It’s going to be pretty hard for anyone to suddenly find themselves in the afterlife and not realize that the end is really the beginning. The Mormon’s know that they will eventually get the unbaptized into the Baptismal font, even if it’s in the afterlife.
I’m not trying to be a jackass honestly, but you say this with a matter-of-factness that is perplexing to me. This compels me to probe.
If you’re wrong about being able to get the unbaptized into the pearly gates—which means at a minimum being separated from certain loved ones for all eternity—what will you make of this? I mean, you seem so certain of being right about this…but the probability of being wrong is very high, right?
If unbaptized innocents (like children) do go to Hell, do you think you’ll have no choice but to accept it as God’s holy goodness in action, or do you think it’ll forever sadden you and fill you with regret for not getting them baptized? Or have you thought this far?
Several things. If you have not been sealed to your love ones, you’re not going be with them in heaven. Some even say you will not recognize them. But being in heaven, everyone is your family anyway. If your family is sealed, you’re going to have to put up with Uncle Ernie for eternity because you will be together.
The unbaptized into getting into pearly gates? Have you ever seen a Mormon temple? Inside all those temples are baptismal fonts. Large deep fonts. The living performing ordnances for the deceased in those fonts, one deceased at a time. Albeit the deceased isn’t present, he’s buried somewhere else. But his name and data are on a screen for everyone to see as he’s baptized “by proxy.”
So, looking now at the poor departed, we see that after a short period of time, (was 12 mts), they are eligible to have their ordinances performed by the living, IE, they can be baptized, conformed and endowed. If married, they can now be sealed, assuming both have completed ,or had completed for them, the necessary ordinances.
As to the deceased, they are given a choice. Accept that you’ve met all the requirements , by proxy, for an eternal reward. Or not. All you have to do when asked, is say yes, I accept this. Pretty hard to ignore if you’re deceased and seeing that there’s a better place right ahead of you.
This thread is about Mormon beliefs with respect to baptism, not my beliefs. You’re not going to offend me at all if you choose to attack them.
If the deceased is not fortunate enough to have Mormons in his life to posthumously baptize him/her, I suppose they will they just be shit of luck then. And it doesn’t matter if they are the most charitable, ethical, and compassionate person you could ever meet… they will receive a lesser destiny than the person who baptized. Or am I inferring the wrong the thing from this?
I get that this is what Mormons believe, but this doesn’t answer my question. So let me try again in case I wa unclear.
If you enter the afterlife and come to learn that you were mistaken about who gets in heaven and who doesn’t—and you realize that loved ones you now consider deserving of the highest celestial rewards will actually be cast into a fiery place because their posthumous baptism didn’t count or whatever—do you think you will have no choice but accept this as good and just because it’s Gods will? Or do you think free will would allow you to feel regretful about not doing more on Earth to save them before they died, and to take this regret with you into heaven?
But you’re Mormon, right?
Let me start off with this. What I believe is not relevant to this discussion. It’s about doctrine, not my beliefs.
If your asking whether someone refuses baptism is moving forward, the answer is not likely. Dismas may be the exception to that rule, but he had Jesus Christ by his side, so he got a fast track pass.
If you’re asking whether everyone will be baptized, in person or by proxy, that’s the plan.
That last question is really too argumentative to answer.
That’s not what I’m asking.
I’m trying to figure out if you’re speaking as a person who is a Mormon believer vs someone who simply has some knowledge of Mormon dogma (and could very well be atheist). Why does it matter? Because if you’ve personally wrestled with the types of questions I’ve posed, then I’m curious as to how you dealt with them as believer. If you don’t believe, then you wouldn’t have anything to wrestle with because you are standing on the same side of the fence as I am.
Quite surprised you think that is too argumentative to answer, because it is rather effortless for me to say I’m an agnostic who has no clue about what happens to the souls of dead children and is totally okay with being ignorant in this way.
I don’t think they are getting into first class unless they are Mormon and do all things that Mormon are expected to do to get their handsome rewards. By killing kids who will be denied their chance to convert to Mormonism, the shooter limits their opportunities in the afterlife.
That’s the way I understand it. Maybe if served up cold? Just a wag, but perhaps these particular hot drinks caused him some GI discomfort.
The Word of Wisdom initially wrote in 1833 that tobacco, alcohol and hot drinks were banned. Historical records from that time show church members took hot drinks to mean coffee and tea from the cites I looked at. Caffeine wasn’t even isolated and discovered until about fifteen years before that, and doubtful JS even heard of it. Soda pop had their own timeline.
However, I typed in caffeine on their website, and while they are more laxed, you’re still going to find far more articles on their cite discouraging its use because they feel like many drinks containing it and other substances are detrimental to ones health.
I lived for years in an area in which 20% of the population was LDS, and I had friends and colleagues who were members. Caffeine may not have been identified when Joseph Smith first prohibited “hot drinks,” but coffee and tea were recognized as stimulants.As I understood it, the question of caffeine in cold drinks was unresolved until not long ago. Prior to that, I had a devout LDS friend who drank Pepsi by the liter because, he said, it wasn’t hot; other LDS friends viewed any form of caffeine, hot or cold, as verboten. A few years ago, the LDS Church left the decision about caffeinated beverages up to members’ consciences without condoning use of same. I have a young relative who graduated from BYU recently. He’s not LDS (attended on an athletic scholarship), but he had to sign something promising not to drink coffee or tea while a student there. No mention of cola or other caffeinated cold drinks, and in fact, they were available in pop machines on campus.
I want to again thank everyone in this thread. I think it has helped me understand Mormon beliefs a little better, and all have been mostly civil, especially given the subject matter on this board.
Just FYI, I’ll be checking reading responses from time to time, but i may be done contributing. I understand better the problem of the shooter. I’m not religious, so some parts of religion (not just Mormonism) are pretty baffling to me. Thanks to those who have cleared up that bafflement on this topic!