A person that has baptism done in their favor has complete agency to accept or reject the ordinance
Just that baptism is not something one can reject when performed on one.
Last time I checked babies had no say whether they wanted to be baptized or not and it still counted.
man you just don't listen, do you
Having an ordinance done for someone that's already dead does not mean that they're saved and will go to heaven 4ever. The person can accept or reject the ordinance
is that really so hard to understand
plus we do not baptize babbies
Well, maybe people don't want that ordinance. How about that?
Also the plane ticket analogy fails, because one is a worldly, the other a religious matter.
Run Run Run on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
A person that has baptism done in their favor has complete agency to accept or reject the ordinance
Just that baptism is not something one can reject when performed on one.
Last time I checked babies had no say whether they wanted to be baptized or not and it still counted.
man you just don't listen, do you
Having an ordinance done for someone that's already dead does not mean that they're saved and will go to heaven 4ever. The person can accept or reject the ordinance
is that really so hard to understand
plus we do not baptize babbies
Um... it isn't so the "person" can accept or reject the "ordinance". It is so the patriarch can welcome the unbelieving family member into the planet after death.
I'm serious... any of you can read about this shit...
You sprinkle water or jam or whatever on a dead person
And then say its up to them to decide whether to accept it
It's up to a dead person to decide whether to accept having water or jam sprinkled on them
no
just a normal baptism, except a live person does it in behalf of another (like, the wording even changes to "so and so I baptize you for and in behalf of such and such)
You sprinkle water or jam or whatever on a dead person
And then say its up to them to decide whether to accept it
It's up to a dead person to decide whether to accept having water or jam sprinkled on them
no
just a normal baptism, except a live person does it in behalf of another (like, the wording even changes to "so and so I baptize you for and in behalf of such and such)
the last line is accurate, except no jam
but that person is dead
What are you saying? That you don't believe in life after death?
Then what's the problem? How can you offend a dead person if the fact that they're dead prevents receiving the ordinance anyway?
A person that has baptism done in their favor has complete agency to accept or reject the ordinance
Just that baptism is not something one can reject when performed on one.
Last time I checked babies had no say whether they wanted to be baptized or not and it still counted.
man you just don't listen, do you
Having an ordinance done for someone that's already dead does not mean that they're saved and will go to heaven 4ever. The person can accept or reject the ordinance
is that really so hard to understand
plus we do not baptize babbies
Well, maybe people don't want that ordinance. How about that?
Also the plane ticket analogy fails, because one is a worldly, the other a religious matter.
fine
the person rejects it, and the ordinance, while still having been done, is invalid because the person refused it. It's basically the same as if someone in this life were baptized then later doesn't accept it
Also, that whole baptism Mormon thing for already deceased non-Mormons, yeah, that's fucking wrong. It just is. Stop that. Don't defend it, because you're just wrong.
Really? Here's an analogy:
Imagine there a ton of people who think that the Australia is going to fall into the ocean during the year 2020. So this group of people want to save everyone who lives in the Australia but knowing that not everyone has the means to save themselves they go out and buy plots of land and plane tickets for everyone who lives in Australia. Would you be offended if you had a relative that lived in Australia?
Its the same thing. By doing the work for the deceased, all they are doing is "buying them a ticket". The relatives who have passed on don't have to use it. In fact, they are taking time out of their schedule to "help" people they don't even know. Its seems pretty non-offensive if you ask me.
how about if a bunch of muslims went around converting you to islam after you died
We don't convert them, jackass. We give them the chance to be fully accepted into the church should they choose to accept the gospel and the baptism.
They could give us a big fat "fuck no" if they want.
Baptism for the Dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered to all those who have previously passed on without having heard of the Gospel of Jesus. If baptism is a required ordinance, as Mormons believe is evidenced by Jesus's own desire to receive it from John the Baptist, then this ordinance becomes a burden for all those who wish to spread the Gospel with all the inhabitants of the earth who have previously passed on to the afterlife.
So if one is a Mormon, it is their duty as part of spreading the Gospel to see that those who passed on receive baptism after death. Perhaps they did not wanted to be Saved. Or even receive the rite of Baptism. Which in a way is incomprehensible because who wants to burn in Hell for all eternity? Still, people need to reach Jesus through their own path (and perhaps with some guidance from fellow Christians), but that does not mean you get to baptize them without their consent. Otherwise you're forcing you beliefs onto someone else and doesn't that not violate number 11 of the Articles of Faith?
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
You sprinkle water or jam or whatever on a dead person
And then say its up to them to decide whether to accept it
It's up to a dead person to decide whether to accept having water or jam sprinkled on them
no
just a normal baptism, except a live person does it in behalf of another (like, the wording even changes to "so and so I baptize you for and in behalf of such and such)
the last line is accurate, except no jam
but that person is dead
What are you saying? That you don't believe in life after death?
Then what's the problem? How can you offend a dead person if the fact that they're dead prevents receiving the ordinance anyway?
But it doesn't prevent them receiving it, because you still sprinkle water on them
bongi on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Also, that whole baptism Mormon thing for already deceased non-Mormons, yeah, that's fucking wrong. It just is. Stop that. Don't defend it, because you're just wrong.
Really? Here's an analogy:
Imagine there a ton of people who think that the Australia is going to fall into the ocean during the year 2020. So this group of people want to save everyone who lives in the Australia but knowing that not everyone has the means to save themselves they go out and buy plots of land and plane tickets for everyone who lives in Australia. Would you be offended if you had a relative that lived in Australia?
Its the same thing. By doing the work for the deceased, all they are doing is "buying them a ticket". The relatives who have passed on don't have to use it. In fact, they are taking time out of their schedule to "help" people they don't even know. Its seems pretty non-offensive if you ask me.
how about if a bunch of muslims went around converting you to islam after you died
We don't convert them, jackass. We give them the chance to be fully accepted into the church should they choose to accept the gospel and the baptism.
They could give us a big fat "fuck no" if they want.
Baptism for the Dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered to all those who have previously passed on without having heard of the Gospel of Jesus. If baptism is a required ordinance, as Mormons believe is evidenced by Jesus's own desire to receive it from John the Baptist, then this ordinance becomes a burden for all those who wish to spread the Gospel with all the inhabitants of the earth who have previously passed on to the afterlife.
So if one is a Mormon, it is their duty as part of spreading the Gospel to see that those who passed on receive baptism after death. Perhaps they did not wanted to be Saved. Or even receive the rite of Baptism. Which in a way is incomprehensible because who wants to burn in Hell for all eternity? Still, people need to reach Jesus through their own path (and perhaps with some guidance from fellow Christians), but that does not mean you get to baptize them without their consent. Otherwise you're forcing you beliefs onto someone else and doesn't that not violate number 11 of the Articles of Faith?
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
That's not forcing your beliefs. That's the same as going "Would you like to hear what I have to say about the gospel?"
If they say no, you moved on. If they say yes, then I bet they're damn happy you did it.
Well, maybe people don't want that ordinance. How about that?
Also the plane ticket analogy fails, because one is a worldly, the other a religious matter.
fine
the person rejects it, and the ordinance, while still having been done, is invalid because the person refused it. It's basically the same as if someone in this life were baptized then later doesn't accept it
Or how about you guys don't perform it in the first place, instead of trying to justify it?
It clashes with other people's believes. They don't want your "help". But no, you go ahead and do it anyway. Total lack of respect.
(anyway, if you plan to respond, I am back in about 2 hours or so)
You sprinkle water or jam or whatever on a dead person
And then say its up to them to decide whether to accept it
It's up to a dead person to decide whether to accept having water or jam sprinkled on them
no
just a normal baptism, except a live person does it in behalf of another (like, the wording even changes to "so and so I baptize you for and in behalf of such and such)
the last line is accurate, except no jam
but that person is dead
What are you saying? That you don't believe in life after death?
Then what's the problem? How can you offend a dead person if the fact that they're dead prevents receiving the ordinance anyway?
But it doesn't prevent them receiving it, because you still sprinkle water on them
You don't actually sprinkle the corpse, dude. You just do it in their name in the temple.
kingkhan on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Well, maybe people don't want that ordinance. How about that?
Also the plane ticket analogy fails, because one is a worldly, the other a religious matter.
fine
the person rejects it, and the ordinance, while still having been done, is invalid because the person refused it. It's basically the same as if someone in this life were baptized then later doesn't accept it
Or how about you guys don't perform it in the first place, instead of trying to justify it?
It clashes with other people's believes. They don't want your "help". But no, you go ahead and do it anyway. Total lack of respect.
You sprinkle water or jam or whatever on a dead person
And then say its up to them to decide whether to accept it
It's up to a dead person to decide whether to accept having water or jam sprinkled on them
no
just a normal baptism, except a live person does it in behalf of another (like, the wording even changes to "so and so I baptize you for and in behalf of such and such)
the last line is accurate, except no jam
but that person is dead
What are you saying? That you don't believe in life after death?
Then what's the problem? How can you offend a dead person if the fact that they're dead prevents receiving the ordinance anyway?
But it doesn't prevent them receiving it, because you still sprinkle water on them
You don't actually sprinkle the corpse, dude. You just do it in their name in the temple.
Well, maybe people don't want that ordinance. How about that?
Also the plane ticket analogy fails, because one is a worldly, the other a religious matter.
fine
the person rejects it, and the ordinance, while still having been done, is invalid because the person refused it. It's basically the same as if someone in this life were baptized then later doesn't accept it
Or how about you guys don't perform it in the first place, instead of trying to justify it?
It clashes with other people's believes. They don't want your "help". But no, you go ahead and do it anyway. Total lack of respect.
(anyway, if you plan to respond, I am back in about 2 hours or so)
Except unless you were personally, directly told by this person, while they were alive, to not tell them these things, that doesn't apply.
kingkhan on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
GRMikeThe Last Best Hope for HumanityThe God Pod Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
But have you discussed that your "God" isn't the Hebrew "God"? Because that is how the LDS reels in "christians".
You sprinkle water or jam or whatever on a dead person
And then say its up to them to decide whether to accept it
It's up to a dead person to decide whether to accept having water or jam sprinkled on them
no
just a normal baptism, except a live person does it in behalf of another (like, the wording even changes to "so and so I baptize you for and in behalf of such and such)
the last line is accurate, except no jam
but that person is dead
What are you saying? That you don't believe in life after death?
Then what's the problem? How can you offend a dead person if the fact that they're dead prevents receiving the ordinance anyway?
But it doesn't prevent them receiving it, because you still sprinkle water on them
You don't actually sprinkle the corpse, dude. You just do it in their name in the temple.
Ohhh okay that's what I wasn't following
That does make it seem a lot less bad, doesn't it?
babyeatingjesus on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
Also the plane ticket analogy fails, because one is a worldly, the other a religious matter.
K, lets say one religion believes that everyone is going to be resurrected in 10 years. And their specific belief is that you have to wear a blue hat with your name on it in order to be transported to heaven. If they start buying blue hats, put everyone's names on the hats, and start storing them would you be offended if one of your deceased family member's names was on a hat? I would personally think it cute that some misguided religion was trying to save the whole of humanity. Wouldn't mean much to me except that they are trying to help everyone.
If the mormon religion isn't true, then you shouldn't be worried about the baptism anyways because they have no authority to offer your dead relatives the chance to accept the baptism. They would just be some misguided religion trying to save the whole world. Seems like a noble intent to me.
Posts
Well, maybe people don't want that ordinance. How about that?
Also the plane ticket analogy fails, because one is a worldly, the other a religious matter.
ultimately, I don't think it matters
Um... it isn't so the "person" can accept or reject the "ordinance". It is so the patriarch can welcome the unbelieving family member into the planet after death.
I'm serious... any of you can read about this shit...
blog facebook steam twitter
I started the wanting to be converted thing before I dumped her.
For a second there you had me. I was all "oh shit oh shit I hope she doesn't think that," but then I remembered.
also kolob=kobol= Joseph Smith is the 13th cylon
What are you saying? That you don't believe in life after death?
Then what's the problem? How can you offend a dead person if the fact that they're dead prevents receiving the ordinance anyway?
I'll go get a bucket of KY jelly for the Slaanesh orgy afterwards.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
fine
the person rejects it, and the ordinance, while still having been done, is invalid because the person refused it. It's basically the same as if someone in this life were baptized then later doesn't accept it
Nah, I think the movie just assumes people don't know jack shit about that particular area of the dark side. Plot devise etc bla bla.
Basically the Nazis flew up in secret and now return to take out the US.
Did they hitch a ride with the scientologists?
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
So if one is a Mormon, it is their duty as part of spreading the Gospel to see that those who passed on receive baptism after death. Perhaps they did not wanted to be Saved. Or even receive the rite of Baptism. Which in a way is incomprehensible because who wants to burn in Hell for all eternity? Still, people need to reach Jesus through their own path (and perhaps with some guidance from fellow Christians), but that does not mean you get to baptize them without their consent. Otherwise you're forcing you beliefs onto someone else and doesn't that not violate number 11 of the Articles of Faith?
We are a cult. We are from space and we are aliens. We are trying to assimilate you. Quit fucking resisting. Futile etc.
Technically we are the Inhumans, and if you try to find our moon base we will kill you and then baptize you against your will.
And then Tzeetnch shows up at the end of the ritual and transmutes us all in the eucharist
And what about the part where a bunch of probes and lunar missions and stuff flew around the moon, that stuff didn't happen?
This post cracked me up.
Joseph Smith has 11 letters in his name
Quaram of the 12
12 + 11 = 23
IT'S RIGHT THERE MAN!
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
That's not forcing your beliefs. That's the same as going "Would you like to hear what I have to say about the gospel?"
If they say no, you moved on. If they say yes, then I bet they're damn happy you did it.
And baptism is not necessary to get into Heaven.
Oh, I didn't know it was a parody.
That makes sense then.
Or how about you guys don't perform it in the first place, instead of trying to justify it?
It clashes with other people's believes. They don't want your "help". But no, you go ahead and do it anyway. Total lack of respect.
(anyway, if you plan to respond, I am back in about 2 hours or so)
well, we are pretty prompt
You don't actually sprinkle the corpse, dude. You just do it in their name in the temple.
BLOWING MY MIND
ALL HAIL DISCORDIA
take it up with God
He's the one who asked us to do it, anyway
Except unless you were personally, directly told by this person, while they were alive, to not tell them these things, that doesn't apply.
blog facebook steam twitter
Yeah. We're not actually going to grave sites and defiling their grave by sprinkling our hoodoo juice on it.
DUM DUM DEE DUM DUM DUM DEE DUM DUM
DUM DUM DEE DUM DUM DUM DEE DUM DUM
DUM DUM DEE DUM DUM DUM *Smack* SHUT YO MOUTH BITCH!
oh wait, discordia...not disturbia
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
K, lets say one religion believes that everyone is going to be resurrected in 10 years. And their specific belief is that you have to wear a blue hat with your name on it in order to be transported to heaven. If they start buying blue hats, put everyone's names on the hats, and start storing them would you be offended if one of your deceased family member's names was on a hat? I would personally think it cute that some misguided religion was trying to save the whole of humanity. Wouldn't mean much to me except that they are trying to help everyone.
If the mormon religion isn't true, then you shouldn't be worried about the baptism anyways because they have no authority to offer your dead relatives the chance to accept the baptism. They would just be some misguided religion trying to save the whole world. Seems like a noble intent to me.