The Light of Christ

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7306

Albion wrote:

Just for fun: "And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said, Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from Almigfhty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD, as to the mortal body." Book of Mormon, Mosiah 18;13. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of baptism for the dead but it is claimed it is the "fullness of the gospel".

But wait...
This can't be right...
This would mean baptism is only an ordinance for...this life...

thews · **Joined:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am **Posts:** 3044

gdemetz wrote:

I glad you mentioned 2 Timothy! Those verses are referring to you guys! As I said before, you guys can always come up with some little cheap anti Mormon site which wants to change history. However, what helped my conversion were the real scholarly sites! I would go to the university library and research real factual history and teachings, etc. The interpreters Bible has 900 scholars who know these things! I will also give you another real scholarly source, "A Companion to the Bible."

"At Corinth, certain CHRISTIANS had themselves baptized substitutionally for some of the dead who had not had the opportunity of hearing the gospel, in the desire to place them too within the benefit of Christ's death. This baptism had the aim of giviing these dead a chance of rising again for salvation."

In other words, a chance to be born of the water, etc. which is a requisite for salvation! My gosh man! There are many records of baptisms for the dead being performed by Christians for centuries, and the apostate council of Carthage tries to eliminate it as late as 397 AD with it's 6th canon which forbade any further practice! You apostates try to change doctrine, and even change history!!!

But wait! Here is another site which agrees with you: "Papa Joes born again site" - learn the truth about those ole Mormons! How the had all them there wives, and haw they baptized all them dead people!

Head still stuck in sand. Christians don't need to dead dunk people, because 1800 years didn't pass between when Jesus Christ died and Joseph Smith used his magical occult rocks placed in a hat. Baptism for the dead is a Mormon theology to give souls the chance to get out of Mormon limbo... end. Still waiting for you to reference the FairMormon information to back up what you said, but I understand why you need to continue to run off on tangents you believe you can argue based on interpretation. One more time... you claimed the six things I listed were "ridiculous" and could be proven wrong using Fair. You have fallen on your face with racism and polygamy, so there's still four more you can fall on your face again... waiting.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Thews, you are as blind as a bat! How many truly scholarly references will it take to open your blind eyes up?!? I'm giving you very good non Mormon references! Okay, you want a Mormon one from FAIR? Okay, here it is:

"Attempts to shrug this off (baptism for the dead) as a reference by Paul to a practice he does not condone but only uses to support the doctrine of the resurrection are indefensible. Paul's statement makes no sense unless the practice was valid and the saints in Corinth knew it. This is easily demonstrated if we just imagine a young protestant, who doubts the resurrection, who goes to his pastor with his problem. The pastor answers him saying, "But what about the Mormons who practice baptism for the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" You know what the young doubter would say {unless he is Albion}. He would say, "Pastor, they are Mormons, what's your point?"

"In fact, we know that baptism for the dead was practiced for a long time in the early church. As John A. Tvedtnes has noted:

"historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the 6th canon of the council of Carthage in 397 AD. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice..."

I recommend reading the whole article from FAIR, particularly the section entitled "Ancient Roots."

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7306

Drifting wrote:

gdemetz wrote:

I glad you mentioned 2 Timothy! Those verses are referring to you guys! As I said before, you guys can always come up with some little cheap anti Mormon site which wants to change history. However, what helped my conversion were the real scholarly sites! I would go to the university library and research real factual history and teachings, etc. The interpreters Bible has 900 scholars who know these things! I will also give you another real scholarly source, "A Companion to the Bible."

"At Corinth, certain CHRISTIANS had themselves baptized substitutionally for some of the dead who had not had the opportunity of hearing the gospel, in the desire to place them too within the benefit of Christ's death. This baptism had the aim of giviing these dead a chance of rising again for salvation."

In other words, a chance to be born of the water, etc. which is a requisite for salvation! My gosh man! There are many records of baptisms for the dead being performed by Christians for centuries, and the apostate council of Carthage tries to eliminate it as late as 397 AD with it's 6th canon which forbade any further practice! You apostates try to change doctrine, and even change history!!!

But wait! Here is another site which agrees with you: "Papa Joes born again site" - learn the truth about those ole Mormons! How the had all them there wives, and haw they baptized all them dead people!

If it is a prerequisite for salvation what happens to those aboriginal babies in the Amazon or the Australian outback who die without any record of their existence?

Bump

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Those who have already passed on as well as angels will have to help us with that work. God overlooks no one.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7306

gdemetz wrote:

Those who have already passed on as well as angels will have to help us with that work. God overlooks no one.

But we are told specifically, as the reason for temples, that these ordinances have to take place in THIS LIFE. It is why such a great emphasis is placed on going to the Temple. This work cannot be done in the next life. Can you point to a single solitary Church doctrinal reference that supports your opinion that angels can do work for the dead in the next life? Thought not.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Did I state that they weren't done in this life? No, I didn't. I merely stated that they would assist us. I think I see why you are an apostate now.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7306

gdemetz wrote:

Did I state that they weren't done in this life? No, I didn't. I merely stated that they would assist us. I think I see why you are an apostate now.

Sorry dude, my mistake.
Now show me a Church doctrinal reference that supports your assertion...

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Wikipedia:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS church) has 135 operating temples worldwide to perform endowment ceremonies, marriages, and other services for both the living and by proxy in behalf of dead ancestors."

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7306

gdemetz wrote:

Wikipedia:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS church) has 135 operating temples worldwide to perform endowment ceremonies, marriages, and other services for both the living and by proxy in behalf of dead ancestors."

Two things:
1. Wikipedia is not an official Church doctrinal reference guide (unless something's changed)
2. Your quote says nothing about angels filling in the blanks for people who have died without any record of their living existence.

Apart from that....great quote...

Tarski · **Joined:** Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:57 pm **Posts:** 3059

gdemetz wrote:

Tarski, it is what the prophets have taught. Do you have a better explanation of the omnipresence of God? If you do, share it with us, by all means!

Here are two.

1) There is no God

2) If the is a God there is no reason that we should expect to have the capacity to understand or have an explanation for the omnipresence of God.

Most importantly;

Your explanation is not an explanation at all. It is the mere noising of muddled undefined words with no explanatory power or connection to the web of actual knowledge. It adds nothing but only (at best) rephrases or renames that which needs explaining. In short, vacuous nonsense that just makes slow-wits feel good.

thews · **Joined:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am **Posts:** 3044

gdemetz wrote:

Thews, you are as blind as a bat! How many truly scholarly references will it take to open your blind eyes up?!? I'm giving you very good non Mormon references! Okay, you want a Mormon one from FAIR? Okay, here it is:

"Attempts to shrug this off (baptism for the dead) as a reference by Paul to a practice he does not condone but only uses to support the doctrine of the resurrection are indefensible. Paul's statement makes no sense unless the practice was valid and the saints in Corinth knew it. This is easily demonstrated if we just imagine a young protestant, who doubts the resurrection, who goes to his pastor with his problem. The pastor answers him saying, "But what about the Mormons who practice baptism for the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" You know what the young doubter would say {unless he is Albion}. He would say, "Pastor, they are Mormons, what's your point?"

"In fact, we know that baptism for the dead was practiced for a long time in the early church. As John A. Tvedtnes has noted:

"historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the 6th canon of the council of Carthage in 397 AD. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice..."

I recommend reading the whole article from FAIR, particularly the section entitled "Ancient Roots."

I didn't ask you about baptism for the dead. You said the six points (based on fact and not on opinion) I listed were, in your words, "ridiculous" and failed to state why. You then claimed the answer regarding why could be found at Fair. You then attempted to argue racism and polygamy, before hitting a dead end and running away. Now, you're attempting to argue a topic (baptism for the dead) that can be twisted with interpretation. I'm not interested in anything but facts, which you said I could find at Fair. Either put up, or shut up. If you're going to make claims you have to back them up, but again I must assume you simply aren't intelligent enough to formulate a retort. So use Fair to explain why the six points I listed are "ridiculous" and you may gain an ounce of credibility.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Thews, I don't have time to give primary lessons here! You don't want to talk about baptism for the dead because you have been shot down about that, even though you probably still can't see it! Okay, pick out ONE more topic that you can't seem to understand, and I will address that also!

Tarski, maybe you need to have some simple missionary discussions first before you try to respond to one of my posts. I don't want to waste my valuable time responding to such ignorance!

Drifting, if that comes form a source which is anti Mormon, are you sure that you want to hear a Mormon source?!?

DrW · **Posted:** Tue May 29, 2012 10:32 pm

gdemetz wrote:

Thews, I don't have time to give primary lessons here! You don't want to talk about baptism for the dead because you have been shot down about that, even though you probably still can't see it! Okay, pick out ONE more topic that you can't seem to understand, and I will address that also!

Tarski, maybe you need to have some simple missionary discussions first before you try to respond to one of my posts. I don't want to waste my valuable time responding to such ignorance!

gdemetz,

Might be a good idea to find out a bit more about Tarski before suggesting that he is ignorant and needs some simple missionary discussions in order to respond to your posts. Same goes for suggesting that Thews needs primary lessons.

Right now I am ROTFLMAO at your suggestions.

When you find out a bit more about Dr. Tarski, you will see why.

Same goes for Thews.

That loud sucking sound you hear is your credibility.
________

And in case you care, had I seen your posts before this morning, my response would have been pretty much the same as Tarski's. And I was born into the LDS Church, completed seminary and institute, and was married in the temple before I figured it out, so please don't suggest missionary or primary lessons for me - Thanks.

ludwigm · **Posted:** Tue May 29, 2012 10:47 pm

DrW wrote:

gdemetz wrote:

Thews, I don't have time to give primary lessons here! You don't want to talk about baptism for the dead because you have been shot down about that, even though you probably still can't see it! Okay, pick out ONE more topic that you can't seem to understand, and I will address that also!

Tarski, maybe you need to have some simple missionary discussions first before you try to respond to one of my posts. I don't want to waste my valuable time responding to such ignorance!

Drifting, if that comes form a source which is anti Mormon, are you sure that you want to hear a Mormon source?!?

gdemetz,

Might be a good idea to find out a bit more about Tarski before suggesting that he is ignorant and needs some simple missionary discussions in order to respond to your posts.

Right now I am ROTFLMAO at your suggestion.

When you find out a bit more about Dr. Tarski, you will see why.

+1

As he is on my ignore list, I read that one-bit-brained gdemetz's comments when they are quoted by others.
The man who can not use the quote feature - any link, picture or formatting - calls somebody ignorant...

And he is modest: "pick out ONE more topic that you can't seem to understand, and I will address that also!"

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

As he is on my ignore list, I read that one-bit-brained gdemetz's comments when they are quoted by others.
The man who can not use the quote feature - any link, picture or formatting - calls somebody ignorant...

And he is modest: "pick out ONE more topic that you can't seem to understand, and I will address that also!"[/quote]

Are you happy now?

ludwigm · **Posted:** Tue May 29, 2012 11:51 pm

gdemetz wrote:

Code:

As he is on my ignore list, I read that one-bit-brained gdemetz's comments when they are quoted by others.
The man who can not use the quote feature - any link, picture or formatting - calls somebody ignorant...

And he is modest: "pick out ONE more topic that you can't seem to understand, and I will address that also!"[/quote]

Are you happy now?

Fine.

You have proved you can not use the quote feature.
Look at the orphan [/quote] ...

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7306

Drifting wrote:

gdemetz wrote:

Wikipedia:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS church) has 135 operating temples worldwide to perform endowment ceremonies, marriages, and other services for both the living and by proxy in behalf of dead ancestors."

Two things:
1. Wikipedia is not an official Church doctrinal reference guide (unless something's changed)
2. Your quote says nothing about angels filling in the blanks for people who have died without any record of their living existence.

Apart from that....great quote...

Still waiting for you to back up your gum bumping with an official reference...

DrW · **Posted:** Wed May 30, 2012 8:56 am

gdemetz wrote:

As he is on my ignore list, I read that one-bit-brained gdemetz's comments when they are quoted by others.
The man who can not use the quote feature - any link, picture or formatting - calls somebody ignorant...

And he is modest: "pick out ONE more topic that you can't seem to understand, and I will address that also!"

Quote:

Are you happy now?[//quote]

gdemetz,

You have got to be joking. This is a joke, right?

This is how you demonstrate to ludwigm that you know how to use the quote feature?

Seriously?

Maybe you should find someone to provide you with some remedial basic message board usage instructions.

Albion · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:43 pm **Posts:** 1390

Thews, you will have long way for gdemetz to respond to the several points you raised. I have mentioned the failure of the Book of Mormon, supposedly the "fulness of the Gospel" to even mention baptism for the dead and have also quoted the Mosiah verse twice to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon clearly suggest baptism is an ordinance for life only and both times he has conveniently failed to respond. He does appear to ignore anything that dents his locked in viewpoint.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Albion, neither the Bible, Book of Mormon, are any other one book is a tell all concerning the gospel! I have already demonstrated clearly by a number of true scholarly sources how baptism for the dead was practiced ion the early church and continued at least until 397 AD when it was banned by the council of Carthage, 6th canon! Is there something else you have a question about?

The Light of Christ

Who is online