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

[Ben Kenobi]

Only Begotten Son of the Father

Eternally begotten?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
'Those who are washed, need not be washed again,'

Unless the baptism was done by someone without the proper Priesthood authority.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Eternally begotten?

Please elaborate - before he came to Earth?

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless the baptism was done by someone without the proper Priesthood authority.

And what constitutes proper authority? Apostolic succession?

Please elaborate

Before all worlds.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And what constitutes proper authority? Apostolic succession?

The proper authority of the Priesthood and Kingdom, conferred by those who hold the necessary keys and power.

Before all worlds.

It was Christ, under the direction of the Father, who created the worlds beyond number [ as mentioned in Genesis ]


And just a heads up, but I'm going to sleep, so I'll have to respond to your posts tomorrow.

'nighty night.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Same assumption I tried to rebut earlier. What is the purpose of baptism?

The problem is not so much that they baptise others, but how they see baptism. I will have no part in something done for the wrong reasons.

Too bad, you don't own baptism. Tons of religious philosophies have used baptism, and whatever church wishes to use it can do so as it sees fit, as far as I'm concerned. You're still forgetting--the dead DO NOT have a part in this baptism. That's why it's innocuous.

Neither do you, because I don't think you understand baptism.

I do understand it, in several different permutations, thank you. Yours is not the only viewpoint on it.

You, if your testimony here is to be believed, have been baptised. Do you believe that your own baptism is valid, that you made a commitment to Christ?

I love the swipe of stealthily challenging my credibility. If you don't have the guts to call me a liar, at least don't take these sneaky potshots.

And yes, I was baptised as an infant. And no, I don't believe it is valid and that I've made a commitment to Christ, as A) it was done without my consent or even conscious knowledge, and B) I don't believe in the validity of any baptisms, since it's ultimately, according to my beliefs, a rite devoted to a non-existent being.

Why is it compassionate? What joys can death possibly bring them?

Secondly, if one also prays for them when they die, what does it mean to die in the Lord? Is that to be celebrated, or mourned?

Many Christians don't accept the notion that all non-Christians who die go to Hell. We have several such folk here on Apolyton, even. Once again, your doctrine isn't the only one. These folks therefore may see the prayer, as the Mormons do, as a way of helping to guide the dead soul to the right path. How is that not compassionate? Would you not pray for someone if you thought it would save their soul? You're approaching this from your religious perspective without bothering to see it from the Mormon perspective. Do try to have some empathy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why? Isn't it better to pray for them, so that God may bless them and help with their lives? Isn't it MORE respectful to pray for them than to curse them?

Nope, because they think you are forcing your belief structure on them.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're still forgetting--the dead DO NOT have a part in this baptism. That's why it's innocuous.

The right rite for the wrong reasons is innocuous?

What about the meaning of baptism? People could get confused about what baptism is for.



Like Christians eating foods sacrificed to idols. The strong brother should always accede to the weak. To the Christians, this baptism would mean nothing, but the Christians ought not to condone the act, if doing so causes others to stumble.

Yours is not the only viewpoint on it.

What is my viewpoint on baptism? I was unaware that I favoured any particular church in what I have said in the thread.

Sorry about the assumption of guilt. I couldn't remember for sure the circumstances of your baptism, and meant to say that if I remembered correctly the circumstances that this is what happened.

Sorry.

And no, I don't believe it is valid and that I've made a commitment to Christ, as A) it was done without my consent or even conscious knowledge,

So then why support these baptisms that were done under similar circumstances?

and B) I don't believe in the validity of any baptisms, since it's ultimately, according to my beliefs, a rite devoted to a non-existent being.

Yet you still can acknowledge that you felt violated by your earlier baptism to which you did not consent. Why should this be any different?

Many Christians don't accept the notion that all non-Christians who die go to Hell.

Neither do I. Why did I post that whole bit on Romans 4 which makes the case for those without Christ can be saved outside of the church?

That still is different from the concept that those who have rejected Christ will get another chance to repent after death.

You're approaching this from your religious perspective without bothering to see it from the Mormon perspective.

Mormons do not reject Romans like you do Boris. I am arguing that if they accept Romans, they should also accept Paul's teachings.

Just because you reject Paul and Romans, does not mean the Mormons do.

Perhaps you should stop arguing from the atheist perspective and consider the Mormons.

[Ben Kenobi]

conferred by those who hold the necessary keys and power.

Aahh. That's a big can of worms.

Alright.

I'll see you tomorrow.

Good night Verto.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope, because they think you are forcing your belief structure on them.

Even if I do so in my own room, outside of their presence?

[Kuciwalker]

Which is exactly what the Mormons are doing, BK. That was my point.

That still is different from the concept that those who have rejected Christ will get another chance to repent after death.

So? I'm sure there are people who believe that, too - say, Mormons, for instance?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The right rite for the wrong reasons is innocuous?

What about the meaning of baptism? People could get confused about what baptism is for.

Then your quibble is with the entire Mormon concept of baptism, not it specifically relating to these dead souls. That's a whole 'nother argument. Regardless, I don't see it as having much of an effect on other people's views of baptism as it pertains to their own beliefs. Considering the minority that is Mormonism, and the stealth by which they've conducted these baptisms, such fears are not well-founded.

What is my viewpoint on baptism? I was unaware that I favoured any particular church in what I have said in the thread.

Well then tell us. But I'm guessing it has to do with what you've said about the individual accepting Christ and becoming a part of the body of Christ, wouldn't it? I mean, that's what you said.

So then why support these baptisms that were done under similar circumstances?

I don't support them, I don't condemn them. I think they're a non-issue. I didn't assign any negativeness to my baptism.

Yet you still can acknowledge that you felt violated by your earlier baptism to which you did not consent. Why should this be any different?

I acknowledged no such thing--where did I say I felt violated? You're making assumptions based on what you want to believe. I don't feel violated by my baptism at all--it's a non-issue. Why would I care? I don't even remember it. It's not affected my life in any way whatsoever.

But disregarding all that, the people in question are DEAD. They don't know it's going on. It's a non-issue for them, too!

Neither do I. Why did I post that whole bit on Romans 4 which makes the case for those without Christ can be saved outside of the church?

This is a different meaning, however, as others believe you can even have not accepted Christ in your life and still attain salvation. And Mormons believe EVERYONE will eventually obtain it, except a small group of really evil, nasty people.

Mormons do not reject Romans like you do Boris. I am arguing that if they accept Romans, they should also accept Paul's teachings.

Just because you reject Paul and Romans, does not mean the Mormons do.

Perhaps you should stop arguing from the atheist perspective and consider the Mormons.

I am considering the Mormons. I don't think you understand their beliefs. First, they don't think the Bible is inerrant. Second, they're primary doctrine is the Book of Mormon, which trumps Romans and Paul. So the doctrine of Paul is overruled by their new revelation in the same sense that the old prohibitions of Leviticus were overruled by the New Testament. You eat pork, I assume, so surely you're not saying that represents an ideological conflict with your religion?

[Ben Kenobi]

That was my point.

No they aren't.

They are making a public announcement of their actions.

I'm sure there are people who believe that, too - say, Mormons, for instance?

There are people who will believe anything. It doesn't mean that they are Christian, or that there is any Christian doctrine to back them up.

I'm trying to clarify an important point between Romans 4 and what the Mormons do, and between Boris' characterisation of my position.

Romans 4 says that God can save people even without the atonement of Christ, only if they believe in him, that he has these powers, and could fulfill the promises that he gave to Abraham.

From this, I am making the point, that God can save those who have not known Christ, through no fault of their own.

This is different from those who have heard of Christ, and have chosen to reject him.

Boris characterises my position that all 'non Christians' go to hell without making this point clear, that I am making a distinction among those we consider to be non-Christians, that some will be saved.

This came in response to the point by the Mormons, that what about those who have not heard of Christ That the mormons are baptising, so that all who have not heard the word will have this option.

This is not quite right because this assumes that God cannot save people without baptism, when he clearly does so to many people in the OT without even a hint of baptism. God does not require baptism in order to save people. He can save them out of his love and kindness.

What this also means, is that once a person has died, there is nothing we can do to help them be saved. Only God can determine whether they will be saved, and will base his actions on their actions before their death.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No they aren't.

They are making a public announcement of their actions.

Then why did it have to wait for researchers to uncover the records of the baptisms?

Regardless, the are doing it outside of the presence of the deceased.

There are people who will believe anything. It doesn't mean that they are Christian, or that there is any Christian doctrine to back them up.

I've yet to see any evidence Mormon's aren't Christian. That there doctrine differs from yours is due to the Book of Mormon. It has just as much validity as religious revelation as any other religious tome. So claiming it's not "Christian" is totally subjective and based on your personal bias.

I'm trying to clarify an important point between Romans 4 and what the Mormons do, and between Boris' characterisation of my position.

To be fair, I didn't mean to characterize you as contradicting Romans 4. The assumption in my post is that we were discussing people who had all heard of Christ and had not accepted him, since that is the focus of the Mormon Baptisms.

The rest of your post is just a religious belief based on your chosen book, and one that the Mormons happen to disagree with based on their chosen book. Both viewpoints are equally valid, so it's just boiling down to a matter of dogma vs. dogma. But in the long run, it still doesn't matter, since the baptisms themselves either are effective and save souls or are ineffective and do nothing. The only people getting hurt by them are the oversensitive who need to learn to just shrug their shoulders and not worry about what other religions are doing so long as it doesn't really involve them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then your quibble is with the entire Mormon concept of baptism, not it specifically relating to these dead souls.

I've only been saying that through most of the thread.

such fears are not well-founded.

Martin Luther was only one.

Well then tell us. But I'm guessing it has to do with what you've said about the individual accepting Christ and becoming a part of the body of Christ, wouldn't it? I mean, that's what you said.

Yep. I'm one for believer's baptism, but I have been trying to avoid this issue through the thread, with baptism of infants. That's why I was struck by the condemnation that I 'own' baptism, even as I acknowledge the difference between these two churches.

Sorry about saying you felt 'violated'. Just because you attach no significance to baptism does not mean that Christians and Mormons also hold no significance.

This is a different meaning, however, as others believe you can even have not accepted Christ in your life and still attain salvation. And Mormons believe EVERYONE will eventually obtain it, except a small group of really evil, nasty people.

Have you checked some of their other assumptions that they use to verify this position?

I'm curious as to why you are so riled up by a thread about an incident that you care so little about, enough to defend the Mormon position, a religion that you supposedly see as worshipping an imaginary friend.

First, they don't think the Bible is inerrant. Second, they're primary doctrine is the Book of Mormon, which trumps Romans and Paul. So the doctrine of Paul is overruled by their new revelation in the same sense that the old prohibitions of Leviticus were overruled by the New Testament. You eat pork, I assume, so surely you're not saying that represents an ideological conflict with your religion?

I find it very authoritative when an avowed atheist lectures me on Mormon doctrine.

First of all, it is not that pork has changed, but the whole concept of the Jewish sacrificial system. If one already has Christ, than what should it matter what one eats? That's why Christ talks about cleaniness, and uncleaniness. The New Testament merely fulfills, rather than discards the Old Testament.

The rejection of Romans is not the same, if it can be said that Mormons actually do so. The fact that they acknowledge Romans to be inspired revelation (which is different from inerrant), forces them to reconcile the teachings of Romans and of Christ to their new revelations in the Book of Mormons.

Now, I'm not going to presume what they believe, and how they would reconcile conflicts between the two, since I am not a Mormon, and I want to hear the Mormons speak for themselves.