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

[Chaunk]

I take issue with the mormons on some issues, notably the book of Mormon and current apostles & prophets, because of Hebrews 1:1-4.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
ESV translation

The bolding is mine, on the basis that Jesus Christ was the final complete revelation of God, not to be added too or superceeded by anything or anyone else. I'd consider this to be a basic enough issue for me to not go to a mormon church, but I understand they could still be brothers and sisters in Christ through faith in him (albiet a misguided and slightly incorrect one).

Therefore, although I disagree with their baptism for the dead (I see no biblical basis for it), I won't argue with them over it because it has no authority that I recognise.

I can understand Ben's point though. I have been baptised, and I would not like to be baptised again, even if I were baptised by proxy when dead. I would point to Ezekiel 18:19-20, and say that any act on the behalf of someone has no effect whatsoever, only their actions. This makes the process pointless, and needless ritual.

However since Mormons may not recognise the authority the bible has, they'll probably dispute my quotes, and so we're back to me not going to a mormon church, but realising through faith in Christ, they may be Christian brothers and sisters with me.

Or am I missing something?

Chaunk.

[Verto]

I see nothing in Hebrews 1 that would contradict or disprove the idea of modern prophets and apostles, nor anything that contradicts the Book of Mormon. Indeed, if Christ was not to be added upon or superceded, why did He Himself appoint apostles, who in turn appointed apostles to maintain their number?

[Verto]

However since Mormons may not recognise the authority the bible has

We do recognize the authority of the Bible, but we also recognize the fact that it is no longer perfect, containing errors and having lost many 'plain and precious things'. Thus, modern revelation and other inspired scripture is needed to clarify doctrine and issues.

[Chaunk]

He apointed apostles to go and tell the people about Christ. When the original 13 died out, there were no successors who had the authority that being an apostle has. (This is an area I disagree with the Roman Catholic church on, being as they claim the pope is the successor to Peter and all).

And Hebrews 1 says that before Christ, there were prophets, but now we have Jesus and have no need of prophets who will speak the words of God to us.

I see this has more issues to do with revelation/authority than baptism, and with this I do take issue. The bible is Gods final revelation of himself. It is infallible, containing no errors nor missing things that are necessary for salvation. It is only superceeded by Jesus, who no one alive has seen.

Thus modern revelation must be interpreted in light of the bible not the other way arround. God does not change, and he does not contradict his previous reveled character as seen in the bible.

Could you be more specific about the "plain and precious things"? What has the book of Mormon (or other inspired scripture or whatever) told you that the bible has lost? Forgive me if that sounds scathing and/or sceptical, it's not meant to.

Chaunk.

[Ben Kenobi]

I was aware that the Catholic church accepts the baptisms performed by other churches, yes.

They accept other Christians, and not the Mormons, because of this issue in particular.

Through revelation we have been taught that we must be baptized, by immersion, by one holding the proper Priesthood.

Again, who constitutes the 'proper priesthood?' What are the proper qualifications?

Secondly, regarding the existence of living prophets, how does the LDS church determine prophecy from opinion?

but we also recognize the fact that it is no longer perfect, containing errors and having lost many 'plain and precious things'.

What has the bible lost that is essential to the doctrine of the church?

I see nothing in Hebrews 1 that would contradict or disprove the idea of modern prophets and apostles, nor anything that contradicts the Book of Mormon.

Hebrews affirms the revelation of Christ as coming from the same authority of the priests before him; from God.

Chaunk, think the word you are looking for is sufficient. The revelation of Christ is sufficient, in that Christians need nothing more to add to their faith for salvation.

Could there be other insights into God? Yes, but these are not essential to the faith, nor should they be considered necessary.

Indeed, if Christ was not to be added upon or superceded, why did He Himself appoint apostles, who in turn appointed apostles to maintain their number?

But Christ did appoint Apostles, the Apostles appointed Apostles, but we cannot be Apostles. The Apostles appointed priests who derive their authority from the Apostles, but they do not derive the same capabilities, nor the same responsibilities with respect to the other Apostles. They do not have the authority to add to Scripture.

You are right that Acts records how the 11 apostles replaced Judas, but let us look at their criteria:

Acts 1:21-22

"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

For this is why there can be no more Apostles. There are none remaining as witnesses to Christ.

[Ben Kenobi]

And so they will not reach the highest degree of glory.

So there are to be divisions in heaven?

What evidence in Scripture is there for this position? That those who repent after death will be accorded a position in Heaven?

There are passages, such as 1 Cor 3:12-5

(which by the way is very near to my heart because of 1 Cor 3:11)

"If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. "

Our works may accord to positions of greater responsibility in heaven, but they will still be saved. The greater glory says nothing about those who repent after death, but only about the works that one does while still alive.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have said our baptisms show a lack of trust in God's power to save,

Yes. You do not trust God to save those as he did Abraham. You do not believe that he can save those whom he is willing to save.

We do not believe that Adam is now God.

But do you affirm that Christ is eternally the Son of God?

"He was with him in the beginning."

[Ben Kenobi]

It seems your standard here, however, is remarkably narrow.

I encompasses all the protestantants, Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Narrow? Hardly. Your definition is completely meaningless.

To say the Mormon's are in violation of Christian ethos because they don't accept the ecumenical councils is a stretch, since, as I pointed out, Christians existed long before such councils were held.

They existed because they upheld the same truths affirmed in the councils. To reject the councils is to reject the early Christian church.

If those people were Christians, then the Mormons can be as well.

No, because they do not believe in the same things. Again, you assert divisions, where none exist, between the council and the early Christian church.

You'll note that Mormonism hasn't exactly spread very much since its beginnings.

Does that matter? The point at hand is that people could be led astray by confusion in teaching. The very fact that people know the Mormons do baptise the dead, is evidence that others could be led astray.

Then there's no way you can claim they are baptising YOU, since YOU would be DEAD.

It all becomes clear. You don't believe that there is an immortal soul, how can you possibly understand either the Mormon perspective, or the Christian?

It doesn't involve you! You would be DEAD! Gone! Poof!

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD.

You would not be participating! You'd be dead! How is this such a hard concept to grasp?

My body would be dead, but I would still exist.

[Chaunk]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hebrews affirms the revelation of Christ as coming from the same authority of the priests before him; from God.

Chaunk, think the word you are looking for is sufficient. The revelation of Christ is sufficient, in that Christians need nothing more to add to their faith for salvation.

Hebrews goes further than saying that Christ comes from the same authority line. "Long ago... God spoke... by the prophets." Finished, done, not carrying on still. God used to speak in this way (Long ago!), but when Jesus came as the supreme revelation of God (which is the word I was looking for before, not superceeded... sorry) he didn't need to speak by mere prophets. Instead, "he has spoken to us by his son." Also finished note - Jesus is not to be bettered, or filled in on the missing bits, but he is the supreme (and sufficient) revelation of God.

I'm not denying there is prophecy today, but that prophecy should be limited by (and to) the bible. It is NOT the same as prophecy in old testament times, as now there is no further revelation of God needed.

The bible is complete as Jesus is complete. The bible is sufficient because Jesus is sufficient. The bible is supreme becuase Jesus is supreme. It needs no additions nor is it missing anything.

Ben has already mentioned why there are no apostles today, so I'll not cover that one too.

Chaunk.

[Ben Kenobi]

Chaunk:

I just wanted to affirm the continuity of Christ with the OT prophets, in that there is only one source of Revelation. The only thing that differs is the method, the route.

Very true about supremacy. Christ is supreme because his is the Son of God, and not merely a prophet.

[Verto]

Again, who constitutes the 'proper priesthood?' What are the proper qualifications?

I thought I had posted this before, but I don't see it. Here it is again, an excerpt from the Testimony of Joseph Smith with regards to the Priesthood, and the restoration thereof:

We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:

"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.

Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me--after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood--for so we were commanded.

The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.

Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father. No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and prophesied many things which should shortly come to pass. And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things connected with the Church, and this generation of the children of men. We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation.

Secondly, regarding the existence of living prophets, how does the LDS church determine prophecy from opinion?

The General Authorities [First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and the Seventy etc] make every attempt to clarify whether they are speaking in their official capacity and position, or merely stating their opinion as an individual.

The bible is supreme becuase Jesus is supreme. It needs no additions nor is it missing anything.

I'm sorry, but the Bible can in no ways be seen as being complete, and containing all that God would have us know. Even when the Bible was first comprised, many individual books were already missing passages - there are several references in the Bible to books written by prophets and seers, that are not contained therein.

But do you affirm that Christ is eternally the Son of God?

He must have, at one time, been created by the Father.

He is the Firstborn, the Only Begotten, Alpha and Omega.

Very true about supremacy. Christ is supreme because his is the Son of God, and not merely a prophet.

On this there is no disagreement. The latter-day prophets and apostles we have bear witness of Christ, provide us with revelation and instruction to help us return to live with our Father, and His Son. They are not considered higher than Christ, they are not meant to replace Him, nor in any way lessen His importance.

[Ben Kenobi]

Even when the Bible was first comprised, many individual books were already missing passages - there are several references in the Bible to books written by prophets and seers, that are not contained therein.

Evidence would assist your claim.

He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter

So then we are all priests.

So we are to believe that an angel came upon him?

Is this how people became priests of the church in the Gospels? I see no need in the Gospels for the priesthood of Melchizedek to be conferred, because this priesthood is Christ's and Christ's alone.

The General Authorities [First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and the Seventy etc] make every attempt to clarify whether they are speaking in their official capacity and position, or merely stating their opinion as an individual.

So then they are infalliable when they say they prophesy?

He must have, at one time, been created by the Father.

He is the Firstborn, the Only Begotten, Alpha and Omega.

Not quite...

These two statements are contradictory. If Christ is begotten, he is not created, nor made by God.

Nor was he created at some time by the Father, but that he was begotten before all worlds. He is uncreated, just as the Father is uncreated, he is eternal, just as the Father.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I encompasses all the protestantants, Catholic and Orthodox churches.

So? I'm sure there are plenty of issues on which all churches but a very few agree. That's the nature of sectarian disagreement, after all. I don't see how you can claim the Mormon's aren't Christian when they worship Christ as the Son of God. That's the prime definition of a Christian.

They existed because they upheld the same truths affirmed in the councils. To reject the councils is to reject the early Christian church.

They reject the notion that the councils are somehow official representations of God's will, but they don't necessarily reject all the conclusions of the councils. I thought this would have been evident by the fact that they believe in the Holy Trinity.

And as a side note, this isn't really true, as the councils upheld only particular views of Christianity that existed at the time. There were dozens of Christian "heresies" about--that was the whole point of having the council, to stamp out what was seen as heretical doctrine. Had those heresies won out, you'd be claiming they were the proper form of Christianity to be worshiped today, no doubt.

No, because they do not believe in the same things. Again, you assert divisions, where none exist, between the council and the early Christian church.

Except we've yet to see any real reason why the Mormon's shouldn't be considered Christian. You have a problem with their baptism ceremony, but that's hardly enough to brand them un-Christian, since they worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Again, that would seem to be the most crucial definition.

Does that matter? The point at hand is that people could be led astray by confusion in teaching. The very fact that people know the Mormons do baptise the dead, is evidence that others could be led astray.

It matters in terms of severity. You were the one who compared it to the Reformation, not I. I'm just pointing out that such hysteria is unfounded, as there's no threat of Mormonism overrunning the Western world at this point.

It all becomes clear. You don't believe that there is an immortal soul, how can you possibly understand either the Mormon perspective, or the Christian?

Hmm, an Appeal to Authority, dodge and an insult all in one sentence. Efficient, at least!

I need be neither to understand their perspectives. Regardless, their respective perspectives are irrelevant when it comes to establishing if their practices violate another's religious freedoms.

I hope you won't dodge my thought exercise as you did loinburger's in the other thread: If I were to posthumously add your name, incorrectly, to a list of Muslims, would that be a violation of religious freedom?

My body would be dead, but I would still exist.

Irrelevant, again. Especially by your belief system's view of the afterlife. Nothing in Christian doctrine, as far as I have ever seen, has ever indicated that what someone does on Earth after one's death has any bearing whatsoever over your status in the afterlife, or even if you'd know about it. Do you think they'll kick you out of heaven? Would God be duped by such a sneaky little tactic as the Mormons? The implications stretch into absurdity.

So again, we're faced we three, and only three possible outcomes for this:

A) The Mormons are right, in which case the baptism is the offering of a second chance which you get to take and go to heaven.
B) You're right, in which case the vicarious baptism, which you fully acknowledge is sans meaning or authority, has absolutely no bearing on the status of your soul in heaven, since you're already there.
C) I'm right, and we're all just worm food in the end anyway.

As another thought exercise... let's say you die, and horror of horrors, you find yourself in the spiritual prison that the Mormons believe exists, and it's made clear that your only hope of escaping it is to be vicariously baptised. But the Mormons, having acceeded to your demands, decide not to do so, leaving you trapped for all eternity, separated from God. Hey, they're respecting your religious beliefs. Wouldn't you feel mighty silly then? I know I would.

(Hint to Verto: Feel free to put me on the list...does me no harm if you're wrong, and if you're right, well then, weeha!)

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see how you can claim the Mormon's aren't Christian when they worship Christ as the Son of God. That's the prime definition of a Christian.

I don't think we mean the same thing by Christ being the son of God.

If he's created, like us, then he isn't God's Son, in the sense that he is God, just as much as God the Father.

I thought this would have been evident by the fact that they believe in the Holy Trinity.

Well, that's what Verto and I are grappling over. Definition of the Trinity. So far, it's not clear whether they believe in the Trinity or not.

Had those heresies won out, you'd be claiming they were the proper form of Christianity to be worshiped today, no doubt.

They arose out of misunderstandings about the relationship between God and Christ.

I disagree. Even if the councils had ruled the other way, the problems would still be there. The new definitions would fall apart at some point.

You have a problem with their baptism ceremony, but that's hardly enough to brand them un-Christian, since they worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Again, that would seem to be the most crucial definition.

Doctrine of the Trinity is a little bit more than the baptism. Do try to keep up.

I'm just pointing out that such hysteria is unfounded, as there's no threat of Mormonism overrunning the Western world at this point.

And I could care less about the severity. The point is that these questions have come up, and they ought to be answered.

I hope you won't dodge my thought exercise as you did loinburger's in the other thread: If I were to posthumously add your name, incorrectly, to a list of Muslims, would that be a violation of religious freedom?

Yes.

And I didn't dodge Loin's thought exercise.

Edit:

Ate my reply.

Yes, I would go to Hell, if the Mormons are right, and rightfully so.

Each should be judged on his own convictions.

[East Street Trader]

The article which begins the thread contains this

"Church members stand in to be baptized in the names of the deceased non-Mormons, a ritual the church says is required for them to reach heaven."

If that is wrong what benefit is actually thought to flow from the weird "baptism"?