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

[Nubclear]

[Badjoke]

After being asked to become Mormon all these years, I'd probably go to hell just to avoid the Mormon missionaries in heaven

[/MrFun]

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Point well taken.

Still, they kept records for themselves, which is not private, but public.

How, for example, does this compare with someone who prays for his enemies, so that they will never know he is praying for them?

So claiming it's not "Christian" is totally subjective and based on your personal bias.

If you consider Scripture to be equally authoritative to all other religious tomes, then I fail to see how your concept of Christian could possibly have any meaning whatsoever.

On the other hand, I've been arguing not my own position, but from Romans 4 for most of the way, and from other parts of Scripture. I would appreciate that if any of the other Christians have problems with what I am saying, that they let me know so that I can be sure to have everything right.

[joncha]

But Elder Tass... I thought you were a Mormon!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by joncha
But Elder Tass... I thought you were a Mormon!

....Go to hell

[Kuciwalker]

They are making a public announcement of their actions.

Freedom of speech, anyone?

[Shogun Gunner]

Why don't the Jews hold bah mitvahs for dead mormons?

[Kuciwalker]

[Verto]

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.

We perform baptisms for the dead for all non-members of the Church, since it is our belief that Christ set up baptism as a necessary step, and that baptisms done outside our Church were done by someone without Priesthood authority.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The problem is not so much that they baptise others, but how they see baptism.

How is it that we see baptism, and how does this differ from your own belief?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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

Not really. Regardless, this simply boils down to you having a disagreement with another religion's beliefs. 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.

Martin Luther was only one.

Hardly comparable, since he started out to reform from within a system widely resented and acknowledged to be corrupt. I don't think Mormon baptism remotely carries the same portents.

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.

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.

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.

Nor did I say they did not. However, they are not related to each other, which is why I don't understand the offense over them supposedly "misusing" baptism. Consider it unrelated to your form of baptism. It's their own insitution. Therefore they aren't "corrupting" anything. You are, in effect, trying to tell them why they should be baptising someone without considering their own beliefs on the matter.

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.

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

And riled up? I don't see where I'm "riled up," unless participating in a debate is "riled up." I'm not defending the Mormon's position from a religious front, anyway. Purely from a "live and let live" one. Now, I've seen some bigotry against Mormons in the past that has irked me, but the Mormons aren't exactly clean in this regard, either. 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. Nothing the Mormon's are doing is infringing on anybody's rights or religious freedoms. 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.

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

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.

The New Testament merely fulfills, rather than discards the Old Testament.

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. 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.

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.

No, it does not force them. They don't reject Romans any more than you reject the laws of Leviticus. 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. Wherein there is a conflict, the new covenant is supreme. You have to approach this from the Mormon perspective that the Book of Mormon is scripture.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Still, they kept records for themselves, which is not private, but public.

How, for example, does this compare with someone who prays for his enemies, so that they will never know he is praying for them?

That's not remotely the same as "broadcasting" them. The records exist for a utilitarian purpose: they need to keep track of those who have been baptised in order to avoid wasting time on duplication. There's no advertisement in them. In spirit, they are the same as the prayer for the enemies, as the ceremonies are conducted in secret without the knowledge of the baptisee (obviously) or his kin. No effort is made to advertise these baptisms.

If you consider Scripture to be equally authoritative to all other religious tomes, then I fail to see how your concept of Christian could possibly have any meaning whatsoever.

Christian = someone who professes to be a follower of Jesus and believes in his metaphysical character. That's broad, but it's the best way to say it. Christian is a self-identification. In that sense, Mormons are as much Christians as any other.

I'll leave it to Christians to bicker about which people claiming to be so aren't really that way and other doctrinal differences. However, such arguments are the kind that lead to Baptists claiming Catholics aren't really Christians. Smacks of religious bigotry to me.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No effort is made to advertise these baptisms.

Neither do we try to hide them. The doctrine of baptism for the dead is not some new, cultish ritual we invented and try to keep secret.

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...

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.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Only the Catholic church prays to the dead, and in this case, they pray for the Saints, who have died in the Lord. They do not pray for the unbelievers, because they know that you do not get a second chance after you die.

They may mourn for the death of unbelievers, that they will not be there with them in heaven, but they do not pray to God for their forgiveness after they die.

I'm Catholic and I believe everyone gets a second chance after death. And a third and a fourth and ....

I believe Jesus died for all of humanity.

Maybe this doesn't toe the party line, but I"m an independent Catholic.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Verto:

To answer your question, requires me to reply to your first statement.

We perform baptisms for the dead for all non-members of the Church, since it is our belief that Christ set up baptism as a necessary step,

As a necessary step for what? For salvation?

and that baptisms done outside our Church were done by someone without Priesthood authority.

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 who had a long discussion over the topic of the validity of baptisms performed by schismatic groups. Augustine said that these people should not be baptised again, to be admitted into the church, while Cyprian argued the opposite, that to be restored into the church, required them to be baptised by priests with proper authority.

Augustine's position came from the important idea that baptism provides an indelible mark, that it cannot be removed or undone, even by the later actions of the people.

This provision of the Catholic church is also why they do not call for people to be baptised again, if they have been baptised by another church.

What is my own position? A combination of the two. I accept Augustine's argument that baptism can be validly performed outside of the Catholic church, but I see that if baptism is to be an indelible mark, it should also require some form of commitment by the person before they are baptised. The person must first repent of their sins in order to properly receive baptism.

Secondly, I also believe that unless a baptism has been consented, the baptism cannot be valid, and cannot provide the indelible mark. I do not see any evidence that Augustine or Cyprian had infant baptism in mind when they tried to sort out this issue.

The differences between what I believe, and how the Mormons see baptism are two-fold. From Romans 4, I do not believe baptism is a pre-requisite for salvation, that one can be saved without baptism in the case where one has not came into contact with Christ.

Secondly, I do not see baptism as requiring 'true priestly authority,' in order to be validly performed.

Finally, I do not believe that what Mormon priests consider 'valid ordination' is indeed valid, although I have not really heard a Mormon defense of this position, and I would be curious as to why the Mormons insist that they are the true priesthood.