The Book of Mormon and Proxy Works for the Dead...


BookofMormonLuvr
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Book of Mormon as we currently have it? Or how about the original BOM before it was abridged from well recorded history of MANY people for hundreds of years, with the book of Lehi that never made it into The Book of Mormon, and the sealed portion? We only have a small percentage of what was actually written.

Harold B. Lee said:

"Now, our scoffers say, "How can you say that the Book of Mormon has the fulness of the gospel when it doesn't speak of baptism for the dead?" Some of you may have asked that question.

What is the gospel as it is defined? Let me give you how the Lord defines the gospel, in these words: "And verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth my gospel receiveth me; and he that receiveth not my gospel receiveth not me. And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom." (D&C 39:5-6.)

Wherever you have a restoration of the gospel, where those fundamental ordinances and the power of the Holy Ghost are among men, there you have the power by which the Lord can reveal all things that pertain to the kingdom in detail, don't you see, including baptism for the dead, which He has done in our day. That is what the Prophet Joseph Smith meant when he was questioned, "How does your church differ from all the other churches?" and his answer was simple, "We are different from all the other churches because we have the Holy Ghost." (See History of the Church 4:42.) Therein we have the teachings of the fulness of those essentials in the Book of Mormon upon the foundations of which the kingdom of God is established." Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 156

Book of Mormon/Contains the fulness of the gospel - FAIRMormon

Edited by livy111us
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Mormon as we currently have it? Or how about the original BOM before it was abridged from well recorded history of MANY people for hundreds of years, with the book of Lehi that never made it into The Book of Mormon, and the sealed portion? We only have a small percentage of what was actually written.

Harold B. Lee said:

"Now, our scoffers say, "How can you say that the Book of Mormon has the fulness of the gospel when it doesn't speak of baptism for the dead?" Some of you may have asked that question.

What is the gospel as it is defined? Let me give you how the Lord defines the gospel, in these words: "And verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth my gospel receiveth me; and he that receiveth not my gospel receiveth not me. And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom." (D&C 39:5-6.)

Wherever you have a restoration of the gospel, where those fundamental ordinances and the power of the Holy Ghost are among men, there you have the power by which the Lord can reveal all things that pertain to the kingdom in detail, don't you see, including baptism for the dead, which He has done in our day. That is what the Prophet Joseph Smith meant when he was questioned, "How does your church differ from all the other churches?" and his answer was simple, "We are different from all the other churches because we have the Holy Ghost." (See History of the Church 4:42.) Therein we have the teachings of the fulness of those essentials in the Book of Mormon upon the foundations of which the kingdom of God is established." Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 156

Book of Mormon/Contains the fulness of the gospel - FAIRMormon

Well, that's a pretty weak answer. Also, it's hard to make a reasoned debate out of what might potentially be said in books we don't have access to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am obviously coming in the middle of a debate, and am not sure where you are coming from exactly. But, if you are arguing that the BOM does not contain the fulness of the Gospel because there are no Baptisms for the dead, 3 degrees of glory, eternal marriage, etc... Then I would argue that you are barking up the wrong tree. As noted above, the Gospel means, according to the D/C "repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom." (D&C 39:5-6.)

If that is not your argument, please inform me what your argument actually is. Or better yet, do you have a link to the thread which started this debate?

But, as a side note, it cannot be argued that it was not known about because we only have a small portion of what was written. Just because it is not mentioned in the abridged portion of the BOM, does not mean it wasn't written about in the many other volumes of scripture. We cannot say one way or the other until we have all the material in front of us. If you happen to get that, let me know. I'd be very interested in reading it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am obviously coming in the middle of a debate, and am not sure where you are coming from exactly. But, if you are arguing that the BOM does not contain the fulness of the Gospel because there are no Baptisms for the dead, 3 degrees of glory, eternal marriage, etc... Then I would argue that you are barking up the wrong tree. As noted above, the Gospel means, according to the D/C "repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom." (D&C 39:5-6.)

If that is not your argument, please inform me what your argument actually is. Or better yet, do you have a link to the thread which started this debate?

But the question is if the Book of Mormon supports proxy work for the dead. Your response doesn't address the question. It circumvents the question entirely. Essentially, what you've stated is "The Book of Mormon supports proxy work for the dead because the Doctrine & Covenants does." That only makes sense if you assume a one-to-one relationship between the truth of the Book of Mormon and the truth of the Doctrine and Covenants, but still doesn't address the actual question.

But, as a side note, it cannot be argued that it was not known about because we only have a small portion of what was written. Just because it is not mentioned in the abridged portion of the BOM, does not mean it wasn't written about in the many other volumes of scripture. We cannot say one way or the other until we have all the material in front of us. If you happen to get that, let me know. I'd be very interested in reading it :)

And again, you're making a fairly weak argument. Another way to rephrase it is, "We should accept that the Book of Mormon supports proxy work for the dead because it doesn't not support it, and we may or may not find further support in the sealed portions." On that basis, we could adopt the practice of baptizing our pets because the Book of Mormon doesn't say we can't, and we might learn in the sealed portions that we should.

If there's going to be any order to the practice of the Church, there has to be evidence of our practices in the revelations, not the mere speculation that it could some day be present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the post by Justice that prompted me to start this thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BookofMormonLuvr

Just an outside observation from someone who does not, himself, believe in the necessity of proxy works for the dead...

This is very interesting. We could have a very lengthy discussion about this comment.

You love the Book of Mormon, but do not believe in temple work. That's just about the most oxy-moronic thing I've ever heard. I would go as far to say I think it's impossible to love the Book of Mormon and not believe in temple work. The thought is just too unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the question is if the Book of Mormon supports proxy work for the dead. Your response doesn't address the question. It circumvents the question entirely. Essentially, what you've stated is "The Book of Mormon supports proxy work for the dead because the Doctrine & Covenants does." That only makes sense if you assume a one-to-one relationship between the truth of the Book of Mormon and the truth of the Doctrine and Covenants, but still doesn't address the actual question.

Again, that is not what I am saying at all. Please re-read my post.

And again, you're making a fairly weak argument. Another way to rephrase it is, "We should accept that the Book of Mormon supports proxy work for the dead because it doesn't not support it, and we may or may not find further support in the sealed portions."

And, again, that is not what I am saying. I am saying....actually, I've already posted what I meant to say. If you want to keep twisting what I am saying, go ahead. I'm tiring quickly of you.

On that basis, we could adopt the practice of baptizing our pets because the Book of Mormon doesn't say we can't, and we might learn in the sealed portions that we should.

That is an asinine thing to say. The Church does not condone baptizing our pets. Baptisms for the dead IS a doctrine of the Church, and would likely be found in our scripture.

If there's going to be any order to the practice of the Church, there has to be evidence of our practices in the revelations, not the mere speculation that it could some day be present.

Well, there are plenty of scripture and revelations which talk about baptisms for the dead. If you are focusing solely on the BOM, then feel free to contribute to the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have been labeled as engaging in a oxy-moronic thought process, so I figured I would start this thread.

OK, thank you. I appreciate you being civil about it. What books of scripture do you accept? What prophets do you accept? If you accept *only* The Book of Mormon, then I can see where you are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was accused of oxy-moronic thinking for loving the Book of Mormon while at the same time not accepting proxy works for the dead. So, yes, the focus on this thread is the Book of Mormon and it's teachings concerning proxy works for the dead. If it is an oxy-moron for me to believe in the Book of Mormon and not accept porxy works for the dead- I want to be shown how. Then I will give my views, from the Book of Mormon, as to why I don't accept it.

I hope that helps clear things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, thank you. I appreciate you being civil about it. What books of scripture do you accept? What prophets do you accept? If you accept *only* The Book of Mormon, then I can see where you are coming from.

I accept the Book of Mormon and the Bible as my standards for truth and doctrine...

2 Nephi 3:12

Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly support proxy work for the dead. Although I think it tacitly supports it in light of temple practice after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But that's a very "Mormon" cultural opinion, not supported by the actual text itself. IMO.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly support proxy work for the dead. Although I think it tacitly supports it in light of temple practice after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But that's a very "Mormon" cultural opinion, not supported by the actual text itself. IMO.

HiJolly

Maybe I have missed something you noticed?

Where are there verses concerning Temple worship in the Book of Mormon AFTER the coming of Jesus Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the BoM support baptism for the dead? Specifically mentioning Baptism for the dead, it does not. There is no reference to it at all in the Book of Mormon. So from that perspective it can be argued that the Book of Mormon does not support Baptism.

Baptism for the Dead are not mentioned in the BoM, OT, and only once in the new testament. All the knowledge we have of these ordinances, essentially, comes from modern revelation through Prophets. This is as good as any scripture. In many ways, it is even better.

The Pharisees didn't believe that Christ was the Messiah testified of in the scriptures before them. They were so fixated in their interpretation of what the Savior would be like, that when the Son of God stood before them, they didn't recognize him. Their texts didn't support a humble carpenter's son who dined with sinners and healed people on the sabbath.

When we become entirely dependent upon the written word and ignore what has/is being revealed through the Prophet, we risk the same mistakes that the Pharisees made with Christ.

Edited by captmoroniRM
changed to make it the perfect answer :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, that is not what I am saying at all. Please re-read my post.

And again, you're making a fairly weak argument. Another way to rephrase it is, "We should accept that the Book of Mormon supports proxy work for the dead because it doesn't not support it, and we may or may not find further support in the sealed portions."

And, again, that is not what I am saying. I am saying....actually, I've already posted what I meant to say. If you want to keep twisting what I am saying, go ahead. I'm tiring quickly of you.

Obviously, you didn't state what you meant very clearly. If you think I've misstated your comments, perhaps you could correct my errors.

On that basis, we could adopt the practice of baptizing our pets because the Book of Mormon doesn't say we can't, and we might learn in the sealed portions that we should.

That is an asinine thing to say. The Church does not condone baptizing our pets. Baptisms for the dead IS a doctrine of the Church, and would likely be found in our scripture.

But I was able to come to the same conclusion using the logic you provided about the Book of Mormon justifying baptism for the dead. Why is asinine to say we can baptize our pets but not asinine to say we can baptize the dead based on the same logical progression?

If there's going to be any order to the practice of the Church, there has to be evidence of our practices in the revelations, not the mere speculation that it could some day be present.

Well, there are plenty of scripture and revelations which talk about baptisms for the dead. If you are focusing solely on the BOM, then feel free to contribute to the conversation.

Now you're catching on to the actual question...that is, where in the Book of Mormon is there evidence to support the principle of baptisms for the dead and other proxy work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the BoM support baptism for the dead? Specifically mentioning Baptism for the dead, it does not. There is no reference to it at all in the Book of Mormon. So from that perspective it can be argued that the Book of Mormon does not support Baptism.

But that depends on what kind of support you refer to. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that those who are of the age of accountability need baptism in order to return to the our Father's presence. It is also a testament of continuing revelation and guidance from on high. It breaks down the boundaries of written word and helps one understand that God reveals his word through prophets in our day.

Baptism for the Dead are not mentioned in the BoM, OT, and only once in the new testament. All the knowledge we have of these ordinances, essentially, comes from modern revelation through Prophets. This is as good as any scripture. In many ways, it is even better.

The Pharisees didn't believe that Christ was the Messiah testified of in the scriptures before them. They were so fixated in their interpretation of what the Savior would be like, that when the Son of God stood before them, they didn't recognize him. Their texts didn't support a humble carpenter's son who dined with sinners and healed people on the sabbath.

When we become entirely dependent upon the written word and ignore what has/is being revealed through the Prophet, we risk the same mistakes that the Pharisees made with Christ.

I think this would have been the perfect answer if the resized text were omitted. Or perhaps edited for length. But the rest of it is quite ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly support proxy work for the dead. Although I think it tacitly supports it in light of temple practice after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But that's a very "Mormon" cultural opinion, not supported by the actual text itself. IMO.

HiJolly

Maybe I have missed something you noticed?

Where are there verses concerning Temple worship in the Book of Mormon AFTER the coming of Jesus Christ?

You did miss something :). There is no text to support what he's claimed. I've highlighted that statement above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I have missed something you noticed?

Where are there verses concerning Temple worship in the Book of Mormon AFTER the coming of Jesus Christ?

3 Nephi 11:1

Do you really think these people, tutored by the resurrected Christ, would, after this sublime experience, abandon the temple? Yet they would not be performing animal sacrifices any more, would they?

Questions to think about. 200 years of peace, prosperity and unity under Christ. Pretty cool. Like I said, pretty cultural "Mormon" stuff, not necessarily supported in the text.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your simple answer is- "It is not in there, but that doesn't matter because it might be in the Sealed Portion, and besides we have the Holy Spirit?"

I'm no scholar, but that pretty well sums up my gut reaction to the issue.

I can see why a follower the BoM who is not LDS, would not find that line of thinking especially persuasive. And I guess I'm ok with that. Are you ok with me?

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Mormon as we currently have it? Or how about the original BOM before it was abridged from well recorded history of MANY people for hundreds of years, with the book of Lehi that never made it into The Book of Mormon, and the sealed portion? We only have a small percentage of what was actually written.

Harold B. Lee said:

"Now, our scoffers say, "How can you say that the Book of Mormon has the fulness of the gospel when it doesn't speak of baptism for the dead?" Some of you may have asked that question.

What is the gospel as it is defined? Let me give you how the Lord defines the gospel, in these words: "And verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth my gospel receiveth me; and he that receiveth not my gospel receiveth not me. And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom." (D&C 39:5-6.)

Wherever you have a restoration of the gospel, where those fundamental ordinances and the power of the Holy Ghost are among men, there you have the power by which the Lord can reveal all things that pertain to the kingdom in detail, don't you see, including baptism for the dead, which He has done in our day. That is what the Prophet Joseph Smith meant when he was questioned, "How does your church differ from all the other churches?" and his answer was simple, "We are different from all the other churches because we have the Holy Ghost." (See History of the Church 4:42.) Therein we have the teachings of the fulness of those essentials in the Book of Mormon upon the foundations of which the kingdom of God is established." Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 156

Book of Mormon/Contains the fulness of the gospel - FAIRMormon

I completely got it actually.

It might be in the books that are not available to us, we don't know

and

having the Holy Ghost is the most imortant part.

His church is built upon Revelation. The Book of Mormon translation was recieved through the same revelation as the proxy work for the dead. So naturally, if you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, had revelation, and through communication with God was able to translate the Book of Mormon , you would also believe that the proxy work for the dead is true, considering that it was also given through revelation through the same prophet. Either you believe in him recieving revelation when he claimed to, or you don't.

Although I would not want to name call, or anything, I completely understand these viewpoints. Accepting the Book of Mormon would mean accepting the proxy work, not because it is in the Book of Mormon as we know it, but because the same method of communication from God was used for both, He communicated with the prophet Joseph Smith. Having a testimony of the Book of Mormon not only is a tesimony of the Book, but is also a testimony of modern day revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share