[General LDS/Life Philosophy]

I'm a "traditional" Christian, not an LDS. The way I see my environment surrounding me:

Just like everyone else: trees are hard wth green leaves; water is wet, and can be dirty looking; trash tenbds to smell bad and flowers good; most people are clueless as to what "denying themselves" really means; most people end up doing a mixture of selfish and selfless things; animals seemingly respomnd simply by instinct; logic is unbreakable; happiness and sadness avalke; pain generally sucks; etc. etc. etc.

I think we see our environment around us as nearly the same. Now of course, people with serious mental illnesses, people on drug trips, mystics, and other types of people who live apart from our "normal" reality (whether willfully or not) will see the world differently. But the average humans see it usually the same.

Now if you want to get deep into philosophy and such, even then there's a general, overall "sameness" among them all, but of course the details will then vary widely and the means and ends will vary even more.

[Faith but never a chance for baptism]

IIt seems to me that perhaps there's some kind of deep, almost mystical tie between making a covenant of obedience with the spirit and simultaneously making a gesture of obedience with the body.

I actually totally agree with this, which is why I figured Paul, in Romans, said we had to "believe in our heart" and "confess with our mouths". Abraham believed God, and was circumsized. The blood had to be applied to the doorpost.

The last question I'm left with is "Physical + Spiritual I agree, but why a specific physical?" That's were I can't get past. why must it be that specific spiritual act. I'm not asking you to answer this, I'm telling you which part I'm stuck on (well not me, since I don't believe someone must be baptized, but if this were true [ends up being true, I should say] that's were I'd be stuck on).

[Faith but never a chance for baptism]

You probably don't mean anything by it (and its possibly a typo with you leaving off "seph"), but Joe Smith (and variations) due to current and historical use of the diminutive of Joseph Smith's name in a derogatory manner is often taken as having derogatory intent. Just a heads up.

Thx for the heads up.

[Faith but never a chance for baptism]

I hope you won't mind if I try to correct a bit of a misconception here. It is not Mormon doctrine that one can "level up" heavens. What happens is that when we die, we go to a temporary spirit world where we wait for the Second Coming, the Resurrection, and (if appropriate) for someone to do our temple ordinances. The final judgment, where we are permanently assigned to a kingdom of glory, may not come until after the Millennium is over.

Oh by all means, please correct me! That's why I'm here, to learn. I ask intriguing questions, hoping to learn all sorts of stuff. So thx for the knowledge! :)

Yeah, one has to be careful about making assumptions beyond what the text says. The text doesn't actually say "those who are never, ever, even posthumously baptized"; it says that (from Joseph Smith's perspective) Alvin specifically had not been baptized. Incidentally, see the references in verse 5 to Joseph's father and mother? They were still alive when Smith received the vision (1836). So Smith wasn't seeing the Celestial Kingdom as it was at the time of the revelation; he's seeing what would be at some future date.

Makes total sense if Jo was a prophet.

There is no room, in Mormon doctrine, for entrance to the Celestial Kingdom without baptism.

But why- it seems so. . .arbitrary. I mean, I understand what a) the ritual itself, and b) the person performing the ritual- I understand what these are supposed to get across. So if I understand that, then why MUST a physical action be taken if the understanding and the counterfactual of "I would have had I gotten the chance, so basically I did anyway" is there.

But, to indulge in counterfactuals for a moment: If God lets an unbaptized person into the CK, He's violating His own laws and is therefore no longer just. If He doesn't let a righteous person in because of circumstances beyond that person's control, He is no longer merciful. Either way, God ceases to be God. (How's that for a hypothetical? )

Again, if the spiritual aspect is basically there, why is God's hands tied down to an actual action? This is what I'm wondering.

[Faith but never a chance for baptism]

Because your scenario where "nobody ever does a proxy baptism for them, ever", does not exist in the LDS sphere of understanding. From what we can tell, yes, everybody who needs one gets a proxy baptism, and nobody goes without. Even the crotchety old antimormon on the corner who manages a deathbed conversion before he croaks, and nobody notices.

LM

OK, cool. That's what I figured it'd boil down to. Which is fine.

I talked to a Catholic Philosopher one tme (a proff at my college) and asked many questions about Catholocism. About the whole communion thing for those who are allergic to wheat, he said tat you can take the wine alone and it be fine, or voice versa, if one were allergic to grapes. I asked wat if one were alergic to both? He smiled with that "Well, you know. . ."kind of smile and said, "That's highly unlikly". So I left it at that.

A Church of Christ member told me, when I asked the same question- a person is going to the baptismal pool, but then has a heart attack right before being dunked, are they saved? And he basically said that God would not let tha happen to a saved person, or that the person was not meant to be saved.

I'm ok with these answers, as I'm guessing there are some like this somewere in my thinking. I have yet to find them, but I'm only 29, so hopefully I've got a lot of time to think.

[Faith but never a chance for baptism]

Loudmouth Mormon: So why is my scenario not a "loop hole" is what I'm wondering?

========= ========== =============== =============== ============

All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

So it's like molinism, were God knows all counterfactuals? If you've no ide what I'm talking about, look it up on wikipedia, "Molinism". I'm good with that, mostly.

But this then contradicts wat you typed next:

In the Millennium, one of the big works that will occur is temple work. Brigham Young envisioned hundreds of temples across the land, working day and night, to bring salvation to all those who desire it. The one thing that will differ in the Millennium is that genealogy will be different. As many people do not have actual records existing on earth for them, they will instead go to those doing the baptisms, give their information, and will be baptized by proxy at that time. It may very well take the full thousand years to perform all these baptisms.

First you say (via quoting D&C) that those who'll never get a chance to be baptised and such can still be in the Cellestial Kingdom if they would have been given the chance. But then this paragraph you typed seems to say tat everyone will get a chance.

I realize I might be being picky, but everyone has their "sticking point", so to speak. Thx for being patient and providing knowledge on this subject. :)

[Faith but never a chance for baptism]

This might be a scenario which has been discussed and brught up before, maybe even all the time, but I don't know. Anyway, here's the scenario:

Supose someone at some point in their life has a true co vesrion/repentance/is justified/whatever. At that very moment they pass away (say a heart atack its them, they truely convert n the gurney, and then they pass away). Now suppose that for some odd reason, nobody ever does a proxy baptism for them, ever. Highly unlikely, esp. if they were in a highly "mormonised" ( new word) area I know, but let's say it happens.

They get a chance to know Jesus in the telestial kingdom, right? OK, let's say they take advantage of it and they get to know him. But since no one ever gets baptised for them, do they eventually get to "go up" to the next level anyway? Supposing they never got baptised on earth and never get a proxy baptism, yet they know Jesus? Maybe they can then get baptised in their level of heaven?

I'm sure I've got this all wrong, but this is why I'm asking the qestion. I don't want to et t al wrong, but to know the truth. This isn't some trick I as a "troll" have "figured out". It actually stems directly from questions about faith vs. works I've had in "traditional" Christianity settings. Anyway, have at it! :)

[Jesus, god, God, Father, eternal?]

Great answers guys. This was kind of my thinking. Still as little fuzzy, but I'm even fuzzy when I think of "traditional" Christian doctrine, and doctrine as I see it myself.

Thx for the repies! :)

[God was once a man, on an earth?]

TThe panel discussion ended up being neat.

I was able to ask questions about the specific D&C and Gospel Principles quotes, and suprisingly they answered straight up.

I can see how speculation could build around this stuff- happens all the time in my "young adult" sunday school class, and that's just us discussing seemingly simple topics like "what is faith" and stuff like that.

[God was once a man, on an earth?]

If you want to know our doctrine and what we teach, start with the Articles of Faith. That is our doctrine.

Also doctrine: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (TPJS, p. 121)

I've looked at those articles. I'm trying to get a bit deeper now (which I totally understand means speculation is bound to abound).

I am wondering about the statment "God dwelt on an eartrh, like us" (or is it "like our's"?). I can understand we don't have all details- I'm just wondering if we know that this means a literal "earth", and he literally lived like we are. I could ask, "Did He "eternally progress" or "is He eternally progressing", but I'm just curious about God once "dwell[ing] on an earth like us".

I realize I seem like a troll- I've not done my homework, and the panel discussion is tonight. I admit I culd've mentioned al this earlier and made the inquiry seem less troll-like. Forgive me for this. Thx for all the cooperation! :)

[God was once a man, on an earth?]

I promise I'm not trolling. The reason why I ask here is because anytime I have ever confronted LDS members, whetehr elders, bishop, rgular old congregates, young or old- whoever they were, anytime I'd ask these kinds of questions, I'd get a lot of beating around the bush, a lot of "we don't teach that", a lot of "No, no, just realize we're exactly the same as you 'traditional' Christians", a lot of "that's not important, let's only talk about what's improtant".

I know that's what I'll get tonight, so I want to be more knowledgeable so as to ask these qestions and possibly get real answers. Thx to you gys who have given some info. I'ce seen the discussions over "we will be like God" and "Jesus was like God", but I've never seen discussions over what it's meant by "and he dwelt on an earth like us"- that seems to say that he did, so either he did, or else we have to say "what was really meant wea don't know" or "what was really meant was this". If this is as far as it'll ever get, then that's OK, I just don't want to mis anything.

I'm in a hurry, so sorry for any misspellings or any weird grammar.

[God was once a man, on an earth?]

I know I'm beating a dead horse. I read some other threads on these forums and found no answer, and really not even a thread targeting this in specific.

What does this mean? I've seen people here and at other LDS forums say things like "He was the Father from eternity", and even "No, he never dwelt on an earth". The second saying must simply be mistaken since this is taught in your gospel principles- unless "dwelling on nan earth" means something totaly different than what we percieve it as. This could be the case, I guess.

Like I said, I went through some othewr threads (three or four, to be specific) and didn't find this addressed. I am doing az "religious panel discussion" tonight, with a baptists, catholic, unitarian, and LDS, and know stuff like this will come up (about Mormons becoming gods and such) so I really want to know the correct doctrine and beliefs. Thx a ton!

[Jesus, god, God, Father, eternal?]

Through quotes from prophets (used by LDS members here and at other forums), McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine", the "Gospel Principles" and "Institution Manuals", I seem to be coming upon some contradictions.

I've seen some info (from these sources) that say Jesus is a god, but sometimes they sem to be saying He is God. SOmetimes they say He is eternal with the father, and sometimes it says He is merely the firstborn spirit person. I've seen and heard (via an official LDS youtube video from one of the apostles) it said that Jesus is the object of the faith and we love and worshiop Him and strive to be like Him. But then in other places I see this being said only about the Father.

Yes, sources would be good. My internet connection though is slow, and I loose it frequently. So I hope that a) my word is good for you guys, thus you believe me that i really have seen all this in these sources, thus not having to cite them, and b) that you guys are familiar enough with the sources as to know what I'm talking about.

I really want this contradiction cleared up. As a "traditional" Christian (I go to a Methodist church) I know our doctrine about Jesus, and what words like "eternal" and "God" and such mean. But I know that they are a little differently understood from an LDS viewpoint, and I'm trying really hard to understand the LDS viewpoint (and I truly believe that there is no contradiction, just that I don't understand all this doctrine well yet) which is why I ask about this. Cool.

[Thirsting for true knowledge of LDS]

Oh my. I feel totally foolish.

Sometimes, I type "good" as "god". lol

[Thirsting for true knowledge of LDS]

I'm new here.

I'm a "traditional" Christian- I go to a Methodist church.

I cosider myself an apologist, but I used to have the problem of getting my references from anti-mormon sources. Not good. Please forgive me. Anyway. . .

I'm here to get accurate information about LDS. I've been inquiring at www.moronapologetics.com and have learned a TON.