Shattered Dreams

[Sheelah]

Just that. If they didn't do it in this life they "chose" to not be baptised. There is no question in my mind that if they wanted to.... they would have. That is why I may have made a mistake by posting my personal opinion. It's just that MY personal opinion. I know the arguement involved in this so if it would make you all feel better I'll retract my post ...

f4k

Romans 14:13

[Dale]

All it says is that the KJV has a "wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage." I have no idea where you are getting this from...certainly not from the definition of damnation in the Dictionary. It limits its definition to those not receiving the fulness of celestial exaltation being " limited in their progress and privileges." That has always been the standard definition of "damned" in LDS theology since we do not believe in an eternal hell. Outer darkness has nothing to do with damnation, it is a category of its own and is reserved for anyone who knew Jesus was Christ, as in saw him, knew him and was fully aware of who and what he was yet would still be willing to nail him on a cross. Even Judas would not qualify under that definition. Dale, how long has it been since you were LDS?

[/quote

I left the church in 2005. I read that statement and understand it. The standard definion did not start in the scriptures, so the definition underwent an evolution. I only could detect it's use as a definition back to some of Bruce. R. Mckinkie's writings. So i think someone originated a unique definition of damnation in the 20th century. The person's that said the wider definition is found in the Bible i don't think was right. I read each of the scriptures used as support of the definition, and they all read wrong. Where are you getting the idea going to outer darkness is not a state of damnation? Dig out a scripture that agree's with you, and i will be glad to look it up for myself. I won't debate you further in it here, but start a post on it on the MADB board, and i might join in on the discussion.

Do you have any quote's from 19th century LDS publication's that prove's the standard definion was alway's in use?

Outer darkness in LDS and Community of Christ theology is the permanant replacement for hell. But we would see going to outer darkness as damnation. So the LDS standard definition has never been one we have used.

[Juliann]

I'm all for honoring my ancestors. I find baptism for dead Jews presumptuous and offensive.

michaela

What about dead Hindus? Are you referring to the request to not baptise random Holocaust survivors? Church members are not supposed to be doing work for strangers...it is the family line. So if the "dead Jew" is my great grandfather it really isn't your call and I think it might be you giving the offense if you think you can speak for all "dead Jews". Unfortunately, people usually don't discriminate between the public access list and the actual temple list. Anyone can put names on the public list...that does not mean anything has been done. Names like "Bossy Cow" have been shown on the public lists. At any rate, the desire to give salvation to all is hardly new....

Posthumous salvation for sinful Christians did develop in different ways in West and East: purgatory in the West, prayers now for mercy at the final judgment in the East. These beliefs and their attendant practices enabled Christian civilization to continue the ancient piety of helping the dead, but with restrictions on who could be helped. In the era of Augustine and Vincentia’s Victor, the transition period from a largely pagan Mediterranean culture to a largely Christian one, the issue of what to do about the non-Christian dead became most acute. Afterward, the interest focused more on the salvation of pagans who had lived long ago, like Trajan or the dead pagan saved by St. Patrick.

Latter-day Saints and Shakers of the nineteenth century revived certain types of posthumous salvation, without necessarily being aware of the earlier history, save the one Pauline passage about baptism on behalf of the dead, I Cor. 15:29. This shows that the religious impulse to rescue the dead can arise any time there is enthusiasm for the new activity of God in the world.

Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford Press, 2001), 155.

[Guest Seraphim]

Please remember that this is not a debate board and that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be answering doctrinal questions here.

Seraphim

[Pa Pa]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. According to the book "Adam chose Jesus, the firstborn of his innumerable offspring in the preexistence, to be the second member of the trinity (the third being the Holy Spirit)."

michaela

You are kidding right...this is off the wall even for an anti-book.

[Dale]

Please remember that this is not a debate board and that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be answering doctrinal questions here.

Seraphim

It's kind of like you told me in a nice way to never answer a doctrinal question. I only mentioned one LDS definition out of the Bible dictionary i doubted was true. Anybody that has any LDS KJV handy can look up the topic of damnation, and check out the scriptural proof's the author used to back up the definition. I thought at the time my comment relevant to question 4 out of Shattered Dream's.

I may be Community of Christ/RLDS but i have some beliefs in common with my LDS friends. And i can give an answer to a question as well as any LDS member. Other than a point Juliann considered me wrong on i thought my answer's fair to the LDS position. I confess i might be wrong. I am trying to move away from i am right you are wrong kind's of internet discussion's. I am honestly sick of contention. I can be wrong on any point i make. So i encourage person's to double check my answer's with good LDS person's and buy LDS book's dealing with tough subjects in the FAIR bookstore.

I was also LDS for 36 year's so am not ignorant of LDS doctrine.

I try and give the answer's that would be the best answer's an LDS person could give. I base my answer on the best in current LDS apologetic's and scholarship as i see it. We have some good RLDS apologetic also i sometime's will use. I have had 20+ years experience with studying various kinds of Anti-Mormon materials. I took a few witnessing to Mormon's seminar's. I listened to some more on CD and tape's. I had much time to ponder the issues.

Certainly if i give any answer that misrepresents, or misunderstands the LDS position enough LDS person's are around to correct me. I alway's refer to SHIELDS/FAIR, and FairWiki/FARMS as the basic place's to find the best in LDS answer's. The links FAIR has are also good to follow. http://www.fairlds.org Message board's i think should be the last option as a place to find current LDS answer's.