Comrade Tassadar, Verto... Wtf is this all about?

[Ben Kenobi]

Do all differences in beliefs with other religions offend you as this one does? You seem to be giving it special weight, and I don't see why.

When the group calls themselves Christian, then I have a duty to respond to that claim. That is all.

I don't think Mormon baptism remotely carries the same portents.

They claim to be Christians, and to be the true priesthood. I see similar portants in the Mormon church, in many of their claims. Unlike Luther, they are setting up another church, whereas Luther tried to reform the existing structure, the Mormons have gone beyond that.

Baptism is practiced differently by different religions (even non-Christian ones) for different purposes. The official Catholic belief isn't the same as yours--its purpose is to cleanse one from Original Sin.

Then why not baptise people who are alive against their will? There are other purposes of baptism, beyond cleansing from original sin.

You are, in effect, trying to tell them why they should be baptising someone without considering their own beliefs on the matter.

They are not claiming to be seperate, they are claiming to be Christian. As soon as they make that claim, then they are fair game to be questioned according to their doctrine. If they denied being Christians, then I would have nothing more to do, and I would let the matter go.

What other assumptions do we need? It's Mormon doctrine, it's part of their religious creed.

Like I said, it is not an isolated incident, but flows forth from their theology. You seem to see baptism as just an incidental feature, but the reality is much different. That's why I asked if you were aware of the assumptions made in order to justify their position.

I see it as a freedom of religion issue, and the Mormons are well within their right to practice their beliefs in this matter, just as anyone else is free to practice their beliefs so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

The other religions are saying that in baptising members of their faith that the Mormons ARE infringing on their beliefs. So freedom of religion argues against you here.

I have no problems with the Mormons practicing their religion, so long as they stop baptising people from other faiths.

There's no right not to be offered conversion by a religious sect. If there was, the Jehovah's Witnesses would be in deep doo-doo.

Intriguing to hear you argue that freedom of religion affirms a right to proselytize. Fair enough. I agree. One can refuse to listen to a Jehovah's Witness who comes to your door. Can one refuse the baptism offered by the Mormons? No. That is the essential difference between religious freedom, and infringing on the freedom of other religions to practice.

So being an atheist makes one ignorant of all things religious? Fallacious appeal to authority. Frankly, since you're not a Mormon, should I use this logic and dismiss anything you might have to say about Mormon doctrine? Mormon beliefs are made available to anyone to read in their holy book.

You are the one appealing to authority, in saying that this is what Mormons teach, and what they believe. I have every right to call you on that authority, should you claim it first for yourself.

To Christians, yes, but not to Jews. You can quibble all you want, but there's no denying that the NT changes the laws given in the OT.

Changes the laws? I don't see things that way. The Jews do not even follow all the laws of the OT, they are not just the religion of the OT.

As a Christian, you look to the NT and the teachings of Jesus moreso than the OT, I suspect. So the Book of Mormon is to the NT as the NT is to the OT. Not a nullification, but a revision.

No, we need a great deal more dialogue in order to determine how the Mormons resolve differences between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament. I do not believe you can make the same analogy between the Christian resolutions, and the way Mormons resolve things, since the books themselves are different, and there are different doctrinal conflicts.

The Book of Mormon is, to them, God's latest revelation and is supreme. Wherein it differs from the NT, it is considered the authority. This is no different from how Christians see the teachings of Jesus as being authoritative over the old laws of the NT.

No, there is a difference. Christians do not see the OT as inferior to the New, but rather the New extending the revelation of the Old.

If the New Testament is given authority, then it behooves the Mormon theologians to resolve the differences between the Book of Mormon and the NT. It is wrong to make the analogy without first hearing how the Mormons do so.

You would be partially correct in terms of priority, that Mennonites read the NT before the Old, but that does not mean that we automatically reject the teachings of the OT if they happen to conflict with the NT. You should know this by now, given the content of my responses over the last year that the two need to be reconciled. You cannot ignore the OT if the OT appears to disagree with the NT.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, we believe the Bible has lost many precious truths, through mistakes in translation or by intentional modifications. For example, a 4th century priest named Rufinus admitted to leaving out entire passages he felt were contrary to proper Christian doctrine

Eh, are you sure about this controversy with Rufinus? Rufinus had the controversy not over the translation of Scripture, but that of Origen's Commentaries. The charge is that he glossed over the heresies of Origen.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-43.htm

[Nylan-Nolan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Matthew 5:43-4

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

You know, I've always wondered why so many Chrisians believe and quote this, and yet they persecute the members of our church. Odd, huh?

(not saying that you are, ben)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When the group calls themselves Christian, then I have a duty to respond to that claim. That is all.

Fair enough, but I'd say that makes you somewhat of a busy-body. Then again, this is keeping in character.

They claim to be Christians, and to be the true priesthood. I see similar portants in the Mormon church, in many of their claims. Unlike Luther, they are setting up another church, whereas Luther tried to reform the existing structure, the Mormons have gone beyond that.

The situations are simply not analogous, it's a bad comparison. The Protestant Reformation was not the result of one man--it was in the works for a long time, it just happened to be Luther who ignited the flame. No such movement is pending regarding Baptism in the U.S.

Then why not baptise people who are alive against their will? There are other purposes of baptism, beyond cleansing from original sin.

Um, they do baptise people against their will. It's called infant baptism, as you pointed out. Regardless, even those who believe it's a prerequisite for heaven believe it must be freely-chosen. Baptising people against their will won't accomplish anything, in their beliefs. The sin won't be cleansed unless the person wills it to be.

Like I said, it is not an isolated incident, but flows forth from their theology. You seem to see baptism as just an incidental feature, but the reality is much different. That's why I asked if you were aware of the assumptions made in order to justify their position.

I never said it iwas incidental to them. But their baptism rites should be incidental to you, just as yours should be incidental to them. Why? Because you're separate religions, and what the other's do isn't your concern.

The other religions are saying that in baptising members of their faith that the Mormons ARE infringing on their beliefs. So freedom of religion argues against you here.

I have no problems with the Mormons practicing their religion, so long as they stop baptising people from other faiths.

Those other religions are completely WRONG, as I've said all along. Nothing about this remotely infringes on other religious group's freedom to practice their own religion as they see fit. You seem to believe religious freedom involves a right to not be offended by another group's religious practices--that is not the case.

Explain to me how the Mormon's are impinging on your religious freedom here. It simply isn't happening.

And you DO have a problem with the Mormons practicing their religion, as this is an integral part of their religion.

Intriguing to hear you argue that freedom of religion affirms a right to proselytize. Fair enough. I agree. One can refuse to listen to a Jehovah's Witness who comes to your door. Can one refuse the baptism offered by the Mormons? No. That is the essential difference between religious freedom, and infringing on the freedom of other religions to practice.

Um, YES, they can refuse. Did you not pay attention at all to the details of the Mormon baptism rights? It does not automatically convert the dead soul to Mormonism--the soul is given the choice in the afterlife to accept the baptism or not. It is only offering them the opportunity, it forces nothing on them.

Regardless, it's still not a violation of religious freedom, because religious freedom doesn't apply to the dead. I'd think you'd be the first to realize this to be the case.

You are the one appealing to authority, in saying that this is what Mormons teach, and what they believe. I have every right to call you on that authority, should you claim it first for yourself.

Ok, you don't seem to understand what "appeal to authority" means. I'm not appealing to the authority--I'm stating what I have learned to be the Mormon's beliefs. I may be wrong on a few details, but overall I think I'm fairly correct. I'm not claiming to be an authority, just repeating what I believe to be facts about Mormonism. To reply to that argument with something like "Well, you're not Mormon, so I don't believe you!" is the appeal to authority, because it assumes I'm devoid of knowledge because I'm not a recognized authority (which isn't necessarily true) instead of tackling the arguments.

Changes the laws? I don't see things that way. The Jews do not even follow all the laws of the OT, they are not just the religion of the OT.

BK-- the Old Testament prohibits Jews from eating pork. The New Testament does away with that prohibition, does it not? This is very basic. It's a change in the law. I don't see any way of arguing against it.

. I do not believe you can make the same analogy between the Christian resolutions, and the way Mormons resolve things, since the books themselves are different, and there are different doctrinal conflicts.

But do you believe this out of your having seriously studied Mormon doctrine and compared it with the NT and OT, or because you just can't accept anyone seeing a different scripture as being part of divine revelation?

No, there is a difference. Christians do not see the OT as inferior to the New, but rather the New extending the revelation of the Old.

Yes, and that's how Mormon's see the Book of Mormon. It is an extension of the revelation. Thanks for expressing it better. But the point still stands. Just as the NT extended the OT's revelation and changed some laws, so the Book of Mormon extended the NT's revelation and changed some laws.

You would be partially correct in terms of priority, that Mennonites read the NT before the Old, but that does not mean that we automatically reject the teachings of the OT if they happen to conflict with the NT. You should know this by now, given the content of my responses over the last year that the two need to be reconciled. You cannot ignore the OT if the OT appears to disagree with the NT.

I wouldn't say the Mormons reject the OT or NT, just that the Book of Mormon extends the revelation. Aha, that's a much better turn of phrase.

[Spiffor]

I think I'll make sure Verto gets a posthumous baptism to the glorious Church of Communism. Despite the his mistaken ways during his life, we must make sure he can get a glorious salvation along all our comrades. Verto will be made a communist after his death, when he won't be able to oppose it when he'll understand what the afterlife really is

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are you aware that even the Catholics say that anyone can perform a valid baptism, so long as the baptism is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

This position comes from Augustine

Well, we can stop right there--Mormons reject the post-gospel doctrines made by the Catholic church as perversions of the original intent of Christianity. Augustine would not have any weight with them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Verto
A minor correction to this. Yes, we believe the Bible has lost many precious truths, through mistakes in translation or by intentional modifications. For example, a 4th century priest named Rufinus admitted to leaving out entire passages he felt were contrary to proper Christian doctrine. This does not lessen our belief that the Old and New Testament are scripture, and inspired by God.

And the Book of Mormon is not meant to override the Bible; they are meant to be companions, reinforcing the principles taught in either of them.

A minor correction, but one I wanted to make.

Certainly, the Mormons believe the NT is inspired, but my point was that the Book of Mormon has primacy, as it is (thanks BK) extended revelation, and God's most perfect statement to his people.

Curious, though--what are the Mormon attitudes towards Paul and his doctrines?

[Boris Godunov]

But since BK insists on authority, we'll give him some homework:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml#why

[Nylan-Nolan]

EDIT: stupid question

[Ben Kenobi]

Mormons reject the post-gospel doctrines made by the Catholic church as perversions of the original intent of Christianity. Augustine would not have any weight with them.

Then they reject all of the ecumenical councils of the church, defining the nature of Christ's incarnation, and other doctrines.

Not a good argument, if you are trying to make them out to be Christian.

Secondly, that's also an argument against the Trinity, because the doctrine of the Trinity came AFTER the Gospels, which again helps to confirm that they are not Christian.

[Nylan-Nolan]

BK, could you just lay of the persecutions. I'm really tired of attacks on our religion (not just on the internet).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then they reject all of the ecumenical councils of the church, defining the nature of Christ's incarnation, and other doctrines.

Not a good argument, if you are trying to make them out to be Christian.

Secondly, that's also an argument against the Trinity, because the doctrine of the Trinity came AFTER the Gospels, which again helps to confirm that they are not Christian.

Not necessarily--they don't reject anything that they believe can be derived from the Gospels themselves. They just don't rely on the post-gospel writings of Catholic apologists, but rather on their own revelation. Mormons certainly do believe in the Trinity:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/morbelie.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

Fair enough, but I'd say that makes you somewhat of a busy-body. Then again, this is keeping in character.

Nobody's forcing them to call themselves Christian. They do that on their own. Why should they be surprised when the other Christians examine their doctrine to determine whether they do so or not?

The situations are simply not analogous, it's a bad comparison. The Protestant Reformation was not the result of one man--it was in the works for a long time,

And neither is Mormonism the works of just one man.

No such movement is pending regarding Baptism in the U.S.

Mormonism is not restricted to just baptism, Boris.

I never said it iwas incidental to them. But their baptism rites should be incidental to you, just as yours should be incidental to them. Why? Because you're separate religions, and what the other's do isn't your concern.

If they baptise me, then that means that I am involved, am I not? If they don't want to bother other religious folks, then don't baptise them.

Nothing about this remotely infringes on other religious group's freedom to practice their own religion as they see fit.

Yes it does, when you consider what baptism means to these other groups. That's why you don't see this as infringing on their religious practice, because you do not understand the role of baptism.

You seem to believe religious freedom involves a right to not be offended by another group's religious practices--that is not the case.

Eh? No. I've argued at length against that notion, which is why I found it interesting that you agree with me on this point.

And you DO have a problem with the Mormons practicing their religion, as this is an integral part of their religion.

Then we have a conflict. They infringe on our baptism rites, in practicing the baptism of the dead.

I have no problem with them 'baptising' the people who die in their own church, just leave my church, and the rest of us out of the rite.

That seems a reasonable compromise.

Um, YES, they can refuse. Did you not pay attention at all to the details of the Mormon baptism rights?

Yes I did. Again, they cannot decline the baptism! To them, baptism implies a commitment to Christ, and to the beliefs of the one doing the baptiser.

It is only offering them the opportunity, it forces nothing on them.

But that assumes that the Mormons are correct in their beliefs, and that the Christians are incorrect. It does not consider how the Christians view baptism.

Regardless, it's still not a violation of religious freedom, because religious freedom doesn't apply to the dead.
I'd think you'd be the first to realize this to be the case.

No, because we believe the dead to have immortal souls.

I'm not appealing to the authority--I'm stating what I have learned to be the Mormon's beliefs.

You are claiming your own authority in the area of Mormon theology, when you say that Mormons believe this.

instead of tackling the arguments.

Which I promptly do after making that comment. You seem to be drawing fire away from my response, and back to this one point that has nothing to do with my case.

BK-- the Old Testament prohibits Jews from eating pork. The New Testament does away with that prohibition, does it not? This is very basic. It's a change in the law. I don't see any way of arguing against it.

I already did. The REASON why the OT prohibits Jews from eating Pork has to do with the sacrificial system. If Christ's sacrifice fulfills the requirements of the law, such that 'cleanness' and 'uncleanness' no longer matter, then the Law has not changed, but the application of the Law has.

But do you believe this out of your having seriously studied Mormon doctrine and compared it with the NT and OT, or because you just can't accept anyone seeing a different scripture as being part of divine revelation?

Former, although not as much as I should. This is why I call for further dialogue into this matter so we can discuss this point rather than trolling and counter-trolling.

You simply state that all holy books are the same, which is absolutely useless when trying to discuss the point at hand, how one reconciles apparent contradictions.

Yes, and that's how Mormon's see the Book of Mormon. It is an extension of the revelation. Thanks for expressing it better. But the point still stands. Just as the NT extended the OT's revelation and changed some laws, so the Book of Mormon extended the NT's revelation and changed some laws.

Can't say that until we actually look at some of the differences between the NT and the Book of Mormon, and how the Mormons reconcile contradictions between the two.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, could you just lay of the persecutions. I'm really tired of attacks on our religion (not just on the internet).

'Our religion'?

That presumes that there is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Mormonism.

Sure, so long as you don't claim to be Christians, then you don't have to talk about any of these questions.

[Ben Kenobi]

they don't reject anything that they believe can be derived from the Gospels themselves. They just don't rely on the post-gospel writings of Catholic apologists,

The two are inseperable, with respect to the ecumenical councils of the church.

To say that these are 'Catholic' apologists, presumes divisions, where none exist, between Scripture, and the traditions of the church.