Indulgences. Pay pope or baptize LDS?

[shoedog]

shoe: I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences, that is, you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Isn't this similar to LDS Mormons teaching that people who die apart from the Mormon church, and their belief system, can be baptized by proxy by an LDS Mormon convinced their cause is just?

Pay the Catholics pope or baptize by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead, and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?

Or, why would Jesus have to die at all if one could experiment apart from GOd in this life only to be given the opportunity to change in the next once you've seen you were wrong?

Thanks, shoe :)

[Bat-Man]

If you want people to continue to think you are intelligent as they think you are, keep sharing your thoughts with them, shoe.

I know I see how intelligent you are the more you keep sharing your thoughts.

It really does work.

[Columcille]

shoe: I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences, that is, you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Isn't this similar to LDS Mormons teaching that people who die apart from the Mormon church, and their belief system, can be baptized by proxy by an LDS Mormon convinced their cause is just?

Pay the Catholics pope or baptize by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead, and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?

Or, why would Jesus have to die at all if one could experiment apart from GOd in this life only to be given the opportunity to change in the next once you've seen you were wrong?

Thanks, shoe :)

Purgatory is reserved only for the Christian. In regards to Tetzel and Luther, I think there is a large misconception by Protestants due to the embellishing stories and animousity between the Reformers and Catholics during that time. Indulgences should not be interpreted through the prism of the Reformers but by the context of how it is directly taught by the Catholic Church. Hence, the baptisms done by LDS is completely different than indulgences by the Catholic Church. Indulgences are to me no different than many Protestant churches' practice to pay for flowers out of respect for recently deceased members and placed in the santuary. Personally, I think that the idea of indulgences should be done as a means of offsetting the temporal effects of sins commited by the person while they were alive. David's sin in killing the husband of Bethsheba and his adultery with her caused a lot of family problems. Indulgences would be something that offsets the bitterness left behind after David's death. This is not the same purpose with which LDS baptisms for the dead are done.

[Bat-Man]

Purgatory is reserved only for the Christian.
I accept that as your belief, but I don't share your belief, personally.


In regards to Tetzel and Luther, I think there is a large misconception by Protestants due to the embellishing stories and animousity between the Reformers and Catholics during that time.
I accept that as a possibility. Are you willing to try to show us the truth regarding what Catholics really teach about indulgences?


Indulgences should not be interpreted through the prism of the Reformers but by the context of how it is directly taught by the Catholic Church.
Are you qualified to teach what the Catholic Church teaches?

If so, can you teach us what the Catholic Church teaches about indulgences to try to clear up this issue?

I read all of what you wrote before responding, but I'd still like some more clarification.


Hence, the baptisms done by LDS is completely different than indulgences by the Catholic Church.
As a member of the "LDS" Church who is qualified to teach what the "LDS" Church teaches, I'll make that determination, myself, once I believe I correctly understand what the Catholic Church teaches.


Indulgences are to me no different than many Protestant churches' practice to pay for flowers out of respect for recently deceased members and placed in the santuary.
I'm not familiar with that "Protestant" practice, and I'm also not sure that I correctly understand what the Catholic Church teaches about indulgences, so I don't know whether or not that is a fair comparison.


Personally, I think that the idea of indulgences should be done as a means of offsetting the temporal effects of sins commited by the person while they were alive.
Is your personal perspective in line with what the Catholic Church teaches?

Are you basically saying that you believe an indulgence is a means of saying "I'm sorry" for what you or someone else did?

Do you believe someone can give money to remove some burden from sin?

I'd like a very concise and simple explanation of what an indulgence really is, rathter than a link to pages and pages and pages that do not directly state clearly and concisely what an indulgence is, if possible.


David's sin in killing the husband of Bethsheba and his adultery with her caused a lot of family problems. Indulgences would be something that offsets the bitterness left behind after David's death.
Okay, I think I know what you may mean here, but I'm not entirely sure.

Say, for example, that David or someone from the family of David chose to go to the family of Uriah to give them some money while saying they hoped that money would help to alleviate some of the problems that he (David) caused by sending Uriah to war with the hope that he would be killed.

Is that a fair description of what you think is the purpose for an indulgence?

If so, what would the person who accepted that money be saying by accepting that money as an "indulgence" ?


This is not the same purpose with which LDS baptisms for the dead are done.
I'm not sure what you are stating is the purpose of an indulgence, but I think you are saying an "indulgence" is intended to allow someone to "indulge" in some sin without reaping any consequences for committing that sin, and if that's what you're really saying, then I think the baptism Jesus Christ expects from all of his followers before he will cleanse us from all of our sins, as long as we repent, is a perfect ****ogy.

[Columcille]

I

I accept that as a possibility. Are you willing to try to show us the truth regarding what Catholics really teach about indulgences?


Are you qualified to teach what the Catholic Church teaches?

If so, can you teach us what the Catholic Church teaches about indulgences to try to clear up this issue?

I read all of what you wrote before responding, but I'd still like some more clarification.


As a member of the "LDS" Church who is qualified to teach what the "LDS" Church teaches, I'll make that determination, myself, once I believe I correctly understand what the Catholic Church teaches.


I'm not familiar with that "Protestant" practice, and I'm also not sure that I correctly understand what the Catholic Church teaches about indulgences, so I don't know whether or not that is a fair comparison.


Is your personal perspective in line with what the Catholic Church teaches?

Are you basically saying that you believe an indulgence is a means of saying "I'm sorry" for what you or someone else did?

Do you believe someone can give money to remove some burden from sin?

I'd like a very concise and simple explanation of what an indulgence really is, rathter than a link to pages and pages and pages that do not directly state clearly and concisely what an indulgence is, if possible.


Okay, I think I know what you may mean here, but I'm not entirely sure.

Say, for example, that David or someone from the family of David chose to go to the family of Uriah to give them some money while saying they hoped that money would help to alleviate some of the problems that he (David) caused by sending Uriah to war with the hope that he would be killed.

Is that a fair description of what you think is the purpose for an indulgence?

If so, what would the person who accepted that money be saying by accepting that money as an "indulgence" ?


I'm not sure what you are stating is the purpose of an indulgence, but I think you are saying an "indulgence" is intended to allow someone to "indulge" in some sin without reaping any consequences for committing that sin, and if that's what you're really saying, then I think the baptism Jesus Christ expects from all of his followers before he will cleanse us from all of our sins, as long as we repent, is a perfect ****ogy.

Batman, I am not here stating what you believe, I am a Catholic. I am only drawing a distinction that I feel the author of the OP clearly does not understand in making such a comparison. I am inclined to think that an indulgence is done through the temple and not directly to the offending persons. The whole point of reconcilation is not to be something between two people, but through the mediation of God. Hence, indulgences are something within the framework of the Church under the new covenant. Obviously the bitterness of David's family cannot be undone, unless they themselves turn to God for consolation. You can certainly share your belief about baptism for the dead in your own tradition, but baptism in general even for the living is something related to salvation. Indulgences do not carry any salvaic merit, only as a mean of purging the temporal effects of the consequences of sin, which is why I mentioned David's example. The text that Purgatory is developed from is 1 Cor. 3.13-15. It is a state, not a place and it is only reserved for the Christian. If you want to know more on indulgences, I suggest a reading from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

To answer your question directly, money does not remove sin. Let me put it this way, when you sin, you sin against yourself, another person, against God, and against the community. You can be forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus, but the consequences of your actions still remain. Hence, giving money to the Church is the same as in the O.T. giving to the temple of God. Such gifts bring about a more effecient priesthood giving them the necessities for their daily routines and the growth and maintanance needs of the community. Hence, indulgences sold by Tetzel for the growth of a basilica is helpful for the not only the image of the Church, but also beneficial to the families and friends that gave for a deceased loved one. It is a testimony of love, not obligation or law. Your church's practice to baptise for the dead is probably understood to be a 'loving" act, but the purpose of baptism for the living is not the same purpose for indulgences. Hence, I am only pointing out to the author of the OP such a distinction that makes the comparisons invalid.

[shoedog]

If you want people to continue to think you are intelligent as they think you are, keep sharing your thoughts with them, shoe.

I know I see how intelligent you are the more you keep sharing your thoughts.

It really does work.

Sorry for the delay. I was looking for the LDS quotes when I had to abruptly leave to help someone. I posted the thread to see what initial reaction I'd have when I got back and hopefully someone else having heard this. I'm back now and working on making the linkage.

Again, sorry for the incomplete OP. I just hope I can find whatr I was reading last week. If anyone knows it, it said something like the riches of glory in exaltation are in proportion to the work a saint does in the baptism of hte dead... something like that. It was from Smith, Young, Woodruff... someone like that.

The Catholic reference was it had been taught from the early church and listed a Saint who said as much... something like that.

Gimme a half hour or so and I'll try to find them. If not, I'll apologize and condemn thread. THanks, shoe :)

[archaeologist]

Indulgences are to me no different than many Protestant churches' practice to pay for flowers out of respect for recently deceased members and placed in the santuary.

that may be your modrn adaption for your own peace of mind, but hereis what Kenneth Scott Latourette has to say on the subject:

"In connexion with penance there developed the theory and practice of indulgences and the treasury of the Church. At first indulgences seemed to have been of a limited kind, and were the remission of some of the prescribed works of penance in return for som eother act, such as gifts to a monastary or a church. It was also held that if the 'temporal' penalties for sin were not met in this life, they would be required after death, in purgatory, before the soul was cleansed from its sin and was capable of the beatific vision of God. ..." A History of Christianity Vol. 1 page 529

your version is quite different from the reality as the reality demonstrates that the RCC felt it had power over when sins were forgiven, how they were forgiven and who got to enter heaven and when they could. such ideas are not only heretical but far from the truth.

your version seems seek to make it all look nice in hopes that the heresy would go away.

The mormon version of 'indulgences' is saying that people can and will be made or declared mormon after their death when they HAVE NO SAY or CHOICE in the matter. it is an act of desperation of the mormon faithful to secure eternal life fo their loved ones who exercised their right of free choice and who rejected the mormon ways.

i will invite the resident mormons to rebut me on this BUT only if they present the correct and official teachings of the Mormon cult and not their opinions or tap dancing.

[Bat-Man]

While we're on a topic like this, would a Protestant, or what is NOW referred to as a "Mainstream Christian", please state whether or not you think the Church went into what we (LDS) refer to as an "apostasy" which is what prompted the need for a "Reformation".

You guys keep talking as if what we (LDS) refer to as an "apostasy" never happened universally within the Church that was originally the true Church of Jesus Christ, so I think now would be a good time to stop your posturing while you act as if everything has always been just hunky dory within the Church, generally, as you now try to clarify what the heck you are talking about when you act like that.

[archaeologist]

To answer your question directly, money does not remove sin. Let me put it this way, when you sin, you sin against yourself, another person, against God, and against the community. You can be forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus, but the consequences of your actions still remain. Hence, giving money to the Church is the same as in the O.T. giving to the temple of God.

out of curiosity, when did 'grace' become another version of law & order? where in the Bible does it say that the church gets to place consequences on the person to make up for their sins?

the example of Jesus and Zaccheus didn't have Jesus telling Zaccheus that he had to do extra to gain forgiveness, he had received it right there. it was Zaccheus himself who imposed his own 'punishment'.

so please, produce the scripture which exactly states that the church has the authority to impose punishment other than kicking a sinner out of the ocngregation for their sinful behavior.

[Bat-Man]

The mormon version of 'indulgences' is saying that people can and will be made or declared mormon after their death when they HAVE NO SAY or CHOICE in the matter.
Wrong.

That's a gross misrepresentation that is being perpetuated by people like you.

We simply do the ordinance works that are required by everyone if they want to be saved in the Celestial kingdom of God, and then we leave it up to each of the persons we do the works for to choose whether or not they want to accept those ordinance works which we have done for them.

For example: If we find out that a person named "Joe Bob Billyray Russell Thornton " really existed, we'll eventually do the ordinance works that he is required to accept if he wants to be saved in the Celestial kingdom of God, and then it will be up to him to choose whether or not he wants to accept those ordinance works which we have done for him.

If he then says something like:

No thank ye, and you folks just keep that stuff waay over yonder.

We'll honor his request, and then he won't get any credit for the works we did on his behalf with the hope that he would accept what we did for him.

[shoedog]

Purgatory is reserved only for the Christian. In regards to Tetzel and Luther, I think there is a large misconception by Protestants due to the embellishing stories and animousity between the Reformers and Catholics during that time. Indulgences should not be interpreted through the prism of the Reformers but by the context of how it is directly taught by the Catholic Church. Hence, the baptisms done by LDS is completely different than indulgences by the Catholic Church. Indulgences are to me no different than many Protestant churches' practice to pay for flowers out of respect for recently deceased members and placed in the santuary. Personally, I think that the idea of indulgences should be done as a means of offsetting the temporal effects of sins commited by the person while they were alive. David's sin in killing the husband of Bethsheba and his adultery with her caused a lot of family problems. Indulgences would be something that offsets the bitterness left behind after David's death. This is not the same purpose with which LDS baptisms for the dead are done.

I agree. There certainly were terrible abuses in Luther's time of indulgences,funding cathedrals, etc. compared to today. Paying for another's sins would be nice for those sinned against. Jesus did that for us, didn't He?

The LDS ordinances of Baptism for the dead require the LDS to complete the ordinances as if the dead were actually doing it for themselves. Almost finished. thanks, shoe :)

[Bat-Man]

I agree. There certainly were terrible abuses in Luther's time of indulgences,funding cathedrals, etc. compared to today. Paying for another's sins would be nice for those sinned against. Jesus did that for us, didn't He?
Yes, Jesus did.

Now, for those of you who believe you need to be baptized according to God's commandments, can you also see how the person who "baptizes" you is also helping you to do what God has commanded, and is thereby helping you to fulfill God's commandments?

The person who baptizes you isn't giving you money when he baptizes you, though, so I don't see how that can be fairly compared to the Catholic teaching about indulgences, which is generally ***ociated with people giving "money".


The LDS ordinances of Baptism for the dead require the LDS to complete the ordinances as if the dead were actually doing it for themselves.
Yes, but the person we are doing the work for stillhas the final say so about whether or not he (or she) accepts the work we did on his (or her) behalf, and if he (or she) rejects what we did for him (or her), then he (or she) doesn't get ANY credit for that work and instead ALL of the credit goes to the person(s) who did that work for him (or her).


Almost finished. thanks, shoe :)
I'm finished already. I win.

[Columcille]

that may be your modrn adaption for your own peace of mind, but hereis what Kenneth Scott Latourette has to say on the subject:

"In connexion with penance there developed the theory and practice of indulgences and the treasury of the Church. At first indulgences seemed to have been of a limited kind, and were the remission of some of the prescribed works of penance in return for som eother act, such as gifts to a monastary or a church. It was also held that if the 'temporal' penalties for sin were not met in this life, they would be required after death, in purgatory, before the soul was cleansed from its sin and was capable of the beatific vision of God. ..." A History of Christianity Vol. 1 page 529

your version is quite different from the reality as the reality demonstrates that the RCC felt it had power over when sins were forgiven, how they were forgiven and who got to enter heaven and when they could. such ideas are not only heretical but far from the truth.

your version seems seek to make it all look nice in hopes that the heresy would go away.

The mormon version of 'indulgences' is saying that people can and will be made or declared mormon after their death when they HAVE NO SAY or CHOICE in the matter. it is an act of desperation of the mormon faithful to secure eternal life fo their loved ones who exercised their right of free choice and who rejected the mormon ways.

i will invite the resident mormons to rebut me on this BUT only if they present the correct and official teachings of the Mormon cult and not their opinions or tap dancing.

Actually, I think Kenneth's quote is fairly accurate. However, your comments do not reflect Kenneth's quote. I think this a better topic to discuss in the Catholic forum rather than in the LDS side. I am just pointing out that the comparison you are making does not logically follow. Purgatory is only meant for the saved, it is not a some sort of inbetween place. Therefore indulgences of the Church are a love offering for those who have p***ed away. The LDS position of baptisms for the dead is another matter entirely. They are not "indulgences." It would appear to me more in tune to a salvation requirement by proxy, whereas Catholic indulgences could do nothing of the sort.

[Columcille]

out of curiosity, when did 'grace' become another version of law & order? where in the Bible does it say that the church gets to place consequences on the person to make up for their sins?

the example of Jesus and Zaccheus didn't have Jesus telling Zaccheus that he had to do extra to gain forgiveness, he had received it right there. it was Zaccheus himself who imposed his own 'punishment'.

so please, produce the scripture which exactly states that the church has the authority to impose punishment other than kicking a sinner out of the ocngregation for their sinful behavior.

If you cannot understand Kenneth's quotation that you gave, then you will not be possibly able to understand that your first question is a nonsequitir. Grace did not become another version of law & order. It is a fact that when you sin, you harm others; whereas God forgives, does not take away the effects of the sin. A murder can be forgiven by God, but he cannot bring back the person he killed and so must expect to face social justice of some sort, and even then social justice may not be measured out rightly so that it is up to the Church to bear a message of hope.

[Bat-Man]

... indulgences of the Church are a love offering for those who have p***ed away.
How does one person giving MONEY equate to a love offering for someone else... whether that "someone else" person is saved or not.

Please give an example of how that works, in your perspective.


The LDS position of baptisms for the dead is another matter entirely. They are not "indulgences." It would appear to me more in tune to a salvation requirement by proxy, whereas Catholic indulgences could do nothing of the sort.
Catholic indulgences can do nothing to... satisfy a salvation requirement?

... and yet Catholic indulgences are supposedly a "love gift"?

Aren't you saying "indulgences" are basically the same thing as a "love gift"?

Can we swap the word "indulgence" for the words "love gift" ?

If so, then it seems to me that you are saying:

Catholic "love gifts" (indulgences) can do nothing to... satisfy a salvation requirement.

I don't see how that makes good sense even in your (Catholic) perspective.

[shoedog]

shoe: I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences, that is, you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Isn't this similar to LDS Mormons teaching that people who die apart from the Mormon church, and their belief system, can be baptized by proxy by an LDS Mormon convinced their cause is just?

Pay the Catholics pope or baptize by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead, and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?

Or, why would Jesus have to die at all if one could experiment apart from GOd in this life only to be given the opportunity to change in the next once you've seen you were wrong?

Thanks, shoe :)

new shoe: sorry took so long. I had a bunch of stuff written and googled page I was on without opening new tab and lost what I was working on. Sheesh. Ok. Moving on, I can't find the quote I was searching for about propotional reward for baptismal work. I'll look later to speed this.

Ok, first of all to frame the thread:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/salvation-refs.html

The Mormon scriptures state: "this church (Joseph Smith's)... only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants, 1:30).

Apostle Bruce McConkie states: "There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

Marion Romney (speaking as a member of the LDS First Presidency) said, "This Church is the ensign on the mountain spoken of by the Old Testament prophets. It is the way, the truth, and the life" (Conference Report, April, 1961, pg. 119).

Mormon president and prophet Brigham Young declared: "he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ" (Journal of Discourses, vol.9, p.312).

Mormon president and prophet Ezra Taft Benson stated: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is THE Church and kingdom of God, THE only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).

Which is perhaps why LDS do this:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:w--Q26VDak4J:blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/05/08/catholic-mormon-tension-over-lds-baptism-of-the-dead/+LDS%2B+saints%2Bbaptism+of+the+dead%2Breward&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"... However thanks to the Internet, large numbers of names of saints, popes and average Catholics have been published in recent years on Mormon baptism lists that are available for all to see. Pontiffs have even been “sealed” in eternal Mormon marriage to fic***ious wives despite the celibacy rule for Catholic clergy. ..."

Which prompted the Catholics to do this:

"...The issue of Mormon proxy baptisms has resurfaced with the news that the Vatican has written to Catholic dioceses around the world telling them not to provide parish records to the Genealogical Society of Utah. ..."
(same link prev)

Which begs question 1:

If what LDS Mormons teach is true, and as a good LDS doing your baptism works, are the ancient Catholics you are unable to get records for unable to be redeemed or must they remain in limbo?

Which begs question 2:

How can one live a life apart from the LDS Mormon church and expect glory after death even if someone does their proxy baptism and ordinaces for you? How does one gain salvation? Why did Jesus even have to be sacrificed?

http://www.mrm.org/mercy-cannot-rob-justice

“Many of the world think that eventually the Lord will be merciful and give to them unearned blessings. Mercy cannot rob justice. College professors will not give you a doctorate degree for a few weeks of cursory work in the university, nor can the Lord be merciful at the expense of justice. In this program, which is infinitely greater, we will each receive what we merit. Do not take any chances whatever” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.150).

But wait, what about baptisms for those who you do have names for? The ones who knew of LDSism and those who didn't?

http://www.lds-mormon.com/heresies.shtml

McConkie: ..."There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation. This life is the time and the day of our probation. After this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. For those who do not have an opportunity to believe and obey the holy word in this life, the first chance to gain salvation will come in the spirit world. ...

What is the purpose then of baptizing for those who openly reject LDS Mormonsim?

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=68219207f7c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve said: “In our preexistent state, in the day of the great council, we made a certain agreement with the Almighty. The Lord proposed a plan, conceived by him. We accepted it. Since the plan is intended for all men, we become parties to the salvation of every person under that plan. We agreed, right then and there, to be not only saviors for ourselves, but … saviors for the whole human family. We went into a partnership with the Lord. The working out of the plan became then not merely the Father’s work, and the Savior’s work, but also our work. The least of us, the humblest, is in partnership with the Almighty in achieving the purpose of the eternal plan of salvation” (“The Worth of Souls,” Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, Oct. 1934, 189).


http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/salvation-refs.html

There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).

Bruce McConkie states: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

Joseph Fielding Smith said: "If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).

Brigham Young stated: "every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a p***port to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).

George Q. Cannon: "If we get our salvation, we shall have to p*** by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]" (quoted in the Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142, 1988).

But why must I get baptized for someone else? (same as prev link)

"The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead...Those saints who neglect it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at peril of their own salvation" (Joseph Smith, in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.356, 196).

"These are the principles in relation to the dead and the living...their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation...they without us cannot be made perfect---neither can we without our dead be made perfect...there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children...it is baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect" (Doctrine and Covenants 128:15,18).

My point?

It seems with the Catholics or anyone from any other religion can't have salvation (no salvationoutside LDS Mormon church) because LDS Mormons teach their church is the only way to salvation.

It seems to me if what LDS Mormons teach is true, they are have the completely exclusive way to salvation.

Catholic indulgences help speed the release of a Christian from purgatory helping pay the debt.

LDS Mormon baptism for the dead is a payment of works for salvation of others and themselves.

If the LDS Mormon does not do this they risk their salvation and ultimate perfection. The greatest reward for the highest levels of exaltation is gained by being baptised for the dead and fulfilling the ordinances required.

There are a bunch of offical contradictions in LDS Mormonism IMHO

Thanks for patience, shoe :)

Any questions? :D

[Bat-Man]

If what LDS Mormons teach is true, and as a good LDS doing your baptism works, are the ancient Catholics you are unable to get records for unable to be redeemed or must they remain in limbo?
First all all, many "ancient Catholics" were caught up in the apostasy without anyone around to teach them they were apostate while they lived as good a life as they knew how, so the fact that someone was an "ancient Catholic" doesn't necessarily mean they were NOT an "ancient Christian".

If you're talking about "ancient Catholics" who knew they were apostate, though, or if you're talking about those who had been told that they were apostate with it then being up to them to find out whether or not they were, then, yes, they are now in limbo (or what we LDS refer to as prison or spirit prison) until someone comes along to teach them the truth and they accept the truth as well as the ordinances they need to accept to get out of prison.


How can one live a life apart fromthe LDS Mormon church and expect glory after death even if someone does their proxy baptism and ordinances for you?
God simply requires that we do our best with what we have to work with (including any intelligence we have to work with), so if it never occurred to someone that they were wrong about something and they lived their life while doing the best the knew how to do without intentionally doing anything wrong or while repenting when they thought/felt they were wrong, all they need is to become aware of MORE truth and accept the ordinances that are required for salvation, because they're basically doing everything else they need to do to be worthy of the Celestial order of heaven.


What is the purpose then of baptizing for those who openly reject LDS Mormonsim?
If someone has openly rejected Mormonism up until the day they died while knowing all they needed to know about Mormonism, there is no point in doing any of their ordinance work for them, because those ordinances only apply to those who will be accepted in the Celestial order or heaven.

They could change their mind later in the spirit world, but since they have already rejected it and lived to the end of their (mortal) life while continuing to reject it, the most they can hope for is the Terrestrial order, which doesn't require baptism or any of the other ordinances of salvation.

The problem is that we often don't know whether or not someone openly rejected Mormonism until the day they died, or if they did that information often doesn't get transmitted to the Church or to a family who submits the name of a family member who requests that the work be done, so we err on the side of caution just in case that person didn't know enough about Mormonism and might somehow be able to squeak by.

[shoedog]

Yes, Jesus did.

Now, for those of you who believe you need to be baptized according to God's commandments, can you also see how the person who "baptizes" you is also helping you to do what God has commanded, and is thereby helping you to fulfill God's commandments?

The person who baptizes you isn't giving you money when he baptizes you, though, so I don't see how that can be fairly compared to the Catholic teaching about indulgences, which is generally ***ociated with people giving "money".

shoe: The comparison between Catholic and LDS Mormon "indulgences" is one works, gets paid and and trades it, and the other trades his work. Both are trading their time but just "cash" in it at different points in the process. Time has value.


: Yes, but the person we are doing the work for stillhas the final say so about whether or not he (or she) accepts the work we did on his (or her) behalf, and if he (or she) rejects what we did for him (or her), then he (or she) doesn't get ANY credit for that work and instead ALL of the credit goes to the person(s) who did that work for him (or her).

I'm finished already. I win.

Shoe: You didn't baptize me by proxy did you? :)

So, if 1 in 3, for example, chose not to accept your baptism and "ALL of the credit" for that work goes back to the worker in exaltation... then the more you baptize the more credit you'll have for all the "rejected" work later.

In other words, if you can document 3 people and baptize them you'll end up with 2 credits (minus 1 rejection). If you document 3,000,000 people and baptize them you'll have 2,000,000 credits. So your "credit", your glory in the afterlife is proportional to the amount of baptismal work you do?

Is this why LDS Mormons document people like Hitler, the Jews, Catholics, Baptists, and anyone else they can (Obama's mom) even if they choose to reject LDSism?

Thanks, shoe :)

[archaeologist]

notice this comment:


This is not the same purpose with which LDS baptisms for the dead are done.

Notice bat-man's response to me


but the person we are doing the work for stillhas the final say so about whether or not he (or she) accepts the work we did on his (or her) behalf, and if he (or she) rejects what we did for him (or her), then he (or she) doesn't get ANY credit for that work and instead ALL of the credit goes to the person(s) who did that work for him (or her).


no one was talking about activities for the living but the baptism for the dead. the dead obviously CANNOT SAY 'no, thanks'.

please address the issue with the correct mormon doctrine and teachings and stop changing what was said.

[archaeologist]

If you cannot understand Kenneth's quotation that you gave, then you will not be possibly able to understand that your first question is a nonsequitir

look stop wioth these kind of comments. not only are you off the mark but display an ignorance that is on par with the resident mormons.


Grace did not become another version of law & order. It is a fact that when you sin, you harm others; whereas God forgives, does not take away the effects of the sin. A murder can be forgiven by God, but he cannot bring back the person he killed and so must expect to face social justice of some sort, and even then social justice may not be measured out rightly so that it is up to the Church to bear a message of hope.

your comprehension of what i wrote is very lacking and your stating the obvious avoids the issue i raised. are you saying that something is too difficult for God?

you also missed the point and addressed what you ***umed not what i wrote.

[Columcille]

How does one person giving MONEY equate to a love offering for someone else... whether that "someone else" person is saved or not.

Please give an example of how that works, in your perspective.


Catholic indulgences can do nothing to... satisfy a salvation requirement?

... and yet Catholic indulgences are supposedly a "love gift"?

Aren't you saying "indulgences" are basically the same thing as a "love gift"?

Can we swap the word "indulgence" for the words "love gift" ?

If so, then it seems to me that you are saying:

Catholic "love gifts" (indulgences) can do nothing to... satisfy a salvation requirement.

I don't see how that makes good sense even in your (Catholic) perspective.

I would not necessarily subs***ute the word "love gift" for "indulgence" but I would say that the intentions of the people who do gain an indulgence is done out of love. But let's face it, a love offering does not merit salvation; salvation is not something bought, like you can hold up God to some bargaining chip. Salvation is a free gift, from God's Son who paid the price. This is something that the person recieving the gift has to do on his own, it is not something that can be done by proxy. The worth of the indulgence is not salvation, but offsetting the effects of sinfulness through the Church where God is uplifted and exalted. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and is distinctive from indulgences.

[shoedog]

Batman, I am not here stating what you believe, I am a Catholic. I am only drawing a distinction that I feel the author of the OP clearly does not understand in making such a comparison. I am inclined to think that an indulgence is done through the temple and not directly to the offending persons. The whole point of reconcilation is not to be something between two people, but through the mediation of God. Hence, indulgences are something within the framework of the Church under the new covenant. Obviously the bitterness of David's family cannot be undone, unless they themselves turn to God for consolation. You can certainly share your belief about baptism for the dead in your own tradition, but baptism in general even for the living is something related to salvation. Indulgences do not carry any salvaic merit, only as a mean of purging the temporal effects of the consequences of sin, which is why I mentioned David's example. The text that Purgatory is developed from is 1 Cor. 3.13-15. It is a state, not a place and it is only reserved for the Christian. If you want to know more on indulgences, I suggest a reading from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

To answer your question directly, money does not remove sin. Let me put it this way, when you sin, you sin against yourself, another person, against God, and against the community. You can be forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus, but the consequences of your actions still remain. Hence, giving money to the Church is the same as in the O.T. giving to the temple of God. Such gifts bring about a more effecient priesthood giving them the necessities for their daily routines and the growth and maintanance needs of the community. Hence, indulgences sold by Tetzel for the growth of a basilica is helpful for the not only the image of the Church, but also beneficial to the families and friends that gave for a deceased loved one. It is a testimony of love, not obligation or law. Your church's practice to baptise for the dead is probably understood to be a 'loving" act, but the purpose of baptism for the living is not the same purpose for indulgences. Hence, I am only pointing out to the author of the OP such a distinction that makes the comparisons invalid.

The validity comes from time. Both the LDS and the Catholic work over time. One does it apart from his church and gets paid then donates money representing work. The LDS works from the church donating his time. There just is no in between exchange.

But what I don't understand is how does a living person who pays money help the dead Christian sinner in purgatory? We're each responsible for only our own sins and can't take on the sins of another. In the same manner how does the work of an alive person here on earth help the dead person in a "spirit prison"?

To me both systems are very similar except the Christians only in purgatory... which is basically what LDS teach as shown in the quotes.

I'd discuss this more but it's a LDS forum. thanks, shoe :)

[Columcille]

Shoe, if you wanted to only discuss LDS practice, do not open the door by making a comparison with Catholic practice unless you are willing to discuss it. I have made my point of contention with your OP already and am telling you that your comparison is an attempt to mesh two unrelated practices together. It would be easier to tie the Essene practice of ceremonial washings to the baptism of John than Catholic indulgences and LDS baptism of the dead.

But to once again attempt to make indulgences more understandable, the real purpose of indulgences is not lessing the time of those in purgatory, as though it is some sort of commuted prison sentence. Although it may in fact cut the purgation time that one feels with that state. All I know is that our works that are built upon the Church of Christ will be tried with fire, how instant or slow that burning purge takes is relative to the person's work in their former life. Indulgences do not grant forgiveness of sins, never have. The Christian in purgatory has already had their sins forgiven by Christ's redemptive work on the cross. What is not removed is the temporal aspect of that person's sins. When *** sacrificed animals before God in *** 1.5 for this children, it was not done by the children themselves as would be expected. When 2 Mac. 12.45 offered up sacrifices for the fallen, it was not done by the fallen. Such offerings is to mitigate the left-over temporal punishments that sin has left behind by building up the Church's capacity to carry on the Gospel message.

[archaeologist]

if you wanted to only discuss LDS practice, do not open the door by making a comparison with Catholic practice unless you are willing to discuss it.

there isno door being opened to discuss RCC indulgences whenone makes a comparison, and even if it did, it does not detract from the lds theme because that is what is being compared. one just has to make sure tangents are thwarted and the discussion remains on the right track.


But to once again attempt to make indulgences more understandable, the real purpose of indulgences is not lessing the time of those in purgatory, as though it is some sort of commuted prison sentence. Although it may in fact cut the purgation time that one feels with that state.

the idea of RCC indulgences was to raise money for the church, the crusades and had little to do with any purity of heart. for the lds version, it has a lot to do with placating worried minds about loved ones and a quest to make everyone mormon, even without their permission.

the mere fact that either sects cold think that they have this power shows how deceived they really are as neither are taught in scriptures and both are then considered heresies or false doctrines.

that last bit is what you all need to worry about because if it is NOT taught in the Christian Bible then it should not be taught at all.

[Columcille]

there isno door being opened to discuss RCC indulgences whenone makes a comparison, and even if it did, it does not detract from the lds theme because that is what is being compared. one just has to make sure tangents are thwarted and the discussion remains on the right track.



the idea of RCC indulgences was to raise money for the church, the crusades and had little to do with any purity of heart. for the lds version, it has a lot to do with placating worried minds about loved ones and a quest to make everyone mormon, even without their permission.

the mere fact that either sects cold think that they have this power shows how deceived they really are as neither are taught in scriptures and both are then considered heresies or false doctrines.

that last bit is what you all need to worry about because if it is NOT taught in the Christian Bible then it should not be taught at all.

Shoe introduced indulgences in the OP, that is the door. I think when in a court that a opening is created for inquiry when the opposition introduces the topic. The OP mentioned Catholic Indulgences as a comparison to LDS baptisms, hence the topic is both LDS baptisms for the dead and Catholic indulgences. Just because he places it in the LDS forum does not matter since it is integrated into the original post.

Indulgences do raise money for the Church, but there are other indulgences that do not. In reading some prayers, there is sometimes an indulgence attached to it. I therefore think the generalization is hyperfocused on specific errors of the past by bad Catholics. Tetzel could have been very wrong in approach to indlugences, but I think he gets a bad rap mostly for his defending the practice rather than actually doing it in Luther's understanding. It is the laity that gives money to the Church, and in so doing should be for pure motives. If the laity knew that the money given would help produce a basilica for the glory of the Church, or to support the Crusaders from the spread of Islam then such indulgences as helped contribute is a pure and right motive. Everyone always talks about the crusades as though it was a stain, but never about the Muslim threat.

[archaeologist]

Shoe introduced indulgences in the OP, that is the door. I think when in a court that a opening is created for inquiry when the opposition introduces the topic.

this isn't a court of law


The OP mentioned Catholic Indulgences as a comparison to LDS baptisms, hence the topic is both LDS baptisms for the dead and Catholic indulgences

you have a knack for stating the obvious. just because someone makes a comparison doesn't mean that they are opening adoor, they are simply making a comparison to help the other person get the point they are trying to make.


I therefore think the generalization is hyperfocused on specific errors of the past by bad Catholics. Tetzel could have been very wrong in approach to indlugences, but I think he gets a bad rap mostly for his defending the practice rather than actually doing it in Luther's understanding

yet neither i nor lattourette were being hyper focused but applying the proper definition for the purpose of the indulgences. too often RCC adherents do not want to face the reality of what indulgences were for.

granted they may have morphed into something else over the years but i wouldn't kid myself that they are for any spiritual reason.

feel free to start a discussion on indulgences in the RCC forum and let us know your idea of their purposes. as i alreay said, you have changed them to fit your sensibilities, so what has stopped the RCC from doing the same (changing the public definition to fit RCC adherent' sensibilities) but keeping the original purpose from the 'faithful'?

[archaeologist]

Mormon president and prophet Brigham Young declared: "he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ" (Journal of Discourses, vol.9, p.312).



Apostle Bruce McConkie states: "There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).



There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).


No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).



Bruce McConkie states: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).


and so much more. here we have evidence to support my point that mormonismis a schizophrenic belief. They claim to follow the Bible but what they are saying there is NOT taught in the Bible at all.

you cannot say you follow and believe the Bible then teach things not found in it. all of the above are contrary to what the Bible teaches and show that the mormons DO NOT belve or follow the Bible.

[Columcille]

feel free to start a discussion on indulgences in the RCC forum and let us know your idea of their purposes. as i alreay said, you have changed them to fit your sensibilities, so what has stopped the RCC from doing the same (changing the public definition to fit RCC adherent' sensibilities) but keeping the original purpose from the 'faithful'?


Actually, I would not have the time to go into the discussion at length. My liberty time is drawing to a close. But I do notice that your comments speak in generalities rather than citing sources. It was one reason that I became Catholic because I, when I was a Protestant, held the same misconceptions. Only one you are able to cite bibliographical information and check for bias and also checking the context of a p***age to a larger framework, i.e. reading the whole papal encyclical than just the parts that sound questionable, does the misconceptions disappear. I found most of the statements I used to denounce regarding the Catholic Church to be without merit and I found more in agreement with my own position as a Lutheran/Anglican.

[archaeologist]

Actually, I would not have the time to go into the discussion at length

that's typical.


But I do notice that your comments speak in generalities rather than citing sources

quite a baseless charge since i quoted latourette and have constantly placed links beneath my comments but par for the course for you.

i do not see you posting sources so i wouldn't talk.


It was one reason that I became Catholic because I, when I was a Protestant, held the same misconceptions

i don't hold to misconceptions but i see you failed to produce the links necessary to refute what i said, which means i wasn't wrong. and this is a chat room forum not an academic journal, if you want to see links then put them up to support your argument.


I found most of the statements I used to denounce regarding the Catholic Church to be without merit and I found more in agreement with my own position as a Lutheran/Anglican.

yet, i do not find any without merit as they teach unscriptural doctrines and indulgences is one of them. so why would you switch to a sect that teaches unbiblical things?

[Columcille]

archaeologist--that's typical.

Sorry, but I am on ***le 10 orders and I restart training on the 28th. It is not typical, I am speaking the truth regarding my own situation. The TN Army National Guard 278th Cavalry is going to be playing in the Middle East soon enough.

quite a baseless charge since i quoted latourette and have constantly placed links beneath my comments but par for the course for you.

i do not see you posting sources so i wouldn't talk.

You didn't quote Latourette in context, and you failed to quote Catholic primary sources as well.

i don't hold to misconceptions but i see you failed to produce the links necessary to refute what i said, which means i wasn't wrong. and this is a chat room forum not an academic journal, if you want to see links then put them up to support your argument.

The burden of proof rests on the offensive not the defensive. I as a practicing Catholic know my own positions, but may find it necessary to offer up primary source materials, but it really rests with your announcements of what you think my church teaches. If you don't like academics, I think you should not like Dr. Walter Martin, whose research method to cite primary source materials of the Cults is a testimony of his legacy. However, he falls short of his research methodology when he goes on the John Ankerburg show set against Father Pacwa in that every quote he uses against the Church is a refined prism through the eyes of the Reformers and not by Catholic primary source materials. It does not help him to be in agreement with the host if he fails to live up to standards he set for himself in the same research methodology of the Cults. However, he at least does not state Catholic are not Christians as you seem so ready to do.

yet, i do not find any without merit as they teach unscriptural doctrines and indulgences is one of them. so why would you switch to a sect that teaches unbiblical things?

You are en***led to your own ***umptions. I have pretty much viewed the indulgences as being a trivial matter, since people giving money to the Church for the sake of honoring deceased Christians is purely a volunteery matter. Nobody puts a gun to the head of people and says you must pay for indulgences, Even if back in the Reformation some Catholics sold indulgences outright, if they stated what the money was to be used for, it might be deemed a worthy charitable effort. But as far as the practice today, I see no line of parishioners stomping down the doors to buy indulgences. If they do go to gain an indulgence, it is intiated by them and not the priest. I think that has been a reform, if it was indeed an abuse of the Church during the Reformation. It does not negate its purposefulness.

[archaeologist]

Sorry, but I am on ***le 10 orders and I restart training on the 28th. It is not typical, I am speaking the truth regarding my own situation. The TN Army National Guard 278th Cavalry is going to be playing in the Middle East soon enough.


#1 too much information
#2 i do not care why you are leaving, you shouldn't have started something you knew you wouldn't be finishing.


You didn't quote Latourette in context, and you failed to quote Catholic primary sources as well.

ha ha ha ha always an excuse. not only was it in context, it was the beginning of the section and i do NOT have to cite RCC sources as that is biased material for a religious agenda.


The burden of proof rests on the offensive not the defensive

you would be wrong. (applies to the whole paragraph)


You are en***led to your own ***umptions

you are just like the mormons, you think your side is all facts and your opponents are all ***umptions. you certainly have lost all credibility with me (and that is all i am going to say)

[shoedog]

Shoe introduced indulgences in the OP, that is the door. I think when in a court that a opening is created for inquiry when the opposition introduces the topic. The OP mentioned Catholic Indulgences as a comparison to LDS baptisms, hence the topic is both LDS baptisms for the dead and Catholic indulgences. Just because he places it in the LDS forum does not matter since it is integrated into the original post.

Indulgences do raise money for the Church, but there are other indulgences that do not. In reading some prayers, there is sometimes an indulgence attached to it. I therefore think the generalization is hyperfocused on specific errors of the past by bad Catholics. Tetzel could have been very wrong in approach to indlugences, but I think he gets a bad rap mostly for his defending the practice rather than actually doing it in Luther's understanding. It is the laity that gives money to the Church, and in so doing should be for pure motives. If the laity knew that the money given would help produce a basilica for the glory of the Church, or to support the Crusaders from the spread of Islam then such indulgences as helped contribute is a pure and right motive. Everyone always talks about the crusades as though it was a stain, but never about the Muslim threat.

As Arch states, I was making a comparison between two religions with, to mew, similar heresies.

You admit, catholic indulgences reais money for the church. Everyone knows this. That wsn't my point. It was the abuse. I have somewhere a 1944 or so Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible that was stamped in the fromnt with a message from Pope Leo 23rd or something who said if I read it 15 minutes a day I would be credited 1 hour from my purgatory. (paraphrased)

It made no distinction I copuld see that one had to be a good Catholic in good standing with the Catholic ins***ution muxh less anything about having to be a Christian. It may have but wasn't readily apparent to me.

My bigger point is, why "indulgences" in either the form of cash, baptismal works, or anything else on the behalf of someone elses sin?

What possible benefit, other than for those sinned against or general welfare, does giving money on behalf of someone who died with a sin debt hanging over thier head? How would you giving money on my bwehalf lessen the responsiblity to "make right" what it was that I did while alive?

Didn't Christ alone may payment for the sin debt I incurred? Doesn't scripture say we are each responsible for our own sin? In my opinion giving something on behalf of another sinner is trying to take credit for what Christ Himself and He alone could for us on the cross.

Look at the LDS quotes I gave. They claim you have to bew baptized LDS to spend eternity with God. Joseph Smith has to okay it, and if you refuse to be baptized by LDS you cannot enter heaven. My point is, neither Catholic indulgences or LDS baptism have any salvational or redemptive value whatsoever and is simply a way fo rht egiver or worker to gain good works for their own credit after death.

Thanks, shoe :)

[Columcille]

My bigger point is, why "indulgences" in either the form of cash, baptismal works, or anything else on the behalf of someone elses sin?

What possible benefit, other than for those sinned against or general welfare, does giving money on behalf of someone who died with a sin debt hanging over thier head? How would you giving money on my bwehalf lessen the responsiblity to "make right" what it was that I did while alive?

Didn't Christ alone may payment for the sin debt I incurred? Doesn't scripture say we are each responsible for our own sin? In my opinion giving something on behalf of another sinner is trying to take credit for what Christ Himself and He alone could for us on the cross.

Look at the LDS quotes I gave. They claim you have to bew baptized LDS to spend eternity with God. Joseph Smith has to okay it, and if you refuse to be baptized by LDS you cannot enter heaven. My point is, neither Catholic indulgences or LDS baptism have any salvational or redemptive value whatsoever and is simply a way fo rht egiver or worker to gain good works for their own credit after death.

Thanks, shoe :)

I think your point is better stuck on the LDS than on the Catholic. The sacrificial payment for sin has been overcome by Christ being the Lamb of sacrafice. You have to seperate the eternal consequences of sin by the temporal consequences of sin, the eternal is payed for by Christ, but the temporal consequences of sin remain. A serial killer can only be killed once, even though they killed many. The ramifications of that serial killer is felt long after his own death. He may find Christ in prison and be forgiven, but the temporal consequences cannot be taken back. In such a case, the Church stands as a mediator for offsetting such temporal affects. When Christ is exalted by the good works of the Church, a balance can be partially restored. A person who attempts to give of himself only exalts his own self, this is why indulgences are important because they are works of love. They do not bring any salvation merit, only the love brings about some reconcilation to the world and to the self. God's forgiveness already forgave and remembers the offenses no more. As far as LDS baptisms are concerned, their intentions are quite different than Catholic indulgences. This is why I keep trying to say that the comparison does not work. I am in agreement with you against the LDS practice of baptism for the dead.

[shoedog]

I think your point is better stuck on the LDS than on the Catholic. The sacrificial payment for sin has been overcome by Christ being the Lamb of sacrafice. You have to seperate the eternal consequences of sin by the temporal consequences of sin, the eternal is payed for by Christ, but the temporal consequences of sin remain. A serial killer can only be killed once, even though they killed many. The ramifications of that serial killer is felt long after his own death. He may find Christ in prison and be forgiven, but the temporal consequences cannot be taken back. In such a case, the Church stands as a mediator for offsetting such temporal affects. When Christ is exalted by the good works of the Church, a balance can be partially restored. A person who attempts to give of himself only exalts his own self, this is why indulgences are important because they are works of love. They do not bring any salvation merit, only the love brings about some reconcilation to the world and to the self. God's forgiveness already forgave and remembers the offenses no more. As far as LDS baptisms are concerned, their intentions are quite different than Catholic indulgences. This is why I keep trying to say that the comparison does not work. I am in agreement with you against the LDS practice of baptism for the dead.

Sounds like you are n the service. Thank you! For anyone serving to protect our freedoms, thank you. Whatever we have in America, like freedom of religion, it was secured by those willing to fight and die for it. Thanks, shoe :)

[Mesenja]

shoedog:I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences,that is,you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Isn't this similar to LDS [Mormon] teaching that people who die apart from the Mormon church,and their belief system,can be baptized by proxy by an LDS [Mormon] convinced their cause is just?

Pay the Catholic Pope or be baptized by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead,and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life.

Or,why would Jesus have to die at all if one could experiment apart from God in this life only to be given the opportunity to change in the next once you've seen you were wrong?

Thanks,shoedog

If you want to debate practice of indulgences then this is better served in the Catholic forum. Simply restate your concerns and take out the Later-day Saint [Mormon] references. This having been said I think the following article will be of great help in at least giving those of us who are not Catholic like myself a basic primer on what indulgences are and what they are not.

I believe shoedog that this article en***led Myths about Indulgences (http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp) will clear up a lot of the misconceptions you may have about the practice of indulgences. As a non-Catholic it has certainly helped me in this regard. Here is an excerpt from the article that deals with the concerns that you have just raised.


Myth 1:A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell,no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death,one’s eternal fate is set (Hebrews 9:27).


Myth 2:A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes,"[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin,nor a pardon of future sin;neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3:A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place:"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1,emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4:Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5:An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general,much less in a specific person’s case.

Myth 6:A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent ins***uted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences,and, because of prior abuses,"in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7:A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy,involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:"[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence,alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . .It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act,and, when it is done from right motives,it will surely not go unrewarded."


"Don’t indulgences duplicate or even negate the work of Christ?"

Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences,some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors. This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ’s work is applied to us.

Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties,not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this,Christ’s work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.

The merits of Christ, since they are infinite,comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers,the Church acts as Christ’s servant in the application of what he has done for us,and we know from Scripture that Christ’s work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12,1 Peter 1:9).


"Isn’t it better to put all of the emphasis on Christ alone?"

If we ignore the fact of indulgences,we neglect what Christ does through us,and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language:"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body,that is,the church" (Col. 1:24).

Even though Christ’s sufferings were super abundant (far more than needed to pay for anything),Paul spoke of completing what was "lacking" in Christ’s sufferings. If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul,it is permissible for us,even though the Catholic language about indulgences is far less shocking than was Paul’s language about his own role in salvation.

Catholics should not be defensive about indulgences. They are based on principles straight from the Bible,and we can be confident not only that indulgences exist, but that they are useful and worth obtaining.

Pope Paul VI declared, "[T]he Church invites all its children to think over and weigh up in their minds as well as they can how the use of indulgences benefits their lives and all Christian society.... Supported by these truths,holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. It has been very dear to Christian people for many centuries as well as in our own day. Experience proves this" (Indulgentarium Doctrina,9,11).

[archaeologist]

nice but you are deflecting attention way from the subject of this thread and the point shoe was trying to make.

why don't you post the exat and true teachings of the mormon cult on their belief concerning the pratice of baptizing for the dead so we can see where you are coming form.

since you and the mormon cult claim to follow the Bible, please post from the christian Bible the verses which teach one to baptize the dead, pray for them or do anything for them?

[shoedog]

If you want to debate practice of indulgences then this is better served in the Catholic forum. Simply restate your concerns and take out the Later-day Saint [Mormon] references. This having been said I think the following article will be of great help in at least giving those of us who are not Catholic like myself a basic primer on what indulgences are and what they are not.

I believe shoedog that this article en***led Myths about Indulgences (http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp) will clear up a lot of the misconceptions you may have about the practice of indulgences. As a non-Catholic it has certainly helped me in this regard. Here is an excerpt from the article that deals with the concerns that you have just raised.


Myth 1:A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell,no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death,one’s eternal fate is set (Hebrews 9:27).


Myth 2:A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes,"[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin,nor a pardon of future sin;neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3:A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place:"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1,emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4:Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5:An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general,much less in a specific person’s case.

Myth 6:A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent ins***uted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences,and, because of prior abuses,"in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7:A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy,involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:"[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence,alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . .It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act,and, when it is done from right motives,it will surely not go unrewarded."


"Don’t indulgences duplicate or even negate the work of Christ?"

Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences,some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors. This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ’s work is applied to us.

Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties,not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this,Christ’s work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.

The merits of Christ, since they are infinite,comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers,the Church acts as Christ’s servant in the application of what he has done for us,and we know from Scripture that Christ’s work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12,1 Peter 1:9).


"Isn’t it better to put all of the emphasis on Christ alone?"

If we ignore the fact of indulgences,we neglect what Christ does through us,and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language:"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body,that is,the church" (Col. 1:24).

Even though Christ’s sufferings were super abundant (far more than needed to pay for anything),Paul spoke of completing what was "lacking" in Christ’s sufferings. If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul,it is permissible for us,even though the Catholic language about indulgences is far less shocking than was Paul’s language about his own role in salvation.

Catholics should not be defensive about indulgences. They are based on principles straight from the Bible,and we can be confident not only that indulgences exist, but that they are useful and worth obtaining.

Pope Paul VI declared, "[T]he Church invites all its children to think over and weigh up in their minds as well as they can how the use of indulgences benefits their lives and all Christian society.... Supported by these truths,holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. It has been very dear to Christian people for many centuries as well as in our own day. Experience proves this" (Indulgentarium Doctrina,9,11).

Thanks for the interesting information. I don't know that much about Catholicism opr indulgences. I'm not interested in debating Catholic indulgences but would like to learn more. I was comparing the similarity i my mind to LDS baptisms. Seems like Catholics downplay what has been known about indulgences. My point is neither the LDS Mormons and their works of baptizing for the dead and the works or payments by Catholics, real or imagined, Luther correct or not, has no vaue in helping someone already dead. It may make victims and pious feel better.

You can move it if you want. Not my call.

Thanks, shoe :)

[Columcille]

your thinking is really off, God doesn't forget UNTIL the person has repented of his/her sins and after He forgives the person.--NOT BEFORE.

indulgences does NOT buy forgiveness and DOES NOT replace the act of repentence.

Yes, which is why a serial killer can find forgiveness in God with a repentant heart, but the damage of his sins cannot be undone. You seem to ignore my statements regarding eternal consequences and temporal consequences. Indulgences do not buy forgiveness, I am in agreement with you on this. Nor does it replace the act of repentence. I am in agreement with you on this. I am only talking of the temporal consequences of sin and that indulgences are beneficial only for that. Are you to suggest that we should let the serial killer go scott free because God forgave him his sin and just let him walk out of the federal penitentary? Nobody in their right mind, especially concerned citizens, would in their right mind wish for a serial killer to be let loose in their neighborhood due to the gravity of which his sins have been felt. This is the temporal consequences and a serial killer's living a prison life for the natural term of his life will not bring back the numerous people he killed and so social justice is therefore unattainable, even if capital punishment is served. Parents of a serial killer should be hopeful that their son found salvation in Christ in jail, but should also do what they can in giving the Church the tools necessary to promote good works to help save others who are weak from starvation, and other needs. To save lives in the physical realm by supporting a Christian mission that attends to the needs of the weak thus offsets the taking of lives by such a serial killer. Then Christ is glorified by the weak in their needs being met and in the love they recieve.

[archaeologist]

which is why a serial killer can find forgiveness in God with a repentant heart, but the damage of his sins cannot be undone

so?? that is a fact of life, you can't have sin unless someone does osmething sinful to another. that is why they are called 'victims' BUT you forget the healing power of God who can remove that damage or else you are saying that something is too difficult for God.


I am only talking of the temporal consequences of sin and that indulgences are beneficial only for that.

post links to credible NON-RCC sources that explores the issue of indulgences to back up your words. your word is not good enough any more.


Are you to suggest that we should let the serial killer go scott free because God forgave him his sin and just let him walk out of the federal penitentary

your twisting of other people's words and your eiosogesis is appalling, try not to lie about what other people say.


but should also do what they can in giving the Church the tools necessary to promote good works to help save others who are weak from starvation, and other needs

in other words you are disobeying God's words by having the parents pay for their children's sins. something contrary to the command that God gave in the Old testamnet that parents are not to be punished for their children's sin and vice versa.


To save lives in the physical realm by supporting a Christian mission that attends to the needs of the weak thus offsets the taking of lives by such a serial killer. Then Christ is glorified by the weak in their needs being met and in the love they recieve.

now you are demanding that they do what man wants and not God. holding their chikld's sins over their heads to receive money is extortion, blackmail and many other illegal and sinful violations. it is NOT of God and you prove that the RCC's teachings are not of God.

(it is clear by your posting style that you are hiding things in your posts and you are afraid to let allpeople see what you are writing so they get a clear view of your anti-Christ teachings).

[stemelbow]

I enjoy seeing the infighting among the mainstreamers. This gets to the point of evans not realizing from whence their beliefs largely sprang--Catholicism.

says the dude who accepts from Catholicism nearly every tenet or doctrine, "Catholicism is a bad religion"--not realizing by doing so he is hurting his own cause. without Catholicism you'd be without many of the things you claim as truth. it seems your beliefs are merely a picking and choosing from Catholicism as you see fit. No inspiration at all. 'tis sad many an evan doesn't even realize what he/she's doing--shooting him/herself in the foot.

Its adorable to see for me though.

love,
stem

[vladimir998]

I suggest you go to the thread linked to below:


http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/showthread.php?t=1304



Many people who post about indulgences on the internet are grossly misinformed about what they, how they work, and what they mean. This is a chance for people to improve their knowledge about them and that's always a good thing. :)

[James Banta]

I suggest you go to the thread linked to below:


http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/showthread.php?t=1304



Many people who post about indulgences on the internet are grossly misinformed about what they, how they work, and what they mean. This is a chance for people to improve their knowledge about them and that's always a good thing. :)

Vlad is that you? If so welcome back... IHS jim

[archaeologist]

Many people who post about indulgences on the internet are grossly misinformed about what they, how they work, and what they mean. This is a chance for people to improve their knowledge about them and that's always a good thing.

that is just your opinion but feel free to post the true and correct version both modern and historical from NON-RCC sources.


This gets to the point of evans not realizing from whence their beliefs largely sprang--Catholicism.



#1. there is no such thing as 'evans'. it is a formal name of a person or family name not short for the word 'evangelical' or any religious group.

#2. the RCC adherents forget that christianity comes from the Bible NOT the RCC church. no one except the RCC adherents got their beliefs from the RCC organization. it is pure arrogance to think that the RCC created christianity and that all doctrines andteachings stem from it.

the RCC church was not part of the original christian movement but was formed long after the beliefs of christianity were established, somewhere in the 4th to 6th centuries AD. their extrapolation of their origin back to the time of Christ is a weak attempt to smother christianity with their lies.

it is actually sad to see RCC adherents uying into the lies of the RCC organization then proclaiming them everywhere, they are deceived and do not know it.

[vladimir998]

Vlad is that you? If so welcome back... IHS jim

Thanks! I hope all is well!

[vladimir998]

that is just your opinion but feel free to post the true and correct version both modern and historical from NON-RCC sources.

I post what I want. Go to the thread in the Catholic forum and deal with it or ... run away. Your choice.



"#2. the RCC adherents forget that christianity comes from the Bible NOT the RCC church."

Christianity comes from the Bible? So it didn't exist until John wrote the Apocalypse? Hilarious!!! I thought Christianity came from Christ - hence the name CHRISTIANITY rather than Biblianity.

Please explain how Christianity did not exist from AD 33 to about AD 96/97 when John may have finished the last book of the Bible.

I can't wait to see your explanation. Please post it in the Catholic forum, however so this thread can go the way of the dodo as it should.

[archaeologist]

Christianity comes from the Bible? So it didn't exist until John wrote the Apocalypse? Hilarious!!! I thought Christianity came from Christ - hence the name CHRISTIANITY rather than Biblianity.

Please explain how Christianity did not exist from AD 33 to about AD 96/97 when John may have finished the last book of the Bible.


complete nonsense and absolutely absurd.

though for those who need to have exact specifics, i will edit my comment and make it read that christianity came from Christ and is recorded in the Bible.

it does not come from the pope, the rcc, the mormons, smith or ay other alternative belief system.

it is clear that those who belief the alternatives always seem to find something theycan exploit.

still waiting to hear about the exact true teachings of the baptism for the dead by mormons.i would use th einternet but i am tired of being called a liar by those who refuse to divulge their beliefs publically (after all, Jesus did so why can't the mormons)

[nrajeff]

ha ha ha ha always an excuse. not only was it in context, it was the beginning of the section and i do NOT have to cite RCC sources as that is biased material for a religious agenda.
---As if the junk YOU post is NOT biased, and NOT for a religion-related agenda? LOL. Of course, in your case, your agenda is ANTI-religious, right? Seeing as how you are anti-everything.


you are just like the mormons, you think your side is all facts and your opponents are all ***umptions.
---And you have demonstrated that you DON'T think that way? Again, LOL.


you certainly have lost all credibility with me (and that is all i am going to say)
---You never had any credibility to start with, AFAIAC

[archaeologist]

As if the junk YOU post is NOT biased, and NOT for a religion-related agenda? LOL. Of course, in your case, your agenda is ANTI-religious, right? Seeing as how you are anti-everything.


i never said i was unbiased, i am on the side of God and the mormons, the majority of RCC people are not nor are their doctrines or religious practices.

if you claim to follow the Bible you must follow the Bible, if the doctrine in the sect is NOT in the Bible then you are not following the Bible but a false teaching.

if you say you love God then you can't disbelieve one word of the Bible for 1 cor. 13 tells us that if you love someone you believe all things (don't go absurd here), so if you throw out any part of the Bible and say it is wrong or science is right then you do not love God anymore for you do not believe Him in all things.

if you add things to the Bible then you show that you do not believe God for you are accusing Him of leaving something out and lying to His creation. you are also not following the Bible but following those items that are extra additions and have no biblical support.


And you have demonstrated that you DON'T think that way? Again, LOL.

i side with God, He is right you are not.


You never had any credibility to start with, AFAIAC

to be expected from those who cannot produce a credible defense of their beliefs and avoid defending them when challenged. when are you going to refute what i have said in the Nag thread?

[Mesenja]

Shoedog is discussing the Catholic doctrine of indulgences on the Mormon Forum. Why doesn't Shoedog at least stick to the topic of this forum?




Nice but you are deflecting attention way from the subject of this thread and the point shoedog was trying to make.

Why don't you post the exact and true teachings of the Mormon cult on their belief concerning the practice of baptizing for the dead so we can see where you are coming form.

Since you and the Mormon cult claim to follow the Bible,please post from the christian Bible the verses which teach one to baptize the dead,pray for them or do anything for them?

[Mesenja]

There is no similarity to Catholic indulgences and our practice for baptism in behalf of the dead. Besides the faulty premise that you started out with I have provided two examples of the errors you made concerning the Catholic practice of indulgences. If you want to be taken more seriously then stop making faulty comparisons.



Thanks for the interesting information. I don't know that much about Catholicism or indulgences. I'm not interested in debating Catholic indulgences but would like to learn more. I was comparing the similarity in my mind to LDS baptisms. Seems like Catholics downplay what has been known about indulgences. My point is neither the LDS Mormons and their works of baptizing for the dead and the works or payments by Catholics,real or imagined,Luther correct or not,has no vaue in helping someone already dead. It may make victims and pious feel better.

You can move it if you want. Not my call.

Thanks, shoe :)

...you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.


Pay the Catholics pope or baptize by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead,and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?

[Bat-Man]

The comparison between Catholic and LDS Mormon "indulgences" is one works, gets paid and and trades it, and the other trades his work.
Please explain how you are defining the word: indulgence

You seem to be defining it as simply "doing something to be of service to someone who has died", and if that's all it takes in your perspective, then I hope you'll at least be consistent by using the same standard when you also do something to be of service to someone who has died... that is, if you actually do or would do anything.


Both are trading their time but just "cash" in it at different points in the process. Time has value.
Just clarify at what point you consider ANYONE to be offering an "indulgence" to ANYONE else, whether living or dead ?


You didn't baptize me by proxy did you? :)
Heh, what good would it do if I did?


So, if 1 in 3, for example, chose not to accept your baptism and "ALL of the credit" for that work goes back to the worker in exaltation... then the more you baptize the more credit you'll have for all the "rejected" work later.

In other words, if you can document 3 people and baptize them you'll end up with 2 credits (minus 1 rejection). If you document 3,000,000 people and baptize them you'll have 2,000,000 credits. So your "credit", your glory in the afterlife is proportional to the amount of baptismal work you do?
I get credit, and I'm going to continue to get credit, for everything I do and have ever done whether or not anyone else ever accepts what I do or have done for them.

In other words, I'm getting credit, and I'm going to continue to get credit, for teaching you the true gospel of Jesus Christ (which you refer to as "Mormonism") whether or not you ever accept what I am teaching you.


Is this why LDS Mormons document people like Hitler, the Jews, Catholics, Baptists, and anyone else they can (Obama's mom) even if they choose to reject LDSism?
I believe we keep records of our own actions and what we have observed simply because we want our actions and our observations to be recorded in Heaven and on this Earth.

[Bat-Man]

the dead obviously CANNOT SAY 'no, thanks'.
Actually, yes, they can.

Those who are "dead" still live on, as spirits, and they still have the agency God gave them to do anything God will allow them to do.

[Mesenja]

Debating the merits and faults of indulgences has no place here.

[Bat-Man]

I would not necessarily subs***ute the word "love gift" for "indulgence" but I would say that the intentions of the people who do gain an indulgence is done out of love. But let's face it, a love offering does not merit salvation; salvation is not something bought, like you can hold up God to some bargaining chip. Salvation is a free gift, from God's Son who paid the price. This is something that the person recieving the gift has to do on his own, it is not something that can be done by proxy. The worth of the indulgence is not salvation, but offsetting the effects of sinfulness through the Church where God is uplifted and exalted. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and is distinctive from indulgences.
Would you define an indulgence as doing something for others who have died as long as you make it clear that you believe what you are doing when offering indulgences doesn't help the person you are offering "indulgences" for to attain salvation in any way, then?

In what sense do you believe indulgences "offset the effects of sinfulness" ???

It sounds to me like you're saying the "indulgences" don't help the person I thought the "indulgences" were intended to help, but rather they are intended only to help the leaders of your Church who accept those gifts.

For example, suppose a person named Mark (who is a member of your Church) believes a member of his family (let's call him Didymus) is in Pergatory so Mark then gives a gift to one of the leaders of your church (the Catholic church).

Does the "indulgence" gift Mark gives help Didymus in any tangible way at all, personally, such as by maybe making his stay in Pergatory more pleasant while he is there, or does Mark's gift only help the leaders of the other people who are members of the Catholic church who teach that indulgences only help them, as leaders ?

[archaeologist]

Shoedog is discussing the Catholic doctrine of indulgences on the Mormon Forum. Why doesn't shoedog at least stick to the topic of this forum?


no he wasn't. he was using it as a comparitive only. he was not introducing it as a point of discussion. if a person canno tmake comparisons for clarity sake or to make a point then there is no use having a discussion.

we have already seen that the mormon cult takes its doctriens from ancient cults and heresies so why shouldn't they steal from rcc ideas as well?

[Mesenja]

When he used it as a comparative study then he introduced it as a point of discussion.




shoedog:I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences,that is,you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.


Pay the Catholics pope or [be] baptize[d] by [the] LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead,and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?





No he wasn't. He was using it as a comparative only. He was not introducing it as a point of discussion. If a person can not tmake comparisons for clarity sake or to make a point then there is no use having a discussion.

We have already seen that the Mormon cult takes its doctrines from ancient cults and heresies so why shouldn't they steal from RCC ideas as well?

[archaeologist]

nice out of context quotes and very good cut and paste ***

[Mesenja]

Merely dismissing my posts proves nothing and says even less.




Nice out of context quotes and a very good cut and paste ***.

[archaeologist]

Merely dismissing my posts proves nothing and says even less.


when you give straight andonest answers without changing the questions or cherry picking the parts you will answer then maybe your posts won't be dismissed.

if it wasn't for people's lust for power and control, i would be amazed that the mormons could actually get converts to their cult.

[shoedog]

Please explain how you are defining the word: indulgence

You seem to be defining it as simply "doing something to be of service to someone who has died", and if that's all it takes in your perspective, then I hope you'll at least be consistent by using the same standard when you also do something to be of service to someone who has died... that is, if you actually do or would do anything.


Just clarify at what point you consider ANYONE to be offering an "indulgence" to ANYONE else, whether living or dead ?


Heh, what good would it do if I did?


I get credit, and I'm going to continue to get credit, for everything I do and have ever done whether or not anyone else ever accepts what I do or have done for them.

In other words, I'm getting credit, and I'm going to continue to get credit, for teaching you the true gospel of Jesus Christ (which you refer to as "Mormonism") whether or not you ever accept what I am teaching you.


I believe we keep records of our own actions and what we have observed simply because we want our actions and our observations to be recorded in Heaven and on this Earth.

LDS Mormonism is different than the true gosepl of Jesus and baptizing by proxy for me is meaningless and a waste of time. I reject Mormonism as false teaching and against God's Word.

I'm understanding indulgences as a false teaching leading people to believe they can pay money, do works, etc. for someone who is already dead with the belief it will help them leave a "spirit prison" or purgatory sooner than they would have been able to otherwise. I also reject "spirit prison" for those who die who aren't LDS Mormons and are dependant on a living LDS Mormon to release them from it by proxy baptism.

I have no problem with people honoring a dead person or even compensating victims of dead persons... it's a great thing to do and perhaps GOd would even reqard the living for those behaviors. I believe Jesus's death on the cross is completely sufficeint to accomplish God's will after death and He doesn't need the help of LDS Mormons.

Furthermore, I believe each person is responsible for their own life, beliefs, and actions while they are alive and if you reject the gospel Jesus teaches you will spend an eternity apart from Him, in hell. A living person can't take on the salvation of another simply be ***uming he can and getting baptized in their name. That simply is a lie of Satan. It is what Jesus the Messiah accomplished fo rus on the cross. Baptism is the personal expression of your decision to follow God's true teaching.

Let me ask you, if your faith is in what LDS Moronism teaches, and if you truly are leading people into false teaching, what will your eternity be like?

Thanks, shoe :)

[shoedog]

Merely dismissing my posts proves nothing and says even less.

You'r eworng. Reread the OP. I saw the movie Luther and noticed the similarity in my opinion of RCC and LDS Mormon of the adoration and abuse of the dead (?) at the expense of the fears and suspers***ions perpetrated by fear mongering leaders of heretical sects.

The abuses in the RCC system are without dispute except by RCC. The abuses in the LDS Mormon religious system ar near legendary by proxy baptizing fo rHitler, and other Nazis, for example, only to revoke those "spirit-led" baptisms at a much later due to public pressure... much like polygamy, racism, womens rights, etc. changed by the LDS Mormon leaders.

The point I would like to make is Satan is using the same tactics in different religious membership groups.

If you disagree, then disagree and post why hopefully substantively and intelligently. If you don't disagree let your silence on the matter speak for you.

Thanks, shoe :)

Thanks, shoe :)

[shoedog]

There is no similarity to Catholic indulgences and our practice for baptism in behalf of the dead. Besides the faulty premise that you started out with I have provided two examples of the errors you made concerning the Catholic practice of indulgences. If you want to be taken more seriously then stop making faulty comparisons.

[/QUOTE]

It is common knowledge the RCC sold indulgences to finance cathedrals and to enrich the Pope. It is the same as the LDS Mormon leaders "selling" the idea you proxy baptise and you are doing good works for which the dead will rise sooner, leave purgatory sooner and the LDS & RCC members will be rewarded for their work. THe only difference I can tell other than terminology is the RCC claim their practice benefits only dead Christians, and LDS proxy baptisms benefits whoever except former LDS Mormons who became apostate... that is, reject the LDS Mormonism.

Neither system seems to acknowledge Christ paid it all.

Thanks, shoe :)

[Bat-Man]

LDS Mormonism is different than the true gosepl of Jesus...
No it isn't. Let's see what else you have to say now.


... and baptizing by proxy for me is meaningless and a waste of time.

I reject Mormonism as false teaching and against God's Word.
I know that's the way you feel right now, but who's to say that you'll always feel that way and that you'll always reject "Mormonism" as the restoration of true gospel of Jesus Christ even when your spirit goes to where it will go after you die ???

... and btw, it would be a waste of your time for you to answer that question right now, because my question is NOT about how you feel about "Mormonism" right now, but how you might feel about Mormonism later after you learn more about "Mormonism" when you might discover what Mormonism is REALLY all about.


I'm understanding indulgences as a false teaching leading people to believe they can pay money, do works, etc. for someone who is already dead with the belief it will help them leave a "spirit prison" or purgatory sooner than they would have been able to otherwise.
That's my understanding of Catholic Church teachings about indulgences too, but I know there is truth to the idea that there are things certain people can do to help some other people who have died which can help those people to get out of a "spirit prison" or "purgatory" or "Hell" sooner than they would have been able to get out otherwise.

I simply reject the "false teachings" in all false teachings while knowing there are some true teachings which the false teachings are based upon.


I also reject "spirit prison" for those who die who aren't LDS Mormons and are dependant on a living LDS Mormon to release them from it by proxy baptism.
I know you reject those teachings, shoe, but those teachings are true anyway.

The big question now is:

How long will you continue to reject the truth that you now reject as truth?


I have no problem with people honoring a dead person or even compensating victims of dead persons... it's a great thing to do and perhaps God would even reward the living for those behaviors.
That's good that you have no problem with that, and FYI, God actually does reward all people for all the good things they do.


I believe Jesus's death on the cross is completely sufficeint to accomplish God's will after death and He doesn't need the help of LDS Mormons.
I know you believe that, but Jesus's death on the cross actually didn't fulfill his requirement that all people be baptized to be forgiven for all of their sins.


Furthermore, I believe each person is responsible for their own life, beliefs, and actions while they are alive and if you reject the gospel Jesus teaches you will spend an eternity apart from Him, in hell.
I believe that too, but that only applies to the people who reject the gospel Jesus teaches, and only for as long as they reject that gospel.

As soon as anyone accepts the gospel Jesus teaches while also being baptized according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, those people then either avoid being sent to Hell (or spirit prison) in the first place, or they then get out of Hell (or spirit prison) as soon as they stop rejecting the gospel and start accepting the gospel Jesus teaches along with his commandments.


A living person can't take on the salvation of another simply by ***uming he can and getting baptized in their name. That simply is a lie of Satan.
We (LDS) are not ***uming anything on this issue, shoe.

We're following the program Jesus has outlined in regards to this issue.

All of the people who didn't get baptized according to the teachings of Jesus Christ while they were living their (mortal) lives here on this Earth simply because they never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ including the teaching that they needed to be baptized will still hear the gospel of Jesus Christ SOMEWHERE after their spirits have separated from their (mortal) body, and they will then have the opportunity to accept the gospel Jesus teaches including the teaching that they need to be baptized according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.


Baptism is the personal expression of your decision to follow God's true teaching.
Right. Exactly.

Now all you need to realize is that God's true teachings includes the teaching that all people who are accountable for their sins MUST be baptized as a personal expression to show they accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, otherwise they are not showing they have accepted it.


Let me ask you, if your faith is in what LDS Mormonism teaches, and if you truly are leading people into false teaching, what will your eternity be like?
Like yours if you are leading (or trying to lead) people into false teachings.

... and I know you are.

[Mesenja]

You compared the practice of Roman Catholic indulgences to that of the Latter-day Saints doing proxy baptisms in behalf of the dead. You are just repeating here what I said before. If you are going to make such comparisons then the subject of Roman Catholicism is by default brought up on the Mormon Forum.






You're wrong. Reread the OP. I saw the movie Luther and noticed the similarity in my opinion of RCC and LDS Mormon of the adoration and abuse of the dead (?) at the expense of the fears and supers***ions perpetrated by fear mongering leaders of heretical sects.


The abuses in the RCC system are without dispute except by RCC. The abuses in the LDS Mormon religious system are near legendary by proxy baptizing for Hitler,and other Nazis,for example,only to revoke those "spirit-led" baptisms at a much later due to public pressure...much like polygamy,racism,women's rights,etc. changed by the LDS Mormon leaders.


The point I would like to make is Satan is using the same tactics in different religious membership groups.


If you disagree,then disagree and post why hopefully substantively and intelligently. If you don't disagree let your silence on the matter speak for you.


Thanks, shoedog[/SIZE] :)

[Mesenja]

It is common knowledge the RCC sold indulgences to finance cathedrals and to enrich the Pope. It is the same as the LDS Mormon leaders "selling" the idea you proxy baptise and you are doing good works for which the dead will rise sooner,leave purgatory sooner and the LDS & RCC members will be rewarded for their work. The only difference I can tell other than terminology is the RCC claim their practice benefits only dead Christians,and LDS proxy baptisms benefits whoever except former LDS Mormons who became apostate... that is,reject the LDS Mormonism.

Neither system seems to acknowledge Christ paid it all.

Thanks,shoedog :)



Read the article en***led Myths about Indulgences (http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp) for the errors you have made concerning the practice of Catholic indulgences.

As to your accusations against our practice of baptisms for the dead by vicarious proxy you are just as wrong. Let us go over your errors point by point shall we?

1. It is the same as the LDS Mormon leaders "selling" the idea you proxy baptise and you are doing good works for which the dead will rise sooner.

Implicit in this statement is that performing a baptism on behalf of someone else who has died makes that person LDS. According to their own free will and choice they can accept,decline,or ignore this ordinance altogether.


2. The LDS & RCC members will be rewarded for their work.

You are making another groundless accusation that both Latter-day Saints and Roman Catholics teach a works based salvation. If I appear to be presumptuous in speaking for the Catholic posters here I apologize. However in my defense this is such a blatant error that I felt obliged to address it.

You are also getting dangerously close if not already having crossed the line to embrace the heresy called Antinomianism

This particular topic goes beyond the subject matter here to addressed but I would be happy to debate this question with you in a more suitable place. I will only say two comments in regards to the issue of salvation.

One being that the apostle Paul differentiates between works done under the eyes of the Lord's grace [Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.] and those works which are works of debt. [Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace,but of debt.]

My second comment is that "the hope of eternal life"[***us 1:2;***us 3:7] which the apostle Paul said that God promised the saints is not the unconditional,irreversible automatic kind that evangelicals believe in.

May I also suggest that you study carefully the following verses.


Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me,Lord, Lord,shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven,the same is my brother,and sister,and mother.

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me,Lord,Lord,and do not the things which I say?

Romans 2:6-10 [God] will render to every man according to his deeds. 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious,and do not obey the truth,but obey unrighteousness,indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish,upon every soul of man that doeth evil,of the Jew first,and also of the Gentile10 But glory,honour,and peace,to every man that worketh good,to the Jew first,and also to the Gentile:For there is no respect of persons

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship,created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying,speak every man truth with his neighbour:for we are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry and sin not:let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil. 28 Let him that stole steal no more:but rather let him labour,working with his hands the thing which is good,that he may have to give to him that needeth29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,but that which is good to the use of edifying,that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God,whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness,and wrath,and anger,and clamour,and evil speaking,be put away from you,with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another,tenderhearted,forgiving one another,even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord,unworthily,shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself,and so let him eat of that bread,and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,eateth and drinketh ****ation to himself,not discerning the Lord’s body.

2 Corinthians 5:9 Wherefore we labour,that,whether present or absent,we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ;that every one may receive the things done in his body,according to that he hath done,whether it be good or bad.

2 Corinthians 6:1 We then,as workers together with him,beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves,whether ye be in the faith;prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves,how that Jesus Christ is in you,except ye be reprobates?

Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead,small and great,stand before God;and the books were opened and another book was opened,which is the book of life:and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it;and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them:and they were judged every man according to their works.

3. Neither system seems to acknowledge Christ paid it all.

In this instance I will refrain from making a comment and leave it to the able hands of the Catholic posters here to correct yet another error made against them.

However I am not under any such obligation as a Latter-day Saint to say that as concerning us you speak words without knowledge.

Wherefore,how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth,that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God,save it be through the merits,and mercy,and grace of the Holy Messiah,who layeth down his life according to the flesh,and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit,that he may bring to p*** the resurrection of the dead,being the first that should rise. (2 Nephi 2:8)

[Mesenja]

Archaeologist what quotes of Shoedog did I take out of context? It should be simple enough for you to answer.




When you give straight and honest answers without changing the questions or cherry picking the parts you will answer then maybe your posts won't be dismissed.

If it wasn't for people's lust for power and control,I would be amazed that the Mormons could actually get converts to their cult.

[alanmolstad]

shoe: I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences, that is, you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Isn't this similar to LDS Mormons teaching that people who die apart from the Mormon church, and their belief system, can be baptized by proxy by an LDS Mormon convinced their cause is just?

Pay the Catholics pope or baptize by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead, and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?

Or, why would Jesus have to die at all if one could experiment apart from God in this life only to be given the opportunity to change in the next once you've seen you were wrong?

Thanks, shoe :)

There is a good connection between the two concepts for 'helping people out' after they died.

I had to study the catholic history of this idea in bible school, and from what i remember it was based (and still is) on the idea taught in a Bible verse that what the church binds on the earth is bound in heaven also.

The catholic idea also stems from the idea that while we do receive 'forgiveness"for our sin while here on the Earth , we yet do not escape some of the results of our past sins.

An example is that you can be forgiven in heaven for the sin of murder, but you still suffer the results here on the earth and are in jail regardless of your being forgiven.
The Catholic idea built on this idea and began to offer a way to also shorten the results of sin that were forgiven yet still would cause suffering .

From this idea the practice grew into the "pay your way out of purgatory" system that was what Luther was very correct in objecting to.

[The Pheonix]

shoe: I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences, that is, you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Isn't this similar to LDS Mormons teaching that people who die apart from the Mormon church, and their belief system, can be baptized by proxy by an LDS Mormon convinced their cause is just?

Pay the Catholics pope or baptize by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead, and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?

Or, why would Jesus have to die at all if one could experiment apart from GOd in this life only to be given the opportunity to change in the next once you've seen you were wrong?

Thanks, shoe :)No, not similar.

[Snow Patrol]

No, not similar.

The Pheonix, why are you responding to a thread that is five years old. Let Alanmostad pretend to keep this board active by rehashing 4-5 year old posts. It makes him look desperate which is what he has become which is obvious by his Marie Osmond post.

[RealFakeHair]

The Pheonix, why are you responding to a thread that is five years old. Let Alanmostad pretend to keep this board active by rehashing 4-5 year old posts. It makes him look desperate which is what he has become which is obvious by his Marie Osmond post.

I thought about that myself, but hey maybe he just woke up from under a tree or something.

[jdjhere]

THATS a Loooong nap! :)