another" Gospel and Rigdon gave you exactly what the Bible warns against. Another Gospel. I know you haven't seen proof of that yet, but there is no question in my mind that you will.

Another gospel is all a matter of perspectve. Some EVs think Catholics have another Gospel and some vis versa. Mormons think you all have an incorrect gospel and you think the Mormons do. Based on my own study of early Christianity I do not think there was ever one "correct" gospel at all.

While the LDS church and it's members feel they are performing a unique service to others in performing vicarious baptism, that unique service is seen as an affront to those of other faiths and to those with no faith at all who do not want the names of their loved ones on any sort of LDS affiliated records or rolls.

Some see it that way sure. I understand that. Mormons take affront to being called non Christian and being told that they are going to Hell because they have the wrong theological Jesus.

Your Articles of Faith imply that people are free to worship what they will and yet, while the practice of vicarious baptism upholds that freedom in this life, it reaches through into the eternities to disrespect the choices that people made while living on this earth. The very choices and freedom that the Articles of Faith claim for all.

I think you distort the practice. Mormons do it because they want to give the chance for those they think are being preached to in the next life to accept baptism. It does not automatically make anyone LDS at all. There is no limit what so ever on anyones choice or agency. And keep in mind that most of the deceased never ever had a chance to hear the LDS gospel.

[_asbestosman]

Your Articles of Faith imply that people are free to worship what they will and yet, while the practice of vicarious baptism upholds that freedom in this life, it reaches through into the eternities to disrespect the choices that people made while living on this earth. The very choices and freedom that the Articles of Faith claim for all.

I doubt that's what the Articles of Faith mean. We wish to allow others to worship as they will, but that doesn't mean we respect those choices as equally valid. We send missionaries around the world because we believe our message is superior in some sense. We of course allow them to disagree or feel that our message is inferior and that does not offend us.

If it were about respecting those choices, the BYU would not kick out students who were once LDS but then joined another religion. It isn't about respecting choices but rather about respecting one's right to choose. Many hristians may respect my right to choose to be Buddist or even an atheist, but they will not respect my choice as equally valid to theirs. In fact, if I were an atheist I'm certain that many would have no qualms in telling me that I'll go to hell when I die.