Actually, the article has some errors.
For example, losing a temple recommend does not keep you from attending baptisms of friends or relatives. These do not occur in the temples, but in the local meeting houses and all are invited. It is the ordinance of “baptism for the dead”, which is discussed in Peter in the New Testament, that occurs in the temple and that is where someone stands in as proxy for a person who has died and a baptism occurs for them which those individuals can then elect to accept or reject up in the spirit world as they await judgement.
Same thing for weddings. Any orthadox wedding that is not a temple wedding, which are performed there for time and all eternity, can be attended if the couple elect to be married in a LDS Chapel instead of an LDS Temple.
Anyhow, those are a couple of inconsistancies that should be set straight.
Losing a temple recommend because you, in essence, are turning against the Church and rejecting its basic teachings (like the validity of the restoration through Jospeh Smith, or the validity of the Book of Mormon) means that you cannot attend temple ceremonies like the ones I described, but not that you can’t attend the same types of ceremonies performed outside the temple, or attend regular meetings of the church in its chapels each week.
“It is the ordinance of “baptism for the dead”, which is discussed in Peter in the New Testament”
Then why was it first discovered by the Mormons?
No temple recommend, no witnessing temple weddings of relatives or friends...period.
“baptism for the dead”, which MAY be discussed in Peter (actually not encouraged) in the New Testament is not Christian belief.
"Any orthadox "(orthodox?") wedding that is not a temple wedding, which are performed there for time and all eternity, can be attended if the couple elect to be married in a LDS Chapel instead of an LDS Temple"....the chapel is off limits for these weddings and they are relegated to the 'cultural hall' and held under the basketball hoop. There are strict regulations on what can be done and said in these non-temple weddings and they are highly discouraged by mormon leaders.
It is the ordinance of “baptism for the dead”, which is discussed in Peter in the New Testament, that occurs in the temple and that is where someone stands in as proxy for a person who has died and a baptism occurs for them which those individuals can then elect to accept or reject up in the spirit world as they await judgement.
__________________________________________________
Dead dunking is blasphemeous and unBiblical..
It denies the Blood of the LORD Jesus Christ on the Cross for our salvation...
Its something the pagans did but not the Christians..
Neither Peter nor Paul ever said that dead dunking was an “ordinance” of Christianity...
Both said once you are dead you are dead..
and then comes the judgement...
Its too late then...
If Mormons really believed that they could just get saved AFTER they died they wouldnt give one more sacrificial penny to the Mormon business, they would pay their bills, get out of debt and spend Sundays with their families doing something enjoyable and beneficial...
and the wife would find she no longer feels the need for all that Prozac...
Jeff the idea is for Mormons to have a “temple wedding”
Like Willard Romney and Ann Davies had, banning her family from attending ...
Oh yes the Mormons are SOOOOOOOO much for families...
None of the 15% of Mormons who are temple Mormons would want anything less...
Mormons dont believe they are married unless they have the pagan rituals and “sealings” for marriage in the Mormon afterlife including the procreation of further children on their afterlife planet etc of the temple with their temple clothes on green Adams fig leaf apron and all..
Losing a temple recommend because you, in essence, are turning against the Church and rejecting its basic teachings (like the validity of the restoration through Jospeh Smith, or the validity of the Book of Mormon)
____________________________________________
Jeff explain to the lurkers what happens to people who do this ...what happens after they die ...
Start with me as a Blood bought Born again Bible believing Christian...
What do you as a Mormon believe will happen to me...
Jeff, you know I respect you, but there really is no Biblical support for baptism for the dead. If there were, the Bible is my authority, and I would follow it. No other book, no other claim to revelation, can trump the Bible.
Although I am sure there have been many excellent words spent debating this point by scholars more worthy than I, the article below gives a brief overview of the essential points, from a traditional Christian point of view:
http://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29
As someone else here has already pointed out, no one in the Bible, either Christ or the Apostles, ever sanctioned baptism for the dead as a Christian ordinance.
Instead, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul is arguing for a general belief in the possibility of human resurrection, and uses what is probably a local pagan practice to illustrate his point, because not even the local pagan baptizers of the dead (and there were such folks near Corinth) would do so unless there were a resurrection coming in which to collect the hoped for benefit.
But Paul never says, “Therefore, you go do this.” As an attorney, I see this sort of mistake all the time in legal analysis. A court writes an opinion, and uses some illustration to make a point. But it’s not the holding, not the endpoint of the logic of the opinion, just a decoration used to enlighten the reader along the way.
Yet the young lawyer (or the old lawyer who’s a poor reader) latches onto the illustration as if it were a statement of law, which it is not, and in court they go down in flames because they could not make the distinction. But the judge can. And the better attorney can. Find the holding, and go with that. Use the illustrations as the writer used them. No more. No less.
I am reformed in my theology. One of the lesser known but very valuable aspects of that tradition is known as the Regulative Principle. Realizing that the Bible is the very word of God, we have an extremely serious obligation to be sure we do not impose burdens on the human soul that God Himself does not impose. We therefore cannot make an obligation out of something which no person in Scripture issued as a command to the Church. That was the error of the Pharisees, and Jesus condemned them severely for it.
And what are those things posed in Scripture as commands of action to Christians, as under the authority of Christ and the Apostles? Have faith in Jesus. Reject false christs. Flee from idolatry. Flee from sexual sin. Wait patiently for Jesus to return. Do good while you wait. Love each other. Love your enemy. On and on I could go.
But there is no command in the Bible to baptize surrogate believers for dead nonbelievers. Not only does Paul use strictly descriptive rather than imperative language, but he never even tells us whether the “dead” being vicariously baptized were believers or not. And of course that’s not his point, so why should he mention it?
And so the Regulative Principle informs us that in the absence of such a command, we not only have no authority from God to impose such a practice on believers, but that if we do so impose, without authority, we usurp the role of God, and make ourselves greater than him. God sets the terms of his own worship. He has told us what we need to do, and we sin if we either subtract from it or add to it practices that have no command authority from Him.
Remember the sin under Moses of the two sons of Aaron? What was their crime, that was so great God struck them dead for it? It was offering to God a form of worship which He did not command, burning an incense other than the one God required. Strange fire, as it is called.
Happily, God is a God of mercy, and he knows we sometimes wander from his way through ignorance or misinformation, and he hardly ever strikes us down immediately for our many errors. Else who could serve him?
But he does require of us to live according to the light he has given us. If some folks still mistakenly but innocently think they are helping out by baptism for the dead, God is their judge. Not me. But those who do lay claim to understanding the Scripture, if they impose a false and pagan practice on well-meaning but uninformed individuals, they will be held to a higher and sterner standard. Few stripes and many stripes.
Jeff, I take you to be a man of integrity. I hope you will take these words as from love and not vainglory. The wounds of a friend are faithful.
Peace,
SR
Given the Mormon church’s way of not putting up with the arguments of unbelievers within the church, (which is currently destroying many Christian congregations) it is going to be challenging for Mormons to go through this process of being center stage with Romney.
Ridicule is the name of the political game these days and triple for Republicans. Triple that ridicule for the added deminision of religion in a Republican candidate. You will find out if your church is strong because it is closely controlled and doubts are supressed, or if it is strong on it’s own foundation because Mormons are going to be exposed to every piece of dirt that can be conjured. Romney is uncapping the lid.
Good luck as you guys venture out into the public! The other Christian groups, especially the young who take the rejection to heart, have not stood up together for their faith and Christian way of life so well.