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


BookofMormonLuvr
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Let's quote it for context...

3 Nephi 11:1

And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.

This gathering was previous to the appearing of Jesus Christ and His teachings unto them- which included...

3 Nephi 15:2-5

And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that aold things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become anew.

Behold, I say unto you that the alaw is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.

Behold, aI am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to bfulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

And why would he teach them that? Because they were still keeping the Law of Moses...

3 Nephi 1:23-25

And it came to pass that Nephi went forth among the people, and also many others, baptizing unto repentance, in the which there was a great remission of sins. And thus the people began again to have peace in the land.

And there were no contentions, save it were a few that began to preach, endeavoring to prove by the scriptures that it was no more expedient to observe the law of Moses. Now in this thing they did err, having not understood the scriptures.

But it came to pass that they soon became converted, and were convinced of the error which they were in, for it was made known unto them that the law was not yet fulfilled, and that it must be fulfilled in every whit; yea, the word came unto them that it must be fulfilled; yea, that one jot or tittle should not pass away till it should all be fulfilled; therefore in this same year were they brought to a knowledge of their error and did confess their faults.

Alma 25:15

Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them.

So one reason they may have been gathered at the Temple was the fact that they were still keeping the performances of the Law of Moses. After Jesus taught them, there is never another mention of Temple worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are being "technical" with my words. You know very well what I meant. You are diverting this discussion down a different path, looking for technicalities.

Joseph Smith was a prophet and translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. Joseph Smith instituted the building of temples in the latter days and restored the sacred ordinances and covenants associated with temple worship.

He did both while under the influence of revelation.

So, the obvious answer (that you are dodging) is that either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. Either both are revelation from God or neither are.

But, to play along for a bit, just to humor you:

2 Nephi 5:

1 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Jacob 1:

17 Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord.

Mosiah 2: 1-7 (I'll only post 7)

7 For the multitude being so great that king Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple, therefore he caused a tower to be erected, that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them.

Alma 16:

13 And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.

Helaman 3:

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

3 Nephi 11:

1 And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.

Here we have temples that were built and existed both before and after Christ appeared to the people. Christ appeared to the people at a temple site.

According to you, we are to assume that temple work did not go on in the temple because it is not mentioned specifically by name, such as "baptism for the dead." I believe it is on your shoulders to prove temple work did not go on in the temples they built. It is silly for me to have to prove the buildings they built for temple work, called temples, were used as temples. It is understood that temples are used for temple work, even if not mentioned specifically for your benefit.

You will never be able to prove that temples were built for any other purpose than for temple work. You may assume so if you like, but I will assume temples were built by the Church of God for the same purposes in all ages.

The work for the dead is almost never mentioned in scripture, any scripture, because of its sacredness.

But, no matter what you think of this argument, the one you must show me is that Joseph Smith was only a prophet when he translated the Book of Mormon and not when he built temples and instituted the ordinances therein.

I really don't see this discussion going any where. But, in case it does, I have more evidence that I am not inclined to share right now.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I would like to explain, using the Book of Mormon, why I do not personally accept the idea of proxy works for the dead...

First, the Book of Mormon is clear that "THIS life is the time to prepare to meet God"...

Alma 34:32-35

For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.

And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess 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.

For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal 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.

But what about those who never heard the message of the Gospel? They are provided for by the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ...

2 Nephi 9:25-26

Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

Moroni 8:22

For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

So who is it that is actually condemned when leaving this mortal life?

2 Nephi 9:27

But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!

Edited by BookofMormonLuvr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are being "technical" with my words. You know very well what I meant. You are diverting this discussion down a different path, looking for technicalities.

Joseph Smith was a prophet and translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. Joseph Smith instituted the building of temples in the latter days and restored the sacred ordinances and covenants associated with temple worship.

He did both while under the influence of revelation.

So, the obvious answer (that you are dodging) is that either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. Either both are revelation from God or neither are.

But, to play along for a bit, just to humor you:

2 Nephi 5:

1 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Jacob 1:

17 Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having first obtained mine errand from the Lord.

Mosiah 2: 1-7 (I'll only post 7)

7 For the multitude being so great that king Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple, therefore he caused a tower to be erected, that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them.

Alma 16:

13 And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.

Helaman 3:

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

3 Nephi 11:

1 And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.

Here we have temples that were built and existed both before and after Christ appeared to the people. Christ appeared to the people at a temple site.

According to you, we are to assume that temple work did not go on in the temple because it is not mentioned specifically by name, such as "baptism for the dead." I believe it is on your shoulders to prove temple work did not go on in the temples they built. It is silly for me to have to prove the buildings they built for temple work, called temples, were used as temples. It is understood that temples are used for temple work, even if not mentioned specifically for your benefit.

You will never be able to prove that temples were built for any other purpose than for temple work. You may assume so if you like, but I will assume temples were built by the Church of God for the same purposes in all ages.

The work for the dead is almost never mentioned in scripture, any scripture, because of its sacredness.

But, no matter what you think of this argument, the one you must show me is that Joseph Smith was only a prophet when he translated the Book of Mormon and not when he built temples and instituted the ordinances therein.

I really don't see this discussion going any where. But, in case it does, I have more evidence that I am not inclined to share right now.

I never disagreed that Temples were used amoung the Nephites prior to Jesus Christ- though I may disagree in the purpose for which they were used.

I have not diverted the discussion at all...

You accused me of oxy-moronic thinking for loving the Book of Mormon and not accepting proxy works for the dead. I have sought to prove that, I can, with a Book of Mormon believing mindset, have difficulty accepting those practices.

I feel no obligation to accept everything Joseph Smith said or did simply because the Lord used him as a tool to bring the Book of Mormon into the world. He is subject unto the prophets just like every other prophet is subject to the prophets...

1 Corinthians 14:32

And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

He holds no special place of significance for me above any other mortal man that has been used by God at one point or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Jesus taught them, there is never another mention of Temple worship.

So, because temples aren't mentioned again, we are to assume they weren't used for their given purpose?

The reason temples were not used for work for the dead before Christ was because the work wasn't needed until after He bridged the gap between Paradise and Prison, and people in the Spirit World came to accept Christ and need ordinances.

So, here they have a temple, and now the gap had been bridged, what makes the most sense? That they did something not related to temple worship in the temples or that they simply changed their worship within the temple to accomodate Jesus' atonement, resurrection, and bridging the gap between Paradise and Prison?

How many times did Mormon say he could only write a hundreth part of the things they did and said? How many times did they say there were things unlawful for man to utter? That points to temple ordinances. All indications are there, even if they didn't outline it step by step.

I believe they performed ordinances for the dead in their temples just as we do in ours. It doesn't make sense any other way. Joseph Smith not only restored the Book of Mormon, but also restored many of the things they could not speak about because of their sacredness. We know this because we are counseled not to speak of them either. It is not lawful for us to speak of temple work outside of the temple to the degree of specificality you say is required to prove it. Why do you expect it of them when we already know we can't?

I can't count the number of ways I disagree with you on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear- I hold no personal animosity towards the LDS Church or its members, and am not endeavoring to "lead people astray". I am simply sharing the beliefs I have come to as a fellow believer in the Book of Mormon. I am hoping to build bridges of understanding between believers in the Book of Mormon of all stripes. Thank you for putting up with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, because temples aren't mentioned again, we are to assume they weren't used for their given purpose?

The reason temples were not used for work for the dead before Christ was because the work wasn't needed until after He bridged the gap between Paradise and Prison, and people in the Spirit World came to accept Christ and need ordinances.

So, here they have a temple, and now the gap had been bridged, what makes the most sense? That they did something not related to temple worship in the temples or that they simply changed their worship within the temple to accomodate Jesus' atonement, resurrection, and bridging the gap between Paradise and Prison?

How many times did Mormon say he could only write a hundreth part of the things they did and said? How many times did they say there were things unlawful for man to utter? That points to temple ordinances. All indications are there, even if they didn't outline it step by step.

I believe they performed ordinances for the dead in their temples just as we do in ours. It doesn't make sense any other way. Joseph Smith not only restored the Book of Mormon, but also restored many of the things they could not speak about because of their sacredness. We know this because we are counseled not to speak of them either. It is not lawful for us to speak of temple work outside of the temple to the degree of specificality you say is required to prove it. Why do you expect it of them when we already know we can't?

I can't count the number of ways I disagree with you on this one.

What do you think of the verses I quoted in post #28?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of the verses I quoted in post #28?

What do you want me to say, that I don't believe those verses? I've read them my whole life but never walked away thinking temple work isn't required. So, obviously our understanding of them is different.

Ask me something more specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BookofMormonLuvr, what is your take on 1 Cor. 15:29? Yes it is in the Bible not the Book of Mormon but the Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible (I'm thinking mostly 1 Nephi 13). I can think of one easy way (and there are probably more but one comes to mind first) to reconcile the difference but I'm curious what your take on it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BookofMormonLuvr, what is your take on 1 Cor. 15:29? Yes it is in the Bible not the Book of Mormon but the Book of Mormon testifies of the Bible (I'm thinking mostly 1 Nephi 13). I can think of one easy way (and there are probably more but one comes to mind first) to reconcile the difference but I'm curious what your take on it is.

Thank you, Dravin. Let's see what it says...

29Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The first thing I notice is the change in pronoun in this verse compared to the other verses in the chapter. Whereas, Paul speaks of "us", "our", "me", "you"- in this verse he speaks of "they" being baptized for the dead. Why is he not including himself or his hearers with those being baptized for the dead?

Later, in verse 32, Paul makes this interesting observation in similar language...

32If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?

Does this make fighting with beasts an ordinance needed to redeem the dead?

The unclear nature of this verse stands in stark contrast to the plain teachings of the Book of Mormon I quoted in post #28- In my humble opinion.

Edited by BookofMormonLuvr
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: The Book of Mormon is clear that THIS life is the time to prepare to meet God.

In the passages you quoted from Alma, Amulek is testifying to Zoramites, which Amulek knew "were taught [the gospel] unto [them] bountifully before [their] dessension." These were people who had the gospel preached unto them and willfully rebelled. Alma and Amulek teach them of the atonement and that they must repent to be forgiven of their sins. He reminds them that this life is the time for them to prepare to meet their God, by coming unto Christ, repenting of their sins, and obeying God's commandments.

He then told them that "Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, 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."

That awful crisis is cross referenced with Alma 40:14, which talks of the spirit prison where the souls of the wicked await the resurrection while the fiery indignation of the wrath of God is upon them. Those who rebel and reject the law taught in the flesh, in Spirit prison, cannot say they will repent because the same rebelious sprit that drove their bodies in the flesh, will still be the same rebellious spirit in the spirit prison. Salvation for the dead deals specifically with those who had no opportunity to hear the gospel or accept it in this life.

While this life is indeed a time to prepare, how can one prepare if he has never heard the things he needs to do to prepare? If a person grows up in the deep amazon or in communist china where they have never heard of Jesus Christ or who He is? Will he be held responsible for not doing things he had no opportunity to do in this life?

2: But what about those who never heard the message of the Gospel? They are provided for by the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ?

The scriptures you quoted in Nephi are right. Where there is no law, there is no punishent. Someone who dies without knowing the gospel will receive no punishment for not having not been baptized or not obeyed all the commandments of God. But those who died without knowledge of the Gospel do not simply get a free pass into heaven. Why? The fact that no man will be saved in ignorance (D&C 131:6), Man is endowed with the Light of Christ which is given to all to know good from evil (Moroni 7:16) and that Christ, in the 3 days between his death and resurrection, went to the spirit prison and preached so that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit (1 Peter 4:6)

Why those things? No man can be saved completely in ignorance. Once past the age of accountability, all men are capable of sin, and and therefore need to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. They may not have a full knowledge of the gospel, but the Light of Christ instructs all men to understand good from evil. Not hearing about the gospel does not stop one from telling a lie or stealing something. No uncleanliness can dwell in the presence of the Lord. If they die without the law, they will be taught it in the spirit world and will be judged like any other man in the flesh. Once the law is taught them, they will need to repent and be baptized. They can do the repenting on their end, but baptism is still essential for entrance into the Kingdom of God. 2 Nephi 9:23 emphasizes it. The scriptures you quote in your signature emphasize the importance. Christ himself that unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ makes everything discussed here possible, fulfilling Nephi's words. His ministry to the spirit world began a great work where everyone will have the chance to accept or reject the Gospel in this life or the next. It is a perfect plan that lets even those who die without the law be able to be redeemed of their sins and return to our Heavenly Father's presence. And you are absolutely right with your last scripture, those who are given the law and ultimately reject it, both in this life and the next, will be those who are condemned.

The Book of Mormon, despite it's lack of information dealing directly with the subject at hand, stands as a witness to the great Plan of our Heavenly Father and Christ's instrumental role as our savior and redeemer. It also attests to the continuing of modern revelation from He who declared himself "the way, the truth, and the life," which as I said above is more important than any written word.

Edited by captmoroniRM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your opinion, captainmoroniRM.

This line strikes me a contradictory...

The scriptures you quoted in Nephi are right. Where there is no law, there is no punishent. Someone who dies without knowing the gospel will receive no punishment for not having not been baptized or not obeyed all the commandments of God. But those who died without knowledge of the Gospel do not simply get a free pass into heaven.

You say they won't be punished, but then go on to say they would be not permitted into the Kingdom of God- which is the supreme punishment.

Feeding off another discussion...

Why do you not take the Sacrament in proxy each week for the dead then? It stands to reason, since their agency doesn't end, that they would need to partake somehow, having been made members of the church through proxy baptism earlier on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your opinion, captainmoroniRM.

This line strikes me a contradictory...

You say they won't be punished, but then go on to say they would be not permitted into the Kingdom of God- which is the supreme punishment.

Feeding off another discussion...

Why do you not take the Sacrament in proxy each week for the dead then? It stands to reason, since their agency doesn't end, that they would need to partake somehow, having been made members of the church through proxy baptism earlier on.

Please explain your understanding and definitions of the following:

1. The law (as it relates to baptism)

2. Covenant (as it relates to baptism)

3. The ordinance (as it relates to baptism)

4. The doctrine of baptism

5. The blessings (benedictions) specific to baptism

6. The punishment (maledictions) specific to not being baptized or fulfilling baptism. Is there a difference in maledictions for not being baptized from not fulfilling baptism?

7. According to the law – what is the meaning and purpose of a proxy?

8. Does the Book of Mormon – in your view – speak of a covenantal promise linking the generations spoken of in the Book of Mormon and again to the generations of our day and time?

9. What is the meaning of a “remnant”?

Finally do you believe there are examples of proxies involved in covenants in the Book of Mormon – directly or indirectly?

I ask these questions because it does appear that the primary problem is one of understanding of terms. I would like to make sure I understand your terms before I begin to discuss the concept of “fullness” of the Gospel and how that relates to covenant and law of baptism as clearly taught in the Book of Mormon to the ancient peoples concerning the temple that was often spoken of using symbolism in ancient Hebrew poetic formats.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, could have been clearer on that. I was discussing those who did not have a chance to hear the Gospel or accept it's saving ordinances, not those who received the gospel and rejected it. When I said they will recieve no punishment, my line of thinking was the general "write-off" that many denominations of Christianity give to those who die without knowledge of Christ.

That is not the case, as they are taught the law in the spirit world and given the opportunity to accept or reject it there. There will be many who, given the chance choose not to accept its teachings. Though every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, not all will accept him as their Savior. Just as there were those who stood and watched Christ heal the sick and perform his miracles, and denied his divinity, there will be those who choose not to accept the gospel and its ordinances. God will force no man to heaven, nor is it punishment. It's their choice.

But for those that accept the law that is being taught them, repentance and baptism are still commanded of all above the age of accountability. They accept, just as we do on earth, the law that is being taught on earth as well, where repentence and baptism serve as the gateway to the Kingdom of God. As Amulk taught in Alma 11:37 "And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins." Just because they didn't know the gospel, doesn't keep them from having sinned. As they accept the law that is taught them, they are responsible for repenting of the sins they committed in this life. They are given that chance.

Repentence is possible on their end, but baptism is out of their hands and thus the reponsibility falls upon us to do it vicariously.

We don't do the sacrament by proxy, because the Sacrament is a very personal ordinance. The debate can go on in the other thread about whether or not it is a saving ordinance, but regardless, it is a personal moment for us to remember our Savior and repent of our sins and pledge to do the Lord's will. I can't promise that my great-great-great-great grandfather or someone I have never met will take upon Christ's name and keep His commandments. It is something out of my hands. By my doing a proxy baptism, I'm not even ensuring that the person whose work I'm doing will be accepted by them. It's done, so that if the dead DO accept the Gospel in the spirit world, the ordinance is completed on their behalf.

And, this may be blunt, but these are more than just my opinions. I testify in the name of Jesus Christ that these things are true. The Spirit has guided me in responding to your questions and testified that they are true. I do thank you for your thoughts, as responding to them helped me gain a greater understanding of the plan of salvation. I invite you to humbly pray and ask God if the things I have spoken are true, or if the baptisms for the dead are part of his plan. That's the greatest promise the Book of Mormon holds, that you can seek the source of all truth and be taught from on High. a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I hope I chop this up right...

Please explain your understanding and definitions of the following:

1. The law (as it relates to baptism)

I believe baptism is a necessary ordinance for the living, who have learned Gospel and commandments of God.

2. Covenant (as it relates to baptism)

Baptism is a promise a believer makes to the Lord that he will do his best to live the commandments the Lord has given, in exchange the person is adopted as a son or daughter of Jesus Christ and receives all the blessings that entails.

3. The ordinance (as it relates to baptism)

You are baptized by immersion by one holding ministerial authority from the Restoration line after being called by name and hearing the words "_________ __________ having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 11:25)

4. The doctrine of baptism

Same as "1.", I would assume. Maybe I am not understanding your question?

5. The blessings (benedictions) specific to baptism

See "2."

6. The punishment (maledictions) specific to not being baptized or fulfilling baptism. Is there a difference in maledictions for not being baptized from not fulfilling baptism?

If you are taught the Gospel and commandments and refuse baptism, you are in perpetual sin and in need of repentance. If you die in such a condition, you can assume God will not be happy with your disobedience.

7. According to the law – what is the meaning and purpose of a proxy?

I have never heard it mentioned in scriptural law. The modern english definition is...

"prox·y   

[prok-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural prox·ies.

1.

the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.

2.

the person so authorized; substitute; agent."

8. Does the Book of Mormon – in your view – speak of a covenantal promise linking the generations spoken of in the Book of Mormon and again to the generations of our day and time?

Why don't you give me an example of where, in your opinion, it is found. It will make it easier to answer this one. I believe that God's Covenants extend to all generations, I don't however believe our actions determine the salvation of another human being and I don't believe their actions influence mine (except that I may pick up bad habits that lead me away from the Gospel)

Articles of Faith 1:2

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Mormon 9:27

O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him.

9. What is the meaning of a “remnant”?

rem·nant   

[rem-nuhnt] Show IPA

–noun

1.

a remaining, usually small part, quantity, number, or the like.

2.

a fragment or scrap.

3.

a small, unsold or unused piece of cloth, lace, etc., as at the end of a bolt.

4.

a trace; vestige: remnants of former greatness.

Finally do you believe there are examples of proxies involved in covenants in the Book of Mormon – directly or indirectly?

No. Except Jesus Christ paying the death price for our sins- He being the only one that could do it...

Alma 34:9-12

For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

I ask these questions because it does appear that the primary problem is one of understanding of terms. I would like to make sure I understand your terms before I begin to discuss the concept of “fullness” of the Gospel and how that relates to covenant and law of baptism as clearly taught in the Book of Mormon to the ancient peoples concerning the temple that was often spoken of using symbolism in ancient Hebrew poetic formats.

The Traveler

I tried to make it legible, oh well- hopefully it is understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I hope I chop this up right...

I tried to make it legible, oh well- hopefully it is understandable.

You did very well. Hopefully we can "enlarge" the scriptures together but first I must apologize. My current schedule may not allow a daily exchange – although I will try to prioritize our discussion – both for our benefits and possible benefits of other interested parties on this forum.

Let us begin a discussion about proxies. It may be well to establish some of the ancient concepts that existed in “kingdoms” between the Suzerain of a kingdom and their appointed servant vassals. Without going into too much detail do you understand that taking the name of someone is a form of proxy under ancient law?

There are certain elements taking place in the establishment of baptismal covenant. Within the ordinance there is a great deal of symbolism – all of which has distinct purpose in scripture. The reason that we are baptized (immersed) in water has much to do with “parallelism”. Part of this has to do with creation, genesis and birth; another part has to do with death and then resurrection. Within the ordinance both that which is spiritual and that which is physical are joined within the same covenant – thus baptism is “required” both of the water and of the spirit.

In essence, elements of the baptism become symbolic. That is these elements become proxy representations of something else both that are taking place and will yet take place as represented in the single ordinance of baptism. The ancient terms of whole and holy are very closely related. When one is whole they are holy and vice versa. Thus Jesus spoke of baptism to fulfill the law of righteousness and not just to participate in repentance.

There is another important symbol in baptism that relates to proxy. I alluded to it earlier in this post as becoming a proxy for Christ through the law by taking his name upon us by covenant. In the name of Christ we become a type and shadow Christ. Through this proxy we become “one” with Christ just as a man and a woman become “one” in marriage. It is also interesting to note that Jesus often refers to the relationship of being in his kingdom to being married. When we are baptized there is a proxy for G-d that performs the baptism (in the name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost). Thus one person is the proxy for G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost.

At this point I would ask you. Do you see how these things are all taught in scripture or do we need to go back and establish each point by point (or any individual point) in the Bible and the Book of Mormon?

The Traveler

I needed to put forward one quick question to set up the next possible point - Do you understand that the symbolic term mountain (often used in ancient scripture) is a referenct to the temple?

Edited by Traveler
Question about mountains
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to your logic, BOMluvr, I wonder why God ever even revealed His Gospel to man?

If it is possible to be saved in ignorance, then all men who remain ignorant are saved. If that were possible, the best thing God could have done was to keep His Gospel from us, thereby saving all men.

Is that how you interpret the scripture you quoted about all men who had not the law when they died?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share