nermal

How, exactly, are body parts, the identity of which are unverifiable, actual events in real life?

Ed

alek0

About baptism of the dead: it seems to me as "we couldn't get you while you were alive, we'll get you after you die" thing.

Nowadays you can find mormon missionaries everywhere. If you've met them and weren't impressed with their religion and refused to convert while you were alive, seems to me as a gesture of ultimate disrespect to "baptize" you after you die, since then you are not able to say no.

I've discussed this with several mormons, but I wasn't able to get them to see my point of view, since they kept telling me "but your spirit can refuse baptism". :banghead:

trendkill

It's taken from a description of Solomon's temple in the Bible:

trendkill

As I said, baptisms for the dead are done mostly for people who lived long ago and never had a chance to be baptized when they were alive. I've never heard of this practice you imagine of waiting until someone who rejects the "Gospel" dies and then saying "aha, now's our chance to 'get' him". In fact, I'm a little rusty on Mormon doctrine but I wouldn't be surprised if baptism for the dead was automatically invalid or moot for people who rejected the Gospel when they were alive. Free will (or "agency", as they call it) is a major tenet of Mormonism. Freedom of religion/conscience is explicitly included in the Mormon 'creed' (the 11th Article of Faith spells it out: "We claim the privilege of worshipping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how, where, or what they may."). The whole "we couldn't get you while you were alive, we'll get you after you die" attitude you describe is not supported by any Mormon doctrine or teaching that I've ever heard of.

Zehava

Of course this make absolutely no sense. I'll state I know little about the Mormon religion, but I assume it is similar to most Christian belief systems.

I.E. once you die you either:

1> Go to Heaven

or

2> Go to Hell

For #1 there's no need for a baptism, you are already in heaven it does nothing for you.

For #2 the same thing applies, your in Hell, eternal damnation a simple "baptism" ain't gonna save you.

Though as I stated I'm not familiar with the Mormon belief system so they could very well have beliefs of the afterlife not in line with your typical Christian.

trendkill

In Mormonism, you don't go to Heaven or Hell upon death. Immediately after death, spirits go to a sort of holding area to await the judgment. Everyone who is not on track for salvation, including everyone above the age of eight who has not had a Mormon baptism, is in "spirit prison".

The spirits in prison are the ones for whom baptisms for the dead are performed. These people may not know exactly what is going on, not having seen Heaven or Hell, and there is actually supposed to be a prison ministry where people have a chance to hear the Gospel and accept it. My understanding of Mormon doctrine is that if they accept the Gospel in prison, and they happen to be baptized by proxy, then their baptism takes effect and I suppose they are transferred to paradise (where the righteous await judgment).

nermal

I actually sat through all six sessions of the missionary's speil when I was stationed in Idaho Falls (Mormon Central) just for kicks. I recall that there are six levels of afterlife, the lowest being hell, the highest being literal godhood for the righteous. You get your own world to rule and everything!
They also told me Joseph Smith said of hell: If anyone living saw it, he would commit suicide just to get there. Mormon hell is apparently gobs better than earth, but the pain is in knowing you could have been a real live God, and didn't.

Ed

sbaii

South Park did a show on the LDS (Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dum,dum,dum,dum,dum). It was hilarious. The story about Smith "reading" the gold tablets in his hat to a publisher was just too rich. I don't know why they would make this up, but I wondered if it was an accurate story.

trendkill

It would only be six if you count spirit prison and paradise. There are three levels of exaltation, Terrestrial being the lowest, then Telestial, then Celestial (which contains the possibility of eternal progression). The Terrestrial Kingdom is the one Joseph Smith was talking about when he said a man would commit suicide just to get there.

Although only those who commit unpardonable sins like murder and denying Christ are believed to be thrown into Outer Darkness (the pitch-black realm where Satan and his minions supposedly dwell), many Mormons consider all but the Celestial Kindgom a form of damnation, because although it's really nice there, you are unable to progress and are stuck in the same state forever. This is a similar viewpoint to atheists who denounce the usual Christian idea of Heaven (praising God eternally, etc.) as terrifyingly dull and worthless. I imagine that according to most Mormons, if you don't get to keep changing, progressing, and improving, existence is pointless. The lesser Heavens would be basically gilded cages.

Joseph Smith is supposed to have translated the Golden Plates by the power of God and dictated the translation to a scribe who wrote down what he said. Then punctuation was added, etc., it was compiled into a book and published. I don't know where a hat would come into it.

nermal

Reading the leprechaun thread elsewhere on this forum made me recall instances where I have used Mormonism to illuminate the fallacies in the logic of Christians. Most other denominations, though they think virtually everyone else is going to hell, particularly despise Mormonism, and consider it on par with Heaven's Gate et. al.
So when confronted with the "truth" and extraordinary evidence of the gospels (personal accounts) I simply ask why the Babtist, Lutheran, Pentacostal whatever why she doesn't subscribe to Mormonism.
"Surely if the personal accounts of those at the tomb is sufficient evidence of the truth of the gospels, then the witness of Joseph Smith's twelve is sufficient evidence of the Book of Mormon."

There is, of course, no response to this. It's not a leprechaun or IPU cliche, but directly assails the validity of their "evidence" and uses their own criteria for selection against them. At the very least, it ends the conversation.

Ed