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

[Verto]

The Mormons do not baptise others for the dead, but baptise the dead themselves.

We baptise someone for and on behalf of someone who has already died.

[OzzyKP]

I can't imagine Jesus up in heaven ready to welcome you in and at the last minute a group of Mormons baptise you and steal away your soul to their private heaven club across the river where John Smith hooks you up with another wife.

This is not what happens, according to LDS doctrine. And I assume you mean Joseph Smith.

Oops, Joseph Smith. And yea, I know that's not what happens, I was making a point for Ben's benefit.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


"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?"

First of all, the Mormon interpretation cannot be correct. The passage does not talk about baptising the dead, but seems to talk about baptising believers for the dead. The Mormons do not baptise others for the dead, but baptise the dead themselves.

Proof positive that you don't know what you are talking about.

That is exactly what the LDS church does.

Did you think the go to grave, dig up dead bodies and baptize them?

ACK!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The fact is there can only be one true religion. (I sure hope its mine), so if someone from a false religion does some ceremony over you, it doesn't mean a thing because their teachings, ceremonies and rites are false and meaningless. If you follow the true faith, then I think your religion is gonna win out over some meaningless superstition. You've nothing to worry about.

That's a strong view, and I agree with you, in my own case. I know that whatever the Mormons want to do to me will have no effect on me whatsoever.

What worries me more, are their claims to be Christian, and the confusion some people who do not understand why things do not work this way, why the Mormons should not be baptising the dead.

For not everyone is strong in their faith, and these sorts of things can cause a stumbling block for the others.

Well I'm still not sure about the whole Christian thing, when I went to Salt Lake City, and indeed to Navoo I heard lots of LDS folks say their faith wasn't Christian. I was under the impression that Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian. But if they say Christian now, so be it.

So its more a doctrinal dispute. Ok. Are there any other Christian denominations that have a sufficiently estranged view of baptism?

[OzzyKP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism#Baptist_baptism

Baptist baptism

Baptist groups derive their name from the restrictions that they traditionally place on the mode and subjects of the ordinance of baptism. Immersion is regarded as the only legitimate, biblical baptism; and baptism is not administered to children. Those who hold views influenced by the Baptists, may perform the ceremony indoors in a baptismal, a swimming pool, or bathtub, or outdoors in a creek or river: as long as there is water, nothing prevents the performance of Baptism. Protestant groups influenced by these convictions usually emphasize that it memorializes the death and resurrection of Jesus, which by a gift of God has become the principle of repentance and new life for those who have professed belief in Him, symbolizing spiritual death with regard to sin and a new life of faith in God. They typically teach that baptism does not accomplish anything, but is an outward sign or testimony, a personal act, indicating the invisible reality that the person's sins have already been washed away as a result of their profession of faith. Rather than by what they say baptism is, Baptist views are distinguished more by what they say it is not (not for children, not by sprinkling, not a sacrament, not a means of grace).

[East Street Trader]

Imagine a God - of such puissance as to create the magical universe around us - who decides to arrange matters on the basis that if some guy manages to find the name by which you were known when alive in a record and goes through some ceremony lasting a nanosecond or so your soul is saved and you experience eternal bliss; whereas if they don't your soul is damned for all eternity.

Wow. Is this a weird God or what?

Wow. Is this a weird religion?

Feeling some sort of pity in response I can credit. Getting hot under the collar I can't.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't associate with any religion, and I'd feel upset if some cult attempted to use me after my death, when I am unable to say "I don't want your crap". Just like I suppose people won't be glad if I 'convert' them to communism right after their death to honour their memory.

So you think people should not be allowed for the dead who are not of their faith?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ozzy:
You're right . I was just cringing a bit at the word "fact". The idea that there is only one right religion, is no more factual than any other religious teaching: it is a matter of belief.

No, actually, given that different religions give contradictory claims, means that ONLY one of them can be correct. The problem is which.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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?

Maybe I just have higher expectations than Christians have when it comes to tolerating variations on Christian faith?

And neither is Mormonism the works of just one man.

Mormonism is not restricted to just baptism, Boris.

No, but this is not the point of this strand of the argument. You've lost sight of the original point, which was that you objected to the vicarious baptism partly because you thought it wasn't "innocuous" since it might influence others to see baptism in a different manner than what you believe is its true purpose. My response is that traditional baptism isn't in any danger from Mormonism, as it remains an isolated minority. The same currents that brought forth the Reformation simply aren't present to have the same happen with Mormonism.

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.

No, you're not involved, as has been explained by the others. They aren't baptising you, they're baptising someone else as a stand-in. The ceremony doesn't involve you, because you'd be dead. Deceased. Kaput. Shuffled off this mortal coil. Run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. You believe the unwilling, uncomprehending (infants) and the dead can't be baptised, ergo you should realize they aren't baptising anyone!

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.

No, I understand what baptism means to other groups, thanks for the condescension. It STILL doesn't meet the level of impinging on religious freedom. Religious freedom means you are free to practice your beliefs without interference so long as your beliefs don't restrict the religious practices of another (and obeys the laws). Vicarious baptism isn't infringing on your ability to practice your beliefs whatsoever, no matter what kind of ludicrous logical stretch you're trying to make.

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.

Then this completely undermines your claim it violates your religious freedom, since the only effect it has is to offend your sensibilities.

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

No, they don't infringe on anything. Their practice in no way effects you, as you've acknowledged, since you don't belief the vicarious baptism works. In order to infringe on your beliefs, that have to somehow be preventing you from practicing your religion. They aren't doing that. You would be 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.

Except that you're completely unwilling to see their point on the matter, which is that they are commanded to do this as a moral perogative. If they don't do it, according to their beliefs, their own souls are in danger. They must to do it to save everyone from spiritual prison. This is an integral part of their faith, so to them not doing isn't reasonable at all--it is, instead, a great moral failure that causes souls to suffer. The entire point of the their ceremony is ensure all souls will go to heaven. Saying they should stop is no different from someone making you stop attempting to save people's souls by convinvcing them to become Christian.

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.

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.

YES, they CAN! This position makes no logical sense whatsoever! If the Mormons' view is right, then the dead souls can opt to accept the baptism or decline it. If they're wrong, then the baptism has no effect whatsoever! You yourself have said unwilling people can't be baptised, so if the soul is unwilling, the baptism isn't accepted! So basically the only thing it is doing is futilely performing a nonworking ceremony for a dead person who doesn't even know

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

You entirely missed the point. According to your beliefs, once a person dies they either A) go to heaven if they believe the right religion or B) go to hell if they believe another religion. Once they die, you don't believe people get another chance. They dye is cast. If that's true, there's no freedom of religion after death, now is there? Hindus, Muslims and Jews aren't being welcomed into heaven and their own beliefs tolerated, are they?

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

My reporting Mormon beliefs as I understand them is not a claim to authority on them. Under this silly premise, anyone who argued about something would be making an appeal to authority! That's not the definition of the fallacy.

An Appeal to Authority is to argue by saying "Expert A says so, and he's an expert, so he's right" without making any other supporting arguments. A variation, which you used, is "You're not an expert on it, so I don't believe you." Both are fallacious in that they don't address the substance of an argument but rather deflect the argument by bandying about an (erroneous) conceit that only a recognized "expert" can debate the matter.

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.

Except that I responded to your responses, I didn't "draw fire away" from them (interesting metaphore usage...).

I already did. The REASON why the OT prohibits

All well and good, but it's STILL doesn't contradict the Mormon notion that the Book of Mormon is, to them, scripture. It's divine revelation, and it's tenets are just most important to them. As the link I provided shows, this is something that has reasons behind it, although you may reject them. Too bad your rejection is based just as much on your particular biases and interpretation as the Mormon's reasons are.

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.

Reconciling apparent contradictions isn't of interest to me nor of particular relevance to my argument. Religions are allowed to have contradictory beliefs and practices--the all do. None of that changes the Mormons' right to practice their beliefs as they see fit so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Vicarious baptism does not do such a thing whatsoever, so doctrinal discussions are moot.

We've already delved too far into discussing these petty doctrinal disputes between you and Mormons, and I can see where that is going. I'm not surprised there's the usual resort to the argument that they aren't "true" Christians. Sad as it is to say.

The crux of it for me at this point is your silly claim they're violating your religious freedom by vicariously baptising the dead.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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.

This is BS. So were those who claimed to be Christian before these ecumenical councils not really Christians? If this be the case, then any claims Nero persecuted Christians must be false, since there were none to be persecuted yet!

Seriously, though--Mormons believe the true Christian church died out in the 2nd century CE, and they are the inheritors of its legacy.

You're again asserting that if it isn't your brand of Christianity, they aren't really Christian. But this is not the case, as Mormon's believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God. How could they not be Christians, then?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
So you think people should not be allowed for the dead who are not of their faith?

I am not sure I understand the question. But if it refers to attending the ceremonial burial of someone who isn't of the same faith:

I have no problem with attending a religious burial. It is my conscious choice, which I make while alive. If I don't want to attend the burial because I hate the religion performing it (big if: I can't think of any religion I'd hate enough to do that), then it is my conscious decision as well.

And my presence in the burial doesn't mean I associate the departed to my beliefs. It's not like I performed my own kind of ritual (and made it known), to make sure the Supreme Comrade has mercy on the departed's soul.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
No, actually, given that different religions give contradictory claims, means that ONLY one of them can be correct.

Or none of them. Or several/all of them are right to some extent, while wrong on other accounts. Or you can count religions that do not pretend explaining the whole universe, but only part of it (polytheism and animism come to mind). Or, or, or...

The "you'll worship no other Gods" gambit is a religious teaching, that is not even universal, but rather specific to the three big monotheistic religions. There is no reason to believe this teaching more than any other.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I am not sure I understand the question.

That's because I forgot the "pray for", sorry.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Or none of them.

Right. It didn't say that one of them WAS correct, but that ONLY one of them COULD be correct.

Or several/all of them are right to some extent, while wrong on other accounts. Or you can count religions that do not pretend explaining the whole universe, but only part of it (polytheism and animism come to mind). Or, or, or...

If part of the doctrine is wrong, then the entire thing is wrong. Individual parts may be correct, but as a whole it is false.

The "you'll worship no other Gods" gambit is a religious teaching, that is not even universal, but rather specific to the three big monotheistic religions. There is no reason to believe this teaching more than any other.

"You'll worship no other gods" isn't a denial of the existance of those gods, it is a moral statement. However, every religion conceived of has contradicted every other in some way.

In fact, if they don't contradict each other, then they really aren't different religions.

[Verto]

Imagine a God - of such puissance as to create the magical universe around us - who decides to arrange matters on the basis that if some guy manages to find the name by which you were known when alive in a record and goes through some ceremony lasting a nanosecond or so your soul is saved and you experience eternal bliss; whereas if they don't your soul is damned for all eternity.

This is not what happens. The LDS concept of hell is referred to as Outer Darkness - given this name due to the fact that because God has removed himself from it, there is no light. One must commit a grave sin to go here - for example, having a perfect knowledge of Christ and denying Him.

Mormons do not automatically attain exaltation, and non-Mormons are not automatically numbered for enternal damnation.