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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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]

Originally Posted by shoedog

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]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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]

Originally Posted by Columcille

... 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]

Originally Posted by 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/micha...tion-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...&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?hi...003a94610aRCRD

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/micha...tion-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?

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by shoedog

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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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.

Originally Posted by batman

: 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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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]

Originally Posted by Columcille

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]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

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.