I did learn that it’s not just the LDS that are picked on, so at least they have that going for them.  When I complained that another person by the handle of Pheobe Ann posted a distorted view of LDS theology, another person there by the handle Skylark said,

Originally Posted by skylark1

If you think that this title is sensational, you should check out some of the headlines in General Theology. There is one titled “I can have sex with the pastor’s wife and still go to heaven.” (The original poster was not actually claiming this!) So far, it has 935 posts, and 7946 views!

I responded

Skylark,

I find that title heinous. I agree with you that Phoebe’s title is relatively benign compared to your example. If such sensationalism is considered normal here, perhaps I am in the wrong place. I thought this was supposed to be a place of discussion, not a place where Tabloid headlines dominate.

I hear you, and sympathize. However, I would much rather have a more scholarly discussion, than waste times with tabloid discussions.

So, Phoebe Ann’s post quoted D&C  84:74-95, along with Pheobe’s commentary that “Those who reject the LDS message here on earth seem to be in a lot of trouble.”  Phoebe believes that the LDS believe that only LDS will obtain salvation (or in Mormon parlance, Celestial glory.)  Phoebe is a former Mormon, but apparently her grasp of Mormon theology is quote distorted.  Currently, she is not a member of any denomination.  She believes that faith in Christ is all that is needed to get into Heaven; she believes all works are unnecessary, and she believes that true Christians are in and outside of many denominations.  I thought you might enjoy a few of our exchanges.  She asked me,

Faith in Christ is very important, but it is not the “end-all” that New Dawn made it sound at first. New Dawn made a clarification, and I understand the position better now. I am glad that New Dawn doesn’t think that someone can profess in Christ and then commit murder in a Crusade and be saved. I agree with that position. I am still trying to understand New Dawn and your position on Hindus, and I still haven’t received an answer saying “Hindus are all damned”, or “some Hindus will get into heaven.” I am sure you understand that Mormons don’t simply believe in only heaven and hell; we believe that honorable men (Hindu or not) will receive some sort of glory, perhaps more than a “faithful” Crusader who engaged in war crimes. I’d like to get a clearer understanding of New Dawn and Phoebe’s position, but it seems like neither of you answer the question directly and make your position clear. I hope I have made my position clear.

I’m surprised by the question, because I think you know the answer: to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life.

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. Christ’s resurrection is freely given to all men–Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day.

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ’s blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god.

This seems to be the point of your very first post here. I can’t find it now, but I remember you said something to the effect that God does not care about denominations. I agree. Certainly Jesus, Peter, Paul, Moses, Adam, Noah, and Abraham were not LDS, so NO, God does not welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom. I feel assured that all of these men will be in the Celestial Kingdom, and I believe that Esther, Ruth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Abish will be in the Celestial Kingdom as well.

I like this, and agree with it whole-heartedly.

Well, the LDS believe that accepting Christ is a requirement for salvation, so there’s your problem. You believe something incorrect. Hopefully I have corrected your incorrect belief.

Yes, but he doesn’t always do it in this life.

Absolutely.

None. Romans 3:23″for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Jesus died for both.

I’m not sure I understand the point of the question. I think you are referring to Romans 14:23 “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” If this is what you are referring to, then all sinners are condemned.

However, those that partake of Jesus atonement are not condemned. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery in John 8:10-11,

“When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Maybe they thought you looked nice and wanted to talk to you! I think you know the answer to that question, but I’ll oblige. They would like to help you become a better Christian. (It appears you think your version of Christianity is superior to the Missionaries version–am I wrong? “yes” or “no” please.)

I have no qualms with what you just said. This whole grace/works argument is much ado about nothing. It seems to be a heated argument of which came first–the chicken or the egg, and I think the whole argument is silly and pointless. A person with true faith naturally wants to do the works of God. Too many Mormons argue this point and it is silly.

Yes, I remember the above question and answer, and I hope I have answered clearly. I hope you will answer “yes” or “no” as well to my questions.

I agree.

Gosh, I feel like you’ve almost made it clear here, and I think I agree with everything you just said. Am I correct that you believe Hindus are damned?

As you know, Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Glory. Those who accept Christ fully will inherit the highest glory, but a good Hindu who does not fully accept Christ will not obtain the highest glory. This means the person who fully accepts Christ is in the Celestial Kingdom. To be in the Celestial Kingdom means salvation. See D&C 76:50-70 for more information. The Hindu will be in either the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom. Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms do not equal salvation. See D&C 76:71-119–it is much too long to quote here.

Now you may be wondering about what I said when I said “Hindu who does not fully accept Christ“.

Following Jesus death on the cross, many have wondered where he went, because he did not ascend to the Father. For example, we know that Jesus appeared to Mary after she discovered the empty tomb. Apparently Mary tried to embrace Jesus. (Who wouldn’t?) The Gospel of John chapter 20 verse 17 records, Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.

So if Jesus didn’t go to the Father after he died, many have wondered where he went during this 3 day period? Paul in his Epistle to Peter tells us that Jesus visited those who were disobedient in the days of Noah. 1 Peter 3:18-20 says,

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,)
Furthermore, 1 Peter 4:6 expands on this topic further:

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Paul discusses this topic again in 1 Cor 15:22-31. I find verses 22 and 29 most interesting.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

31 I die every day–I mean that, brothers–just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

Christ taught the dead who were disobedient in the days of Noah. Since Christianity didn’t exist in Noah’s day, these people were certainly non-Christians. More than likely, they were polytheistic. There is a good chance that they had some beliefs in common with our hypothetical Hindu. If a Hindu never hears of Christ in this life, would a loving god damn the Hindu who never heard of Christ? Mormon theology says no. If I understand your theology correctly, the Hindu is damned to Hell, because only true, faithful Christians will be saved.

Your quiz says all men are sinners, including Hindus. God condemns all sinners. Only those who accept Christ will not be condemned. If a Hindu does not accept Christ, the Hindu is condemned to damnation. Therefore, all Hindus are damned, because by definition they worship a different god, and have no faith in Christ. Does this accurately represent your beliefs? (“yes” or “no” would be very helpful here.)

Mormons, on the other hand, believe that Christ will teach to the Hindu as it says in 1 Peter chapter 3 and 4. If this Hindu accepts Christ, he will be baptized as it says in 1 Cor 15. Therefore, Mormons do not believe all Hindus will be damned to Hell.

So, the Celestial Kingdom will be full of people of MANY denominations, and it is not limited to LDS only. This belief fully refutes your erroneous point in your opening post that makes the assumption that non-LDS will obtain “wo” and damnation. It also answers your question,

Originally Posted by Phoebe Ann

Would God welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom and relegate all non-LDS to other kingdoms?

I remind you that even if a Hindu chooses not to accept Christ, then the Hindu will not obtain the Celestial Kingdom. We believe that the same sociality exists in the next life as it does here. If people rejected Christ in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, they have the opportunity to reject him in the spirit prison as well. It is not a slam dunk that someone will accept Christ in spirit prison.

Even if the Hindu rejects Christ in spirit prison, the good Hindu does have an opportunity to receive a higher glory than a Christian that murders in God’s name. This means that a good Hindu could potentially be in the Terrestrial Kingdom, while the Christian guilty of war crimes enters the lower glory Telestial Kingdom.

If I understand your position correctly, you don’t have this “gradient” scale. Either man goes to Heaven or Hell. Hindus have no shot at Heaven, because they do not believe in Christ. Plundering Christian Crusaders probably will go to Hell because they are not “true believers.” If my understanding of your position is correct, then all Hindus are damned. Is this correct?

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. (Perhaps you do not understand LDS theology as good as you think you do.) Christ’s resurrection is freely given to all men–Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day. (This gift of resurrection is given to all, but is not considered salvation. Hindus will be resurrected, along with Christians.)

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ’s blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god. (Eternal life means salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.)

I hope that answers your question. Apostle Russell M Nelson gave an address on salvation and exaltation in April 2008 if you would like more information. See his talk titled Salvation and Exaltation.

Phoebe asked,

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9

If a person does not have the Spirit of Christ/has not been born again of the Spirit, he is not a Christian. If a person belongs to Christ, he/she is being led by the Holy Spirit. Churches don’t save. Christ saves.

I agree. Churches don’t save. Christ saves.

So, what about the rest of you.  Did I preach false doctrine?  Can non-LDS enter the Celestial Kingdom?  Do churches save?

I probably should give a review of these 3 sources.  Of the 3, I liked The Jesus Tomb best.  Jacobovici does DNA tests on the bones, chemical tests on the ossuaries, and uses statisticians to try to locate the probability of find a tomb with Jesus, two Mary’s (mother and wife), a brother James, and son of Joseph.  You may disagree with his results, but he did make a valiant effort to be scientific about it.  (A note about an ossuary.  Apparently at the time of Christ, people were often buried in a tomb.  After about a year, the body would decompose, leaving only the bones.  To save space, it was a custom to take the bones and “re-bury” them in a much smaller limestone box.  The largest bone in the body is the upper leg, so the box would only need to be about 2 feet long, and the bones would be placed there to save considerable space.  Often names were etched into these limestone boxes to identify the bones.)

Bloodline was dreadful.  Honestly, it was so hokey, I actually couldn’t pay attention to the whole thing.  It was supposedly a real life cloak and daggar documentary.  The producers would set up interviews with experts of Jesus’ bones in France, and they would either end up dead prior to the interview, or would just refuse.  Of the experts they managed to actually interview, most seemed like whack-jobs to me.  I give it no credibility.

I have just briefly skimmed the India site–I came upon it a few weeks ago.  I don’t quite know what to make of it yet.  I have heard people compare Christ to Buddha, and some claim they might have been the same person.  I do know of an ancient tradition that the Apostle Thomas (yes, Doubting Thomas) served a mission to India.  (Apparently, these claims about Thomas seem pretty credible.)  I also know that India has an ancient Christian history.  Really, I need to learn more, but it is interesting to me.

So, with Christ being resurrected, Christians would obviously find these 3 sources as problematic.  If Christ was really resurrected, there should be no bones, right?  I must say I was really intrigued by Simcha Jacobovici’s position.  Simcha is a Jew, and said that if the bones were really discovered, then it would actually give credibility to Christianity, because it would in fact give proof that Jesus was an actual person.  (Of course, there are many who claim Jesus never existed, citing lack of evidence.)

So, it got me thinking.  Obviously, all 3 can’t be right.  But what if one of them is right?  Critics of Christianity would loudly trumpet the fact that the resurrection couldn’t have happened if the bones were found.  They already make claims that say this discovery “would shake the foundations of Christianity”, seeming to imply that Christianity would somehow disappear.  But would it really disappear?

I don’t think so.  Let’s assume for sake of argument that one of these positions was scientifically proved correct–Jesus bones have been positively found.  Now, while I am sure it would cause much re-evaluation among Christians, I do not believe Christianity would vanish.  I suspect that many Christians would have to re-evaluate the resurrection.  Here’s some possible scenarios that I see happening.

(1)  The resurrection is actually not a physical resurrection.  I believe many people already believe this.  When we look at it, it’s a little tough to reconcile with the scriptures, because Jesus ate fish and honey after his resurrection.  “Touch me” was his reply–so it does seem to be a fact that he was physically resurrected.  But perhaps this physical resurrection would only apply to him, and not us?

(2)  Perhaps there was some sort of stem-cell/cloning technique for the resurrection.  Perhaps Jesus “corruptible” body is on the earth, but his new “celestial” body looks/feels the same, but is basically a perfected clone of his human body.

(3)  Perhaps the resurrection is not important at all.  Perhaps the Gnostics had it right, and the body is not needed in heaven.  Perhaps, Jesus true purpose is not the resurrection, but rather his purpose was to teach spiritual truths.  In this scenario, the resurrection is meaningless, and Christ’s atonement and teachings are what really matters.

I’m sure there are other options.  Can you think of some?  If Christ’s bones were truly found, would it really spell the end of Christianity, as skeptics claim?

Yes Mormons do believe in Easter-I just wish we did a better job of celebrating the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, rather than the Easter bunny.  Related to this current post, I did a similar, smaller post over at Mormon Matters, where I primarily asked the question if there is a Mainstream acceptance of the Mormons’ Easter story?  My post there was very short, but I have much more information here from a National Geographic DVD titled, In Search of Easter, produced around Easter 2004.  Here are some of the things I found interesting.

Discrepancies in the Gospels telling of the Easter story

Three days after the death of Jesus, comes the breathless incident, where God reveals he has awakened Jesus from the grave.  But each gospel has a slightly different version of these moments.  John offers the briefest account.  He writes that Mary Magdalene, the most prominent female disciple, discovers that the stone sealing the tomb of Jesus, has been rolled away.  She is shocked to find that his body is missing.

In Mark’s version, additional women join Mary and they also encounter an angel.  “On entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment.  And they were affrighted, and he saith unto them, Be not affrighted, ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here.  Behold the place where they have laid him.”

Luke’s gospel adds another angel to proclaim the resurrection while Matthew tells of an earthquake which has rolled the stone away.  The sentries that only Matthew mentions have been rendered unconscious.

Alternative explanations of Jesus Resurrection

The ancient Romans were anxious to dispel the rumors of Jesus resurrection.  In Matthew, there is the familiar ancient tale that the followers of Jesus stole the body.  However, the DVD has some other interesting ideas.

Prof of Biblical Studies, Daniel Smith-Christopher, Loyola Marymount University, “Why didn’t the enemies of the early Christians, particularly the Romans who killed him in the first place, simply quash this whole Christian business at the source and simply say, ‘Look, here is the body!  Enough of this nonsense!’  The fact that they cannot do that, this obvious move, lends an even greater mystery to the events that we see as the resurrection of Jesus.”

If the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb, is it possible that it was never there in the first place?

Thomas Sheehan, professor of Religious Studies at Stanford University, “Probably no one knew where Jesus’ body was located because he was executed as a common criminal, the chances are he was buried either in a common grave, or left for animals to devour.”

John Dominic Crossan, Professor emeritus, DePaul University, “The Roman execution and crucifixion tended to leave the body there until there was nothing left to be buried.  That’s what crucifixion meant.  It wasn’t a question of making you suffer; it was a question of annihilating your identity, not even leaving enough to be buried.  That is the awful possibility that that’s [sic] what the Romans did to the body of Jesus.”

Luke Timothy Johnson, professor of New Testament and Christian origins, Emory University, “History has to do with the exceptions, rather than with the norm, that is Jesus had followers, he had sympathizers.  He had people who cared for him. It’s far more plausible to me historically, that something like the version that Jesus was buried in a tomb by somebody who was sympathetic to him, is roughly reliable.”

Women’s role in the Resurrection

Women who announce Resurrection actually lends credibility to the story, according to scholars.

Smith-Christopher, “If you were to make up this story, and to make it more believable, you certainly wouldn’t choose the witness of women, because at the time of Jesus, women’s social standing was very low indeed.  Women would not have been trusted as the most reliable witnesses.”

(Luke 24:9)  “And they returned from the tomb and reported all these things unto the eleven and to all the rest.  And these words appeared unto them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.”

According to John’s gospel, only Peter and an unnamed disciple are curious enough to investigate the empty tomb for themselves.  (John 20:6)  “Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and a napkin that was about his head, not lying within the clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.’  John’s Gospel goes onto report that the amazed Peter, and his companion, depart the tomb, leaving Mary Magdalene to behold the impossible.”

Amy Jill-Levine, Professor of New Testament studies, Vanderbilt University, “A man calls her, she turns and sees, she supposes him to be the gardener.  And she says, ‘please sir, tell me where you have taken the body so that I can claim it.  And when the man calls her by name, Miriam, she recognizes in fact that this is no gardener, this is her resurrected Lord, appearing to her in the flesh.”

Why did people fail to recognize Jesus?

Smith-Christopher, “The way John  goes on to tell the story, Mary has, what we would take to be a very natural reaction-she wants to grasp and hug Jesus, and Jesus tells Mary, ‘no, not yet.  I can’t be touched yet.’  And it lends an interesting any mysterious air to the whole episode.”

Mary’s encounter, according to the Gospels, is only the beginning.  Luke describes another sighting that occurs later that day.  Two of Jesus’ followers, who have just witnessed the crucifixion, are travelling on the road to Emmaus, a road north of Jerusalem.  They are not aware that their martyred teacher intends to extend their education.

Johnson, “The two disciples are walking along disconsolate, after the events that have taken place in Jerusalem.  And they’re discussing what had happened.  And as they’re walking along, they’re joined by a stranger, who they don’t recognize, and who enters into conversation with them.”

Jill-Levine, “They’re surprised that the stranger had not heard about the death of Jesus, and as they continued to talk and to walk, they describe to this stranger, what Jesus had done, what he stood for.  And as day started to progress toward night, the stranger announced that he would leave.  And the followers said, ‘No, no, no.  Why don’t you come and have supper with us?”  And the stranger agrees. And as they’re sitting at supper, the stranger begins to explain to them the truth of the story of Jesus, unpacked through the sacred scripture that all Jews held at the time, what Christians today would call the Old Testament.”

Crossan, “And the stranger gives them almost a graduate course in the interpretation of scripture, showing them that if they understood their scriptures, they would not have been surprised that even the messiah would be executed.  Then comes the crucial point of the story.  Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks it, and hands it out, the Eucharistic formula, and they recognize Jesus!”

Smith-Christopher, “And it’s only  as they begin to comprehend the significance of what this stranger has been saying, we have this movement of comprehension, when they recognize their former teacher.  I think that this is very important, the sense of which, the gospels tells us, it’s when we recognize the importance of what he taught us, that we suddenly recognize him.”

Luke’s account then takes an abrupt twist.  At the very moment that the disciples recognize Jesus, he suddenly vanishes.

Why does Jesus keep disappearing?

Johnson, “This odd appearing/disappearing of Jesus and the appearing accounts has a very important message, and that is the resurrection is not resuscitation.  Jesus does not open an office.  He’s not there permanently.  He’s not there in his former somatic limitedness.  He’s a surprising presence.  He intrudes, he interrupts, he is not predictable, he is not controllable, and in that sense, he shares the life of the living God.”

Smith-Christopher, “The appearing and disappearing are kind of moving us towards the reality that we are going to live with for the rest of time, and that is that we don’t  have the physical presence of Jesus anymore with us, we have as it were the spiritual presence of Jesus with us.  There’s a sense of we’re getting used to the fact that now, the physical presence of Jesus is no longer going to be accessible to us.”

The Mormon Easter Story

Could yet another possibility exist that explains Jesus sporadic appearances.  Is it possible that he did not limit his visits to ancient Israel?  This is the intriguing scenario described in the Book of Mormon.  The book which emerged in 19^th century America is revered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as God’s Holy Word.”

Kathleen Flake, Assistant Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbilt University, “The Book of Mormon is an account of a civilization that lived in the Americas between about 600 years before Jesus was born, until about 400 years after he died.  The centerpiece of this story, is Jesus’ appearance to them, after he died, and was resurrected.  He comes to the Americas with business in mind.  Jesus will say to these people in the Americas, now I said to the Jews in Palestine ‘other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they misunderstood me.  They thought I meant the gentiles, but no.  I meant you.  I meant you’re the other sheep; I must come visit you, I must manifest myself unto you so that you can bear witness to the world about the nature of God, and how to receive a forgiveness of sin, or more to the point, how you can overcome the circumstances of the world and be made one with God.’”

According to the Book of Mormon, the risen Jesus remains with America’s ancient tribes for 3 or 4 days.  He then vanishes and then makes sporadic appearances for an unspecified period of time.

Jesus appearance to 500

One episode in the New Testament’s eastern narrative cries out as perhaps its greatest paradox.  Why would Jesus’ appearance before the greatest number of people, be described in the fewest number of words?

Johnson, “In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul gives a recitation of those who had experiences and appearance of Jesus.  He includes a puzzling reference to 500 at one time, some of whom are still around and are able to bear testimony to this fact.  The most puzzling thing about this is that there is no story about it in the gospels as such.  We would think that if there were such an event, it certainly would be included among the resurrections stories of Jesus, or the appearances.”

Smith-Christopher, “Now for Paul, he just sort of mentions this in passing.  Now of course, when we moderns read that, we want to say, “Stop!  Wait!  Back up!  What do you mean 500 people?  Who were they?  What were they?  Where were they?  When did this happen?’  And we’re terribly frustrated about the fact that Paul just sort of mentions it in passing.  Clearly, his concerns were elsewhere.  He was already arriving at the issue of ‘what does all this mean’?  Not, ‘did it actually happen?’”

I could write more, but what do you think of some of these things?  Are Mormon scriptures beginning to get some mainstream acceptance?  Were Jesus bones never found because there was nothing left?  Why don’t we know more about this appearance to 500?

I want to point out some interesting things from his article–questions which Mormons should also start asking.  You can see the full article here.

What’s the difference, anyway, between baptising the dead and baptising babies? A tiny infant will have as much understanding as a dead person — none at all — of the complex philosophical belief-system it’s being inducted into when baptised, say, a Catholic. Transubstantiation? There’s daily communicants go to their deaths without any clear understanding of the concept. So what chance the mewling tot?

Indeed, given that all Christian Churches believe that the soul lives on after death and retains understanding and consciousness of self, doesn’t it make more sense to baptise dead adults than live babies?

Apart from which, if the Catholic bishops hold that the beliefs of the Mormons are pure baloney (as they must), and their rituals therefore perfectly meaningless, how can it matter to them what mumbo-jumbo Mormons might mutter over Catholic cadavers?

…

Let’s look at the facts as understood by the early followers of Christ. For more than 300 years after the Crucifixion, baptism of the dead was widely accepted, its biblical basis located in 1 Corinthians 15, 29: “Otherwise, what shall they do who are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptised for them.” In other words, a deceased person could be baptised by proxy: otherwise, how could such a person be included in the Resurrection? A good question.

The radical Cerinthians and the Marcionites were especially energetic baptisers of the dead. It was to wrong-foot these sects, seen as competitors with the official Church at a time when it was consolidating its position as the State religion of the Roman Empire, that the Synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) voted, after bitter debate, to condemn the practice.

He makes the case that the decision to stop baptism for the dead was to marginalize these other Christian sects.  At this point, I wanted to learn more about this practice.  I was aware of the 1 Corinthians reference, but didn’t know that the practice went on for 4 centuries.  So, I decided to see what I could find on this.

John A. Tvedtnes, a Hebrew and early Christian scholar at BYU, writes:

Check out my posts on Marcionism and Gnosticism to learn more about these movements.  Here’s another post on Gnosticism and another on Montanism.  (My 2 gnostic posts are ranked #2 and #8 of my most viewed posts–funny because there aren’t many comments on them.)  There’s also an interesting link to Barry Bickmore’s site and Jeff Lindsay’s site.

Finally, I like his reasoning here.

What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?

In that scenario, shouldn’t all members of all other religions be literally eternally grateful to the Mormons for sharing their saving grace even unto and after death?

If, on the other hand, it isn’t the Mormons at all, those who turn out to have been right can wave a merry farewell to the crestfallen followers of Brigham Young as they trundle downwards to their eternal comeuppance.

What’s the problem?

My favorite session was on “ARE WE STILL GODS IN EMBRYO? THE MORMON DOCTRINE OF HUMAN DEIFICATION” by HUGO OLAIZ (probably because I just blogged about it.)  One of the most interesting points to me that Hugo made was Lorenzo Snow’s couplet  “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

According to Olaiz, it seems that most of the prophets embrace “as God now is, man may be”, but are much more uncomfortable with the “As man now is, God once was” part.  He said Pres Hinckley only quoted the latter part of the quote in the 2nd half of the couplet in 1994, and that it seems that previous prophets also had problems with the 1st half.

I was able to ask both Hugo and D Michael Quinn about the Eastern Orthodox position of theosis.  Quinn said that the Eastern position is more of a bodyless God, while the mormon idea is not.  He said that except for that major difference, then there are some good similarities.  Interestingly later he sat next to me in another session, and I pulled up the Athanisius quote in my previous quote, and I made the statement that it sounded strikingly similar to Snow’s couplet.  He agreed that the second half sounds similar, but the first part is not, and that most Eastern Orthodox and Catholics would have a real problem with believing that God was once a man.

Of course, Hugo talked about many other things, like the King Follett sermon, so please don’t think I’m summarizing his presentation.  I just wanted to highlight these points.

Anyway, at times the sessions were quite academic, but overall, it was a wonderful experience, and I hope that I will be able to attend next year.  I hope to continue to blog, but I will be finishing my thesis project this semester, so it may be tough to post as often as I have.

Here are some of the more interesting quotes from the article:

“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.

“This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” [Mr. Knohl] said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

The article states that many scholars believe that the gospel stories where Jesus predicted his own death were actually manufactured stories by Jesus’ followers.  However, this tablet would seem to refute that argument, since it dates before the time of Christ.

So, after reading the article, what are your thoughts?  Is your faith in Christianity strengthened, weakened, or about the same as before?

First of all, let me state that I am a believing mormon. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, I believe in the Book of Mormon, I believe in the Bible, I believe going to church is a good, worthy endeavor, and I am very supportive of the good service that is performed in every ward in the church. (I guess you could call these my personal Articles of Faith.)

For many, Church is a social club. If they don’t feel welcome in a congregation, then keep shopping around until you find one they like. I think there is some merit to this. For people who are not strong believers in Christ, it is important to be edified in order to become more Christian. Christian fellowship is an important and powerful tool for good. Church should be very welcoming, or people will not want to come to church. I do go to church for social reasons, but it is not the only reason I go.

The Sabbath Day has a very interesting history. According to the Bible, God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Jesus observed Sabbath on the 7th day. On my mission, I had an interesting experience. I was talking to someone on the phone who told me they believed that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God, as well as the Doctrine & Covenants, and felt that Joseph Smith was a prophet. However, this man refused to be baptized, because he couldn’t figure out why Mormons didn’t observe the Sabbath on the 7th day (Saturday.) I asked him if he would change his mind if I could find a revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants stating that the Sabbath should be on Sunday. He said if I could find it, he would be baptized.

At first I thought this was an easy challenge. I decided to research, but couldn’t find anything specifically commanding Joseph to observe the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday. Then I remembered that Joseph was commanded to organize the church on April 6, 1830. I figured that of course that day must be a Sunday. To my surprise, I discovered that Joseph Smith organized the church on Tuesday, April 6, 1830. (To verify, here is a link–of course I didn’t have the internet on my mission, but found it another way.)

Thus began an interesting search into Sabbath Day observance for me. I learned that early Christians continued to observe the Sabbath on the 7th day, as Jesus did, but as it says in Acts 20:7, they also met on the first day of the week, “to break bread” and Paul preached until midnight.

The most important reason to attend church is the sacrament. This is one of the first church services that is specifically mentioned on the first day of the week. Why did they choose to meet on the first day? That is the day Jesus was resurrected. It is in remembrance of Jesus. So in a sense, every Sunday is Easter. (Now you know why I think Easter should have more importance in our church.)

The change of the Sabbath from the 7th day, to the 1st day fulfills Old Testament prophecy in Hosea 2:11, which says concerning Israel, “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” So the 7th day Sabbath worship was too cease, and we don’t celebrate jewish feasts any more either.

I got transferred before I found this information out, and never talked to the man again. Since he was a staunch 7th-Day Adventist, I’m not sure how convinced he would be anyway. Are you convinced? (I can provide more scriptures, but I think this will do for now.)

So, I go to church to remember Jesus. I go to remember the resurrection. I go to partake of the sacrament. The resurrection is especially important to me–I have lost a brother and sister within the last 10 years, and I am extremely grateful for the gift of the resurrection so that I can see them again.

As for the social reasons of going to church, I have been in many different wards. Some are very spiritual, some social, some with really odd people, and some quite boring. In my teenage years, I lived in a ward that I referred to as the “Nursing Home ward.” There were maybe a dozen teenagers in the ward, and it was full of really old, retired, wealthy people. The funeral to baby blessing ratio was about 20 funerals for every baby.

My current ward is just the opposite. We have about 3-5 baby blessings every month, and except for a few infants who have died at or near birth, we haven’t had any funerals. There is an excellent primary program in my ward, and my kids love to go because they have great teachers. On the other hand, sacrament meeting is quite noisy, and the teachers for Sunday School and Priesthood generally say things like, “I’m not a very good teacher”, I hope you can make a lot of comments today or we will get out really early,” and are generally quite unprepared.

I suppose I’m a little jaded, because I was the Gospel Doctrine teacher until a few months ago. I taught every other week, and often spent about 10 hours preparing my lessons. (Ok, I’m one of those weird people who actually likes to teach, and study the scriptures.) I often had videos like “Mysteries of the Bible” which illustrated a specific point of the lesson. Often I had powerpoint slides. When studying Isaiah, I even referenced non-King James Versions of the Bible to help us understand the archaic language. (The Blue Letter Bible website has KJV and about 14 other versions of the Bible.) I stayed on the topic of the lesson, and tried to ask pointed questions to elicit thought.

I frequently got compliments, but apparently my use of materials outside the LDS church made people uncomfortable. I was called into the bishop’s office, and told not to use non-KJV bibles, because “a stake visitor” (who I think was my bishop) thought it might harm some of the weaker testimonies in the ward. Are you kidding me? I thought Joseph Smith said we were supposed to “study the words of Isaiah”. How can we study it if we can’t even understand what he’s saying? Anyway, I was released soon after this.

So, I was replaced with people who didn’t want the calling (unlike me, who loved the calling), and they practically read the lesson manual, asking all the same questions we’ve all answered 100 times since seminary. So that’s part of the reason I complain, because I care. But I still go to church, because remembering the Savior and the Sacrament are much more important to me than teaching Sunday School. And helping my kids gain a testimony of Jesus Christ, learning Christian ideals, and being a good person is very important to me.

I still watch “Mysteries of the Bible”, read non-KJV bibles, and use the bloggernacle to edify me for my Sunday School lessons….. That’s why I’m a heretic. So let me pose some questions to you: Why do/don’t you go to church? For the non-religious types, does the Bible/BOM/Koran trouble you? Does religion in general trouble you? Are my reasons good/bad/misinformed?

Certainly we believe in the resurrection. However, in comparison to other Christian denominations, mormon celebration is a yawner. There is no Easter fireside by the first presidency. Congregation celebrations depend solely on the bishop. Some wards have nice Easter services, while others barely mention it.

Shouldn’t there be more celebration of Easter?