Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Not exactly. If you read the entire passage, they are talking about denying resurrection. As part of a larger point, verse 29 is saying that if there is no resurrection, we are basically baptized on behalf of a random dead man (Jesus), and not the resurrected son of god. "What shall those do, who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" The dead refers to Jesus, not random dead people who were baptized by proxy.
Originally Posted By utahjosh That certainly could be a rational evaluation of the verse. To me, it reads differently.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Scripture twisting like that is the devil's tool. Get thee behind me Satan, and your little religion too. Since I consider the LDS church to be a cult of the worst sort, I would find posthumous baptism by anyone in its name to me or any loved one a desecration. And you and yours have no more right to do it to someone than mele has to dedicate your soul to Satan.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Scripture twisting like that is the devil's tool.> Agreed. But who's to decide who's twisting it the right way?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'd like to decide for myself, thanks. That's sort of the point of all this.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I totally agree, Dabob2. It's completely and totally up to you what you choose to do, accept, follow, or worship.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb >>> Agreed. But who's to decide who's twisting it the right way?<<< If you take a verse out of context without regard for the verses preceding and following it for the purpose of supporting a doctrine that has no other biblical president, you're scripture twisting.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's completely and totally up to you what you choose to do, accept, follow, or worship.<< So long as you live. After that, the LDS goes into action.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Scripture twisting has led to violent consequences for millions of people throughout the centuries. Case in point... those nutjob 'therapists' who've twisted the passage, "spare the rod, spoil the child" to mean a club with which to beat your child for disciplinary measures. Many biblical scholars believe the passage actually refers to what we call a pointer, used in classrooms by educators to highlight lessons. 'Spare the rod' is referring to not educating your children, teaching them about right and wrong, how to live a moral life, etc. But the fundamentalist whackjobs have twisted the meaning to support corporal punishment and outright child abuse. Personally, I'd rather interpret the passage as being a reference to education rather than torture. Interpretation of biblical passages is not a precise science. But many dogmatic and zealous religious types treat it as such.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Problem is, later historians learned that every single one of the Founders had already been baptized--multiple times in most cases--as Mormons years earlier. Yet here they are, supposedly asking for it to be done when it already had.<< Interesting.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Why do I have this vision of a bunch of people in white shirts and black slacks running around with Ghost-busters packs on their back saving souls for all eternity? And where is the Stay-Puft man in all of this and what does he represent?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Mr Stay-Puft looks kinda like a gay sailor to me, so... you do the math.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And where is the Stay-Puft man in all of this and what does he represent?<< He's a S'more Man.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's like josh went back for more training at the Mormon Cult Workshop. We've had countless threads like this over the years, and no whe's moved on to the condescending, smarmy, golly gee whiz approach, where he couches his replies with "criminy, too bad you feel that way, but we're just going to do things our way and well, in a nice way, f-you because we know better. And that's what it all comes down to, the Mormons believe they know better. That's why they "offer" you a "choice" in the "afterlife" which you can "refuse", so it's ok that they do these things. All of that, of course, is bunk. Fiction, no matter what their smarmy response is to that. Religion to most people is a very personal thing and it's the height of arrogance to presume to baptize someone when they're dead. If they didn't choose it in life, then to say they can refuse it when "offered" in the afterlife is simply beyond bizarre, and for them to profess not to understand why a person would be upset is simply psychotic. I see no need to be civil. None. They're not, certainly.
Originally Posted By u k fan <<<He's a S'more Man.>>> lol, best post ever!!! For my 2 cents (and again based on my limited knowledge of the church, but as a member nonetheless) I was brought up to believe that our Heavenly Father loves us all. My own leap from there says that that means heaven is open to all regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or baptism. I don't understand how a father that loves us all so much can discriminate and this is where I have issues with not just the Mormon church, but many others. If I live a good life (by my own standards and that of the society that I belong to) then as far as I'm concerned there is a place for me in heaven.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If I live a good life (by my own standards and that of the society that I belong to) then as far as I'm concerned there is a place for me in heaven." Bingo. This cannot be disputed. Which is why I've come to believe organized religion is a scam, although some religions elevate the scam to an art form, such as the Mormons and Catholics. Preying on people who are told that living a decent life isn't enough. Sickening.
Originally Posted By HongKongFoooy actually to all on here a big fat BOO! and to our mormon special guest star, josh: your baptism spells only work on the weak minded
Originally Posted By u k fan I will add slightly to what SingleParkPassholder said above and say that sometimes Josh, you really do come across as arrogant. You obviously have a very strong faith and that's great, but your answers are often so black and white that they seem very blunt. There's an element of that on both sides, but sometimes I cringe when I read your posts. I'm really saying this out of kindness, but I don't always feel that you're the best ambassador for the church. I feel awful for saying (typing) it, but I think you need to know. I really enjoy ecdc's posts in these topics I always feel that he's fair to both sides and calls it like it is. I like the fact that his posts challenge the way I think!!!
