Baptism for the dead not necessary?

[_Joseph]

From the D&C Section 137

' 1The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.
2I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;
3Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.
4I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.
5I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;'
(LDS.org online scriptures)

------------------------------------


Did joe see Alvin in the celestial kindom or just that he would be there someday - after dead dunking and working out his full time during the mellinium and whatnot? Seems it was already there even if he saw his parents who were still alive.

[Guest]

-

[_Pahoran]

My understanding was that this vision of Alvin rather than triggering inquiry was meant to provide a definitive answer, that those that died without the gospel didn't need baptism all that was required according to this vision was the desires of their hearts. The same was true and remains true in Mormon doctrine for little children who still don't require baptism.

Here's what it says:
"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; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability, are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven."

The wording is a rehash of Alma 41:3 which talks about the resurrection and says:

"And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good."

It also falls in line that "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). Since the person who lives a good life but doesn't have the opportunity automatically falls under this category.

The LDS version of events pretends that Joseph Smith was surprised by the revelation that Alvin would receive the highest heaven. At Alvin Smith's funeral the minister suggested that since Alvin wasn't a church member he wasn't getting to heaven.
(William Smith Interview, 13 November 1893)

Oh, it "pretends" that, does it?

Let's see what the scripture itself has to say:

[5] I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

[6] And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

[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;

Thus, it's not some "version of events" that anyone "pretends" anything, but is Joseph's own account of his experience.

Since he and his whole family rejected the idea that Alvin would not go to heaven it shouldn't shock anyone.

Actually verse 6 explains precisely why Joseph "marveled" to see Alvin there.

Does that explain why you quoted verse 7 and not verse 6? Because verse 6 does not support your evidence-free speculation?

I agree that there is someone in view who "pretends" something about this scripture; but it's not the Latter-day Saints.

Even with it being in the future at the time of resurrection, if the vision had been from God what a perfect time it would have been to explain Baptism for the dead. Instead God inspired Joseph Smith to contradict the Baptism for the dead justification in 1832 in his Inspired translation of Hebrews 11:40 and in 1836 explained that people who had good desires and did good things will be resurrected in the highest heaven because God judges their works and hearts and children who die don't need baptism either. Then within the space of a decade, in 1840, God is contradicting himself because Joseph Smith has found something else in the Bible he wants to "restore".

The later innovation of Baptism for the dead resulted from the attempt to restore the lost practice in 1 Corinthians 15:29, in a similar fashion to the way he attempted a restoration of a 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 "telestial" kingdom that wasn't necessary. As per usual, consideration wasn't even given to his 1832 JST Hebrews 11:40 or to this past 1836 vision when Smith started preaching Baptism for the dead four years later on 15 August 1840. It seems Joseph Smith had no problem with contradicting past "revelations" with new "visions" and new "visions" with past "revelations".

Except there is no actual contradiction. Baptism for the Dead does not contradict anything in Section 137; it merely contradicts your interpretation thereof.

And your interpretation is driven by your need to find fault with the Church of Jesus Christ, and with Joseph Smith in particular.

As such, it is without value in any actual discourse regarding the meaning of LDS scriptures.

Joseph's vision of the future kingdom saw Alvin after the resurrection. Alvin subsequently received baptism for the dead before the resurrection, which is one of the ways that the Father's promises to Joseph can be fulfilled without compromising the requirement for baptism set out in John 3:3-5.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Joseph]

pohran wrote: "And your interpretation is driven by your need to find fault with the Church of Jesus Christ, and with Joseph Smith in particular."
*********************************

This idea that any questions are for the need to find fault is what eventually drove me out of l-dsinc. The questions started simply to learn the truth but th attitude of many like you that no one would question anything unless they were some kind of evil person started grating big time.

Can't you and your moronicpriesthood buddies understand some people ask questions because they would like an answer? Nothing sinister and no ulterior motives. To be met with your attitude makes/made us wonder what is wrong and further (and much, much deeper looking - that never would have come about if the questions had simply been answered) looking and study brought down the whole house of cards.

Why so defensive and paranoid unless you have reason to be?

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Joseph, please remember to start Terrestrial-caliber threads in the Terrestrial forum ONLY. Thanks in advance.]

[_Joseph]

Sorry Doc, the topic I was reading prompted the question and I didn't even pay attention.

So what makes it a lower mythical kingdom topic anyhow?

[_Pahoran]

Sorry Doc, the topic I was reading prompted the question and I didn't even pay attention.

So what makes it a lower mythical kingdom topic anyhow?

Let's see.

How about lower case "joe" and "dead dunking" in the OP?

Just a guess, of course. Maybe that's as respectful as you are capable of being.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_schreech]

And your interpretation is driven by your need to find fault with the Church of Jesus Christ, and with Joseph Smith in particular.

I don't think that the Church of Jesus Christ believes in baptism for the dead. I also don't understand how finding fault with the Church of Jesus Christ reflects poorly on joe...http://www.thechurchofjesuschrist.org/index.cfm

[_Pahoran]

And your interpretation is driven by your need to find fault with the Church of Jesus Christ, and with Joseph Smith in particular.

I don't think that the Church of Jesus Christ believes in baptism for the dead. I also don't understand how finding fault with the Church of Jesus Christ reflects poorly on joe...http://www.thechurchofjesuschrist.org/index.cfm

Y'know schreech, the trouble with being a smart-aleck is that there's always the chance it may backfire on you. That's a risk you should watch out for, particularly since you're not too swift to start with.

Observe their beliefs page. Who translated that book, the name of which is highlighted in blue, indicating a link to another page?

And now, if it's all the same to you, I will continue to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as The Church of Jesus Christ, in the hope that eventually even you might be able to figure out which church I'm talking about.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_schreech]

Y'know schreech, the trouble with being a smart-aleck is that there's always the chance it may backfire on you. That's a risk you should watch out for, particularly since you're not too swift to start with.

Observe their beliefs page. Who translated that book, the name of which is highlighted in blue, indicating a link to another page?

And now, if it's all the same to you, I will continue to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as The Church of Jesus Christ, in the hope that eventually even you might be able to figure out which church I'm talking about.

What exactly backfired? Are saying that the REAL Church of Jesus Christ practices baptisms for the dead or are you saying that they are the actual church that joe started when he translated the Book of Mormon....I think its hilarious that you are actually so insecure that you had to spend time reading their site in order to secure some small/non-"victory" - lol. Your poor ego just couldn't handle it I guess...

You are the dimwit who can't even get the name of your own church correct. Call it anything you want but... If its all the same to you, I will continue to refer to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as The Pseudo-Religious Social Club of Extra-terrestrial Worshiping Suckers, in the hope that eventually even you might be able to figure out which church I'm talking about.