Posted on 03/27/2003 8:28:01 AM PST by ksen
Alma 34:34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become asubjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth bseal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.
Write me in Purgatory, won't you guys?
If any non-Mormons dare to discuss this I just ask that you keep your comments civil and relevant.
SD
On the surface, no. I get the same sense that you do.
But I am unclear if the baptism is supposed to have regenerative effects of some sort, or what. Also, it could be one of those things where we are dealing with temporal matters and God is not bound by them.
That is, that someone, seemingly unbaptised, who dies, dies in the state he is in. It's just that "the state he is in" is the state of a baptised person, because God knows that the person will later be baptised by his descendents.
SD
That is, that someone, seemingly unbaptised, who dies, dies in the state he is in. It's just that "the state he is in" is the state of a baptised person, because God knows that the person will later be baptised by his descendents.
It might be helpful if we begin by re-imagining the location of the deceased as being similarly bound in some parallel time-and-space continuum, subject to age/growth/development/etc., rather than being a static "timeless" state where all judgements have already been rendered and things made (entirely)new all at once.
I suspect that baptism-for-the-dead here is more symbolic than regenerative, but being baptised in this system somehow counts for "brownie points" re obedience, justification, etc in the afterlife. The unbaptised dead guy is more-or-less stuck in a dead-end job (bad pun, I know) in this afterlife, but having his spiritual resume suddenly updated with a baptism credit (via the works of his still-alive progeny), enables him to quit his job at the spiritual equivalent of McDonalds and get a better-paying job in the afterlife.
In a manner of speaking, of course.
as for baptism of the dead - Ive always wonder then what would be the motivation to live a clean life if you can accept a baptism after the fact.
Im particulary concerned to its effect upon the nature of Christ in that until the baptism is accepted after death, it in effect delays (or circumvents if it is accepted) the fact that Christ will be your arbiter before God.
Know what I mean Vern?
Interesting.
SD
The wicked aren't going to accept baptism.
Could you explain your statement a bit more?
Well, maybe first of all you could tell me what the importance of baptism is for the Mormon.
In my tradition, Independent Baptist, baptism is merely a symbol of the Salvation that has already been affected at the time the Believer accepted Christ as his Saviour. Baptism in and of itself has no salvific effects.
It's an entirely different (and foreign to the Protestant mind) "nature" system than what we're used to. Nothing would please me more, than to engage in an exploratory discussion of what I call the "cosmology" of one particular organization - namely, the nature (and history) of Creation on a Universal scale, the make-up, origins and destinations of the cast of characters that occupy the Heaven(s) and Earth(s) of that particular belief system, and the ultimate nature of the personal relationship between Creator and Creation within that system.
Discussions about the planet [5th Amendment], chronological histories of real people having progressed through "what X was, Y may become", that sort of thing.
Having had the blessing of first-hand access to fifteen+ years of M[5th Amendment] Priesthood study guides, it still confounds me that I've never found an officially sanctioned examination of these topics.
If and when someone wants to start one up, I'm there.
You attack non-Mormans when you called them cowards with your "dare" statement, and then you hide behind supposed civility when you "ask" that they keep everything civil and relevant?
Don't insult people and then ask them to be civil.
I'm intriged by this particular statement. Are you referring to someone wicked, who's also dead? Does this indicate those dead (feel free to deliniate this subgroup further if needed to answer) are given the choice of accepting or rejecting the baptism done (on their behalf) by the living?
Don't insult people and then ask them to be civil.
I'm a non-Mormon, and I'm not insulted by this in the slightest. I know exactly what he's talking about.
Don't insult people and then ask them to be civil.
What?
I am a non-Mormon. I haven't attacked anybody. Sorry you took it that way. I think there's some background info that you are not aware of. FReepmail me if you want it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.