Mormons?

[onefour1]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

So you say free will because God went ahead and had the Latter-day Saints perform baptisms for the dead without asking each person beforehand if they wanted it? First off, Jesus set up a missionary program in the world of spirits to convert them to his gospel. This is why the Bible mentions that he taught to the spirits in prison and that he preached the gospel to the dead. I don't think all the dead have been taught yet and I don't believe that all who will be taught have died yet. Secondly, God does not necessarily seek the opinions of all people before he commands his people to do something. Just ask the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites if God asked them for permission to destroy them. Lastly, as I continue to tell you over and over again, God does allow man to choose salvation and he also allows man to choose damnation. If man has not received the gospel in this life, He, being a fair God, allows all those who have not had the chance to receive it to receive it. Now it may be that they were deceived in this life and were led astray by false teachings and deception. Perhaps in the world of disembodied spirits they finally get the opportunity to choose without the false teachings and deceptions. However, since those who receive the gospel in the world of disembodied spirits still need to be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven, and since they cannot be baptized as a disembodied spirit, God has set up in his church the doctrine of baptism for the dead that all will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel and have the baptism necessary to enter his kingdom. There is no lack of free will in the process. As I've stated before, each person will have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the gospel and if they reject it, any vicarious baptism performed for them will be of no effect and they will have had the chance through free will to enter the into his kingdom or not. No coercion, no force, just an unaccepted baptism that is of no effect because they did not choose to accept the gospel.

Nowhere in all the bible does it teach that disembodied spirits have no choice. Why would Jesus go and preach the gospel to the dead if the dead have no choice in whether to accept it or not? Why would he bother?

1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

God is giving us all the chance to change our hearts if we never have had the opportunity to receive his gospel and reject it. This is the reason he preached to the dead.

I can't say that Paul never taught baptism for the dead nor can I see how you can make such a statement. I say this because we do not have all the teachings of Paul. The bible does not contain all that every prophet ever taught. But according to 1 Corinthians 15:29 he bolstered his defense of the resurrection by using baptism for the dead as an argument. He certainly was aware of the practice. Instead putting it down as a false teaching he chose to use it as a reason to believe in the resurrection. Would Paul have used a false teaching for a reason to believe in the resurrection? I seriously doubt it. Paul knew the teaching was true and from God.

Read this carefully. Please.

The Mormon Doctrine of Salvation for the Dead: An Examination of Its Claimed Biblical Basis - Christian Research Institute

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 20, number 2 (November-December 1997). For more information about the Christian Research Journal click here. SUMMARY The Mormon church cites 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6, and 1 Corinthians 15:29 as biblical evidence, respectively...

www.equip.org

Only if you will read this carefully. Please. Agreed?
Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times

 

[BS Filter]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

 

[BS Filter]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

So you say free will because God went ahead and had the Latter-day Saints perform baptisms for the dead without asking each person beforehand if they wanted it? First off, Jesus set up a missionary program in the world of spirits to convert them to his gospel. This is why the Bible mentions that he taught to the spirits in prison and that he preached the gospel to the dead. I don't think all the dead have been taught yet and I don't believe that all who will be taught have died yet. Secondly, God does not necessarily seek the opinions of all people before he commands his people to do something. Just ask the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites if God asked them for permission to destroy them. Lastly, as I continue to tell you over and over again, God does allow man to choose salvation and he also allows man to choose damnation. If man has not received the gospel in this life, He, being a fair God, allows all those who have not had the chance to receive it to receive it. Now it may be that they were deceived in this life and were led astray by false teachings and deception. Perhaps in the world of disembodied spirits they finally get the opportunity to choose without the false teachings and deceptions. However, since those who receive the gospel in the world of disembodied spirits still need to be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven, and since they cannot be baptized as a disembodied spirit, God has set up in his church the doctrine of baptism for the dead that all will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel and have the baptism necessary to enter his kingdom. There is no lack of free will in the process. As I've stated before, each person will have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the gospel and if they reject it, any vicarious baptism performed for them will be of no effect and they will have had the chance through free will to enter the into his kingdom or not. No coercion, no force, just an unaccepted baptism that is of no effect because they did not choose to accept the gospel.

Nowhere in all the bible does it teach that disembodied spirits have no choice. Why would Jesus go and preach the gospel to the dead if the dead have no choice in whether to accept it or not? Why would he bother?

1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

God is giving us all the chance to change our hearts if we never have had the opportunity to receive his gospel and reject it. This is the reason he preached to the dead.

I can't say that Paul never taught baptism for the dead nor can I see how you can make such a statement. I say this because we do not have all the teachings of Paul. The bible does not contain all that every prophet ever taught. But according to 1 Corinthians 15:29 he bolstered his defense of the resurrection by using baptism for the dead as an argument. He certainly was aware of the practice. Instead putting it down as a false teaching he chose to use it as a reason to believe in the resurrection. Would Paul have used a false teaching for a reason to believe in the resurrection? I seriously doubt it. Paul knew the teaching was true and from God.

Read this carefully. Please.

The Mormon Doctrine of Salvation for the Dead: An Examination of Its Claimed Biblical Basis - Christian Research Institute

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 20, number 2 (November-December 1997). For more information about the Christian Research Journal click here. SUMMARY The Mormon church cites 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6, and 1 Corinthians 15:29 as biblical evidence, respectively...

www.equip.org

Only if you will read this carefully. Please. Agreed?
Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times

I'm familiar with Hugh Nibly. Mormon professor at BYU. NOT a Bible Scholar.

 

[onefour1]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

 

[Michelle420]

Mormons have a good sense of humor.

 

[BS Filter]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

 

[fncceo]

Mormons have a good sense of humor.

They'd have to have, considering all the abuse they take.

 

[MadChemist]

So....if you are a Mormon, can you explain the concept of what it is and why you chose that path? Did you do it on your own, or were you born into it due to family? What do you like/dislike about it?

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church).

I chose this path when I was sixteen on my own.

I chose it because I gained a personal witness of the gospel taught by the church.

What I like and dislike is probably not something I can respond to as it is not how I think about it's doctrine or operation.

The central point of the church's doctrine is Free Agency. It is through the exercise of that agency that we become converted.

The only real change in our lives is catalyzed by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is through his Atonement (and the associated grace) that we are able to truly change.

 

[MadChemist]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic writings across several millenia. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

 

[MadChemist]

Where is it going against God's words?

First there is the issue of free will. Second, a few of the parables Jesus told indicates death is a boundary, and if a decision is not made prior to that it is too late. Third, none of the Apostles (not even Paul) taught proxy baptism.

So you say free will because God went ahead and had the Latter-day Saints perform baptisms for the dead without asking each person beforehand if they wanted it? First off, Jesus set up a missionary program in the world of spirits to convert them to his gospel. This is why the Bible mentions that he taught to the spirits in prison and that he preached the gospel to the dead. I don't think all the dead have been taught yet and I don't believe that all who will be taught have died yet. Secondly, God does not necessarily seek the opinions of all people before he commands his people to do something. Just ask the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites if God asked them for permission to destroy them. Lastly, as I continue to tell you over and over again, God does allow man to choose salvation and he also allows man to choose damnation. If man has not received the gospel in this life, He, being a fair God, allows all those who have not had the chance to receive it to receive it. Now it may be that they were deceived in this life and were led astray by false teachings and deception. Perhaps in the world of disembodied spirits they finally get the opportunity to choose without the false teachings and deceptions. However, since those who receive the gospel in the world of disembodied spirits still need to be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven, and since they cannot be baptized as a disembodied spirit, God has set up in his church the doctrine of baptism for the dead that all will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel and have the baptism necessary to enter his kingdom. There is no lack of free will in the process. As I've stated before, each person will have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the gospel and if they reject it, any vicarious baptism performed for them will be of no effect and they will have had the chance through free will to enter the into his kingdom or not. No coercion, no force, just an unaccepted baptism that is of no effect because they did not choose to accept the gospel.

Nowhere in all the bible does it teach that disembodied spirits have no choice. Why would Jesus go and preach the gospel to the dead if the dead have no choice in whether to accept it or not? Why would he bother?

1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

God is giving us all the chance to change our hearts if we never have had the opportunity to receive his gospel and reject it. This is the reason he preached to the dead.

I can't say that Paul never taught baptism for the dead nor can I see how you can make such a statement. I say this because we do not have all the teachings of Paul. The bible does not contain all that every prophet ever taught. But according to 1 Corinthians 15:29 he bolstered his defense of the resurrection by using baptism for the dead as an argument. He certainly was aware of the practice. Instead putting it down as a false teaching he chose to use it as a reason to believe in the resurrection. Would Paul have used a false teaching for a reason to believe in the resurrection? I seriously doubt it. Paul knew the teaching was true and from God.

Read this carefully. Please.

The Mormon Doctrine of Salvation for the Dead: An Examination of Its Claimed Biblical Basis - Christian Research Institute

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 20, number 2 (November-December 1997). For more information about the Christian Research Journal click here. SUMMARY The Mormon church cites 1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6, and 1 Corinthians 15:29 as biblical evidence, respectively...

www.equip.org

Only if you will read this carefully. Please. Agreed?
Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times

I'm familiar with Hugh Nibly. Mormon professor at BYU. NOT a Bible Scholar.

This is difference in the way I approach these discussions.

If there is to be a discussion, we agree the bible is NOT the final authority.

 

[JoeB131]

How long before Bigot Joe finds this thread?

Not long... not sure how much fun I'm going to have with it, though.

 

[JoeB131]

It is not normally in my nature to condemn the faiths of others in this manner, but I can't let this pass without responding.

The Catholic faith involves a great deal of rituals and outright idolotry, which makes it absurdly hypocritical for you, as a Catholic, to falsely level that accusation against us of the LDS faith.

Actually, all religions are period pieces...

Catholicism has a high level of idolatry because it evolved at a time when there were a lot of idols.

Mormonism has a high level of craziness because it evolved during the Second Great Awakening, (which brought us such crazy as the Jehovah's Witlesses and the Seventh Day Adventists and all the other nuts.)

The big difference is, you really can't draw the clear line with Catholicism of where it lost the plot. It's the result of a Roman State trying to create a state religion to prop up a faltering empire.

Mormonism, on the other hand, has been pretty well documented. Joseph Smith was a two-bit con artist who figured out that he could trick less smart people out of their money and fuck their 14 year old daughters. We know that there were no ancient Hebrews in America now. We know that the "Book of Abraham" was a forgery based on a Pteomoleic Funerary Scroll. We know the Kinderhook Plates were forgeries by guys trying to fuck with Joseph Smith. We know there aren't any people in Quaker Dress living on the moon like Joseph Smith prophesized.

Yet we still have Mormons... which says a lot about the gullible nature of humanity.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic [sic] writings across several millenia [sic]. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

Your response made me think of a broader thought that I have had, and occasionally expressed, about the apparent inconsistency between science and religion.

Science, as we know it, tells us some things that seem irreconcilable with some things that religions tell us.

My take on this has been to conclude that our understanding of both science, and religion, is imperfect, incomplete, and riddled with man-made error; that if we had a true, perfect, and complete understanding of both fields of knowledge, we would find that they were in prefect agreement; and that the apparent contradictions between them are artifacts of our own error.

Surely, the answer to similar apparent contradictions within each field is similar, that these apparent contradictions are artifacts of our own imperfect knowledge and understanding.

Truly, though our scientists do the very best that they can to make sense of what we can observe about the world and the universe around us, and our religious leaders do the best to make sense of what God has tried to tell us, ultimately, we are all like the six blind men examining an elephant.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
Though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant
And, happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me, but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis very clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal
And, happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "The Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most the wondrous beast is like
Is very plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said, "Even the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can:
This marvel of an elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly in the right,
They all were in the wrong!

—John Godfrey Saxe​

 

[MadChemist]

We believe that baptism is a required ordinance that one must receive in order to be saved into the kingdom of heaven.

Your beliefs are your own but they are not the beliefs of devoted Catholics or people of other faiths. You are welcome to your beliefs. The beliefs of others should be welcome and respected as well.

Catholics have the same book as the Protestants..


Acts 2:38: Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.: Cristian Bible Study Journal for studying the Scripture.

I was baptized but I doubt it counts. I was about 10 or 12 years old and it was done out of fear. Hell and damnation, being stung over and over by scorpions, pain so bad my earaches paled in comparison. Threats of hellfire, torture, etc. So did I feel any different after being dunked? No. Just relief I would not be tormented with pain.

Again, the God I believe in loves His children..of which I am one. I accept Jesus as my savior, and know He died for my sins..whatever sins those were for a kid my age. I never backed away from Him, and never will. A god that causes suffering to the end of time for whatever reason is not God.

Just my opinion.

Great post !!!!

I am afraid that to often we paint Christ as someone who stands at the church door and harshly examines us as we try to enter (arm crossed and suspicious looks)....

When in fact, if we were standing 50 feet away from the church door (unsure of our "worthiness" and his acceptance), he would open and beckon to us to come in. He is constantly inviting us to partake of the grace afforded by his Atonement.

He loves all of his children and he wants them to be happy.

In the LDS faith, hell is seen in different forms.....but they all take the form of limitations placed on us in the afterlife due to poor choices. Not physical suffering.

 

[MadChemist]

Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic [sic] writings across several millenia [sic]. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

Your response made me think of a broader thought that I have had, and occasionally expressed, about the apparent inconsistency between science and religion.

Science, as we know it, tells us some things that seem irreconcilable with some things that religions tell us.

My take on this has been to conclude that our understanding of both science, and religion, is imperfect, incomplete, and riddled with man-made error; that if we had a true, perfect, and complete understanding of both fields of knowledge, we would find that they were in prefect agreement; and that the apparent contradictions between them are artifacts of our own error.

Surely, the answer to similar apparent contradictions within each field is similar, that these apparent contradictions are artifacts of our own imperfect knowledge and understanding.

Truly, though our scientists do the very best that they can to make sense of what we can observe about the world and the universe around us, and our religious leaders do the best to make sense of what God has tried to tell us, ultimately, we are all like the six blind men examining an elephant.

It was six men of Indostan​

To learning much inclined,​

Who went to see the Elephant​

Though all of them were blind,​

That each by observation​

Might satisfy his mind.​

​

The First approached the Elephant​

And, happening to fall​

Against his broad and sturdy side,​

At once began to bawl:​

"God bless me, but the Elephant​

Is very like a wall!"​

​

The Second, feeling the tusk,​

Cried, "Ho! what have we here​

So very round and smooth and sharp?​

To me 'tis very clear​

This wonder of an Elephant​

Is very like a spear!"​

​

The Third approached the animal​

And, happening to take​

The squirming trunk within his hands,​

Thus boldly up he spake:​

"I see," quoth he, "The Elephant​

Is very like a snake!"​

​

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,​

And felt about the knee:​

"What most the wondrous beast is like​

Is very plain," quoth he;​

"Tis clear enough the Elephant​

Is very like a tree!"​

​

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,​

Said, "Even the blindest man​

Can tell what this resembles most;​

Deny the fact who can:​

This marvel of an elephant​

Is very like a fan!"​

​

The Sixth no sooner had begun​

About the beast to grope​

Then, seizing on the swinging tail​

That fell within his scope,​

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant​

Is very like a rope!"​

​

And so these men of Indostan​

Disputed loud and long,​

Each in his own opinion​

Exceeding stiff and strong.​

Though each was partly in the right,​

They all were in the wrong!​

​

—John Godfrey Saxe​

What Is Truth?

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

 

[MadChemist]

Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic [sic] writings across several millenia [sic]. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

Your response made me think of a broader thought that I have had, and occasionally expressed, about the apparent inconsistency between science and religion.

Science, as we know it, tells us some things that seem irreconcilable with some things that religions tell us.

My take on this has been to conclude that our understanding of both science, and religion, is imperfect, incomplete, and riddled with man-made error; that if we had a true, perfect, and complete understanding of both fields of knowledge, we would find that they were in prefect agreement; and that the apparent contradictions between them are artifacts of our own error.

Surely, the answer to similar apparent contradictions within each field is similar, that these apparent contradictions are artifacts of our own imperfect knowledge and understanding.

Truly, though our scientists do the very best that they can to make sense of what we can observe about the world and the universe around us, and our religious leaders do the best to make sense of what God has tried to tell us, ultimately, we are all like the six blind men examining an elephant.

It was six men of Indostan​

To learning much inclined,​

Who went to see the Elephant​

Though all of them were blind,​

That each by observation​

Might satisfy his mind.​

​

The First approached the Elephant​

And, happening to fall​

Against his broad and sturdy side,​

At once began to bawl:​

"God bless me, but the Elephant​

Is very like a wall!"​

​

The Second, feeling the tusk,​

Cried, "Ho! what have we here​

So very round and smooth and sharp?​

To me 'tis very clear​

This wonder of an Elephant​

Is very like a spear!"​

​

The Third approached the animal​

And, happening to take​

The squirming trunk within his hands,​

Thus boldly up he spake:​

"I see," quoth he, "The Elephant​

Is very like a snake!"​

​

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,​

And felt about the knee:​

"What most the wondrous beast is like​

Is very plain," quoth he;​

"Tis clear enough the Elephant​

Is very like a tree!"​

​

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,​

Said, "Even the blindest man​

Can tell what this resembles most;​

Deny the fact who can:​

This marvel of an elephant​

Is very like a fan!"​

​

The Sixth no sooner had begun​

About the beast to grope​

Then, seizing on the swinging tail​

That fell within his scope,​

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant​

Is very like a rope!"​

​

And so these men of Indostan​

Disputed loud and long,​

Each in his own opinion​

Exceeding stiff and strong.​

Though each was partly in the right,​

They all were in the wrong!​

​

—John Godfrey Saxe​

I recently showed the following to our Young Men and Young Women.

It had to do with the Hubble Telescope, launched in 1990. It was amazing.

Prior to Hubble our concept of the universe was very very limited.

Viewing galaxies that were billions of light years away for the first time. Seeing stars being created.....

Amazing.

The story is never finished when it comes to science.

I grew up being taught electrons, protons and neutrons were the smallest particles there were.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The story is never finished when it comes to science.

I grew up being taught electrons, protons and neutrons were the smallest particles there were.

I did, as well.

My father was a very scientifically-oriented man, as well as very spiritually-oriented. He was a man who sought knowledge in all its forms, who craved knowledge; and who loved to share what knowledge he had found with others.

When I was about eight or nine years old, he went through an unfortunate extended bout of unemployment. So, he spent much of that time with me, teaching me all manner of things well beyond what most eight-to-nine-year-olds are able to comprehend. He taught me a lot about physics and chemistry and biology and electronics and many other areas of science, as well as more practical skills having to do with craftsmanship and the use of tools and materials.

 

[MadChemist]

The story is never finished when it comes to science.

I grew up being taught electrons, protons and neutrons were the smallest particles there were.

I did, as well.

My father was a very scientifically-oriented man, as well as very spiritually-oriented. He was a man who sought knowledge in all its forms, who craved knowledge; and who loved to share what knowledge he had found with others.

When I was about eight or nine years old, he went through an unfortunate extended bout of unemployment. So, he spent much of that time with me, teaching me all manner of things well beyond what most eight-to-nine-year-olds are able to comprehend. He taught me a lot about physics and chemistry and biology and electronics and many other areas of science, as well as more practical skills having to do with craftsmanship and the use of tools and materials.

David Bednar wrote an entire book on "learning" and the need to always be increasing our knowledge.

Especially in spiritual dimensions.

Sounds like your dad was someone who believe in passing knowledge down. You were fortunate to have such tutoring !

One thing, I have always taught my children is to keep digging. Don't let first impressions take you away from something.

 

[BS Filter]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic writings across several millenia. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

 

[JoeB131]

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

I think everyone here knows I'm the last person to ever defend the Latter Day Saint Cult.

But what makes your view of God any more or less legitimate than the Mormons?

The Bible says to burn witches and kill homosexuals and to stone your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Slavery and child abuse are acceptable and good.

God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours... and we are better off for it.