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

[Verto]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
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.

If those people were indeed LDS, then they were mistaken in saying the LDS church does not consider itself Christian.

What were you in Nauvoo for? Were you there after the Nauvoo Temple was rebuilt, or just looking through the historic sites?

[Ben Kenobi]

One must commit a grave sin to go here - for example, having a perfect knowledge of Christ and denying Him.

What qualifies as 'perfect' knowledge?

We can know Christ, but we cannot know him perfectly, because to know him perfectly assumes that we can know all of him. Since he is God, it is impossible to know everything about him, we don't even know everything about ourselves.

Therefore, if this is the position of the LDS, I fail to see how anyone could possibly end up in Hell.

[Ben Kenobi]

what worries you is that people might actually believe that the Catholic Church is not the one true church of Christ.

I'm not Catholic, Verto. Never have been. I am a Protestant, a member of the Mennonite church, which practices believer's baptism, a practice in conflict with the Catholic doctrine.

Do I believe that there is only one church of Christ? Yes. Is this church the catholic church? Yes. Is this church comprised solely of all those who are in communion with the church of Rome? No.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ozzykp:

Guilty as charged of Baptist influences.

Immersion is regarded as the only legitimate, biblical baptism;

Only legitimate? I guess that's why I'm not a Baptist. I believe that the mode of baptism does not matter in terms of the validity of baptism. However, I will agree that I think immersion is a more biblical form of baptism.

They typically teach that baptism does not accomplish anything, but is an outward sign or testimony,

If by the term 'anything' they mean that baptism confers salvation, this is correct. Baptists do not believe that baptism saves a person.

All the rest seems right.

Edit:

It appears I am wrong!


"Baptism by immersion is not unique to Southern Baptists, but it is certainly one defining distinctive. Baptists consider Christian baptism to be an ordinance for believers only, properly administered by immersion only, and as a symbolic act, not having any power in itself. The act of baptism pictures what Christ has done for us in His death, burial, and resurrection. It pictures what Christ has done in us through the new birth, enabling our death to the old life and resurrecting us to walk in newness of life. Baptism gives testimony to a salvation already received; it is not a requisite for salvation. It is an act of obedience to Jesus Christ."

As for the holy spirit:

"Baptists confess, along with many others, that one becomes a Christian through the new birth. When one receives Jesus Christ as Lord, the Holy Spirit does an internal work within the person to redirect his life, making him to be born again - or to use another biblical term, "regeneration." This is not merely choosing to "turn over a new leaf," but is a matter of God beginning a life-long process of changing our desires and affections. "

So profession of faith, not baptism provides the holy spirit to work on your life.

http://www.baptiststart.com/baptist_distinctives.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Skywalker:

For the doctrine in the whole to be true, you are correct.

However, just because one part is false, does not mean that the whole doctrine is false. What is true exists apart from what is false, and the real question that must be asked, if parts are true and parts are false, where do they go off on the wrong path?

For most religions, their doctrinal components connect with each other, so to really answer this question, you have to understand how each part fits in the whole.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is BS. So were those who claimed to be Christian before these ecumenical councils not really Christians?

No. Those who come after the ecumenical councils agree upon these points defining the nature of Christ. Go ahead and look at all the denominations, whether they be Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic.

Again, if we were to take your position literally, that the ecumenical councils have no connection to the gospel accounts, then one would have to say that the original Christians did not believe in the Trinity. As the ecumenical councils derive their authority from the primitive church, you assert divisions where none exist.

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

People make claims without validity all the time.

It is in contrast to this claim, the claim of the Protestants, particularly Martin Luther that they did not start up a new church, because it made no sense. Rather they sought to renew the church, to restore the principles of the primitive church believed to be lost.

You're again asserting that if it isn't your brand of Christianity,

Which brand is my Christianity? Catholicism? Protestantism? Mennonite? Baptist? On this particular issue of the authority of the ecumenical councils, all of these different groups agree.

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?

Verto has not answered my second question, as to whether or not they believe Christ to have always been, and shall always be eternally the Son of God.

The reason for this is that they believe that Adam is now God, and to assert that Christ is eternally the Son of God, does not work with eternal progression.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Some things have to be non-negotiable, in order for the concept of a Christian faith to have any meaning.

Check with me on worship styles, modes of baptisms. There are substantial difference across churches, yet each should be allowed their freedom.

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.

At the time of the reformers, they were just an isolated minority, so my point still holds. If a group calls themselves Christian, and has confusion over baptism, then this is going to have problems for those who are Christians to explain the differences.

No, you're not involved, as has been explained by the others. They aren't baptising you,

Yes they are! They are baptising me! That is the whole point, to involve me in the process of baptism. I am involved, as soon as the Mormons decide to baptise me.

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.

Again, even so-called 'vicarious' baptism is done for the purposes of involving me. I do not have a choice to say no to the Mormons, that I do not want to participate in vicarious baptism, even if you want me to.

This is the violation of religious freedom, that I don't get a chance to say no.

Now, let's suppose the Mormons asked people if they wanted to be baptised? I'd bet they'd get better responses. The reason they do not is that they don't want to ask people.

Their practice in no way effects you, as you've acknowledged, since you don't belief the vicarious baptism works.

It still requires my participation, to which I decline. Would it be right for me to force you to attend my church, even if you believe that it will have no effect on you? No. The same is with this case of baptising the dead. I do not get an option to refuse my participation.

They aren't doing that. You would be dead!

So when I die I stop practicing my religion? That again assumes that one does not have an immortal soul, that one cannot be resurrected from the dead, something that the Mormons do believe, and is a reason why they baptise the dead.

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.

I'm commanded to spread the truth about my religion, but that does not mean that I have to force people into my church to do so.

It doesn't even mean that I have to start threads promoting my religion.

Saying they should stop is no different from someone making you stop attempting to save people's souls by convinvcing them to become Christian.

Then there is a problem with their religion, if they have to force others to participate. Why can't they just ask people if they want to participate after the resurrection, and leave it at that?

If the Mormons' view is right, then the dead souls can opt to accept the baptism or decline it.

They should ask first, after the resurrection, if these people want to be baptised, then they are given the option to repent of their sins.

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?

No, there isn't although unbelievers are banished, they will not be destroyed. They will suffer for their decisions made here on Earth, which is why we have to be as up front as we can with those who do not believe while they are still alive.

They will not get a second chance when they die, and there are several reasons for this.

Would you really believe someone who only repents after God returns, and demonstrates his power and authority to everyone? No. They are only doing so because now they have finally been shown the truth in such a way, as the truth cannot be rejected.

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.

But you did not start with AFAIK.

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

Your complaint that I am not addressing your arguments has as much validity as this complaint.

All well and good, but it's STILL doesn't contradict the Mormon notion that the Book of Mormon is, to them, scripture.

I can't contradict that they consider the Book of Mormon scripture, since that is a fact.

But the questions still remain, none of which has been addressed in the thread, of how the Mormons reconcile contradictions between the Book of Mormon, and the New Testament, in particular, the one already featured in the thread of Romans 4.

So far, it seems, that the only reconciliation made is that if there is a contradiction, the Book of Mormon takes priority.

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--they all do.

Perhaps you should ask the actual believers to testify whether they believe their religion has contradictory practices. Just because you believe that they ALL have contradictions does not mean that they do, any more than the testimony of the believers means that there exist no contradictions.

Rather than being irrelevant to your assertions that all holy books are equal, this presupposition of contradictions is one of your fundamental assumptions. And the only way to examine this assumption is to go over these perceived contradictions.

If you say that you are not interested, then what you are really saying is that you are not interested in evidence that may show your position to be true or false.

In short you have greater faith that they are all contradictory than even the believers!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, just because one part is false, does not mean that the whole doctrine is false. What is true exists apart from what is false, and the real question that must be asked, if parts are true and parts are false, where do they go off on the wrong path?

Yes, it does meant that the whole doctrine is false. There are individual truths in it, but the doctrine as one entity is false.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Verto

If those people were indeed LDS, then they were mistaken in saying the LDS church does not consider itself Christian.

What were you in Nauvoo for? Were you there after the Nauvoo Temple was rebuilt, or just looking through the historic sites?

I went on a 9,000 mile road trip in the summer of 2000. I stopped in to visit a friend in Keokuk, IA. I asked if there was anything interesting around, and they said Nauvoo, so we went and checked it out. The Temple was in the process of being rebuilt. We saw some video on the history of LDS (or maybe it was trying to convert us) and toured some old(or rebuilt) LDS houses. We learned how early members of the church lived their lives in the ancient days of the 1840s (or something).

Then I think my friend, who I picked up in Salt Lake City, and who was raised Mormon (who has since converted to non-demonitational general Christian), got into an argument with some museum curator about the post-humous baptism thing.

And we've come full circle.

Actually there was a lot of LDS stuff on my trip. I criss crossed all the Illinois area where y'all started out. I think I saw, or passed by, the spot where Joseph Smith was jailed, or killed, or something. Plus on the way back I had my ex-Mormon guide. I saw all the stuff in Salt Lake, went in the Tabernacle, drove around the Temple, talked to folks. It was interesting.

Not that I'm gonna convert or anything. But I've got a copy of the Book of Mormon (next to my Bible and Koran), and I don't slam the door on Mormons who come to my door. Oh, and I explain to my friends that the huge church off the Beltway in DC is not Cinderella's castle from Disney World.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, it does meant that the whole doctrine is false.

I thought you meant the whole religion, not the individual doctrines.

In this case,

[Verto]

Would you really believe someone who only repents after God returns, and demonstrates his power and authority to everyone? No. They are only doing so because now they have finally been shown the truth in such a way, as the truth cannot be rejected.

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

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I thought you meant the whole religion, not the individual doctrines.

In this case,

No, I do mean the whole religion. The religion, as a whole, is false. Parts of the religion are true.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Some things have to be non-negotiable, in order for the concept of a Christian faith to have any meaning.

It seems your standard here, however, is remarkably narrow. 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. If those people were Christians, then the Mormons can be as well.

At the time of the reformers, they were just an isolated minority, so my point still holds. If a group calls themselves Christian, and has confusion over baptism, then this is going to have problems for those who are Christians to explain the differences.

Again, the historical analogy is extremely poor. Mormonism is in no such shape to conquer the Western world as Protestantism was. You'll note that Mormonism hasn't exactly spread very much since its beginnings.

Yes they are! They are baptising me! That is the whole point, to involve me in the process of baptism. I am involved, as soon as the Mormons decide to baptise me.

Now you're just being ridiculous. One last time, because this is getting old: They are NOT baptising you. You accept the notion that vicarious baptisms don't work--they carry no authority or spiritual power or weight, right? Then there's no way you can claim they are baptising YOU, since YOU would be DEAD. They don't have your bones, your belongings, or anything else. They just read your name. This would be no different from me taking your name after you've died and adding it to a list of Muslim believers. Is it not what you believe? Yes. Is it a violation of your religious freedom? Categorically no, since it in no way inhibited your ability to practice your faith within legal confines. There is positively NO case for a violation of religious freedoms here, as tortuous a case as you want to make.

Again, even so-called 'vicarious' baptism is done for the purposes of involving me. I do not have a choice to say no to the Mormons, that I do not want to participate in vicarious baptism, even if you want me to.

It doesn't involve you! You would be DEAD! Gone! Poof! Whatever was going on with your soul on the other side, if there was one, would be totally unaffected by this, unless the Mormons were right, which would make it good for you. But that's not the point--the point is that religious freedom doesn't apply to the dead. The Constitution doesn't make any mention of rights for corpses.

This is the violation of religious freedom, that I don't get a chance to say no.

It's irrelevant, since you're not really involved!

Now, let's suppose the Mormons asked people if they wanted to be baptised? I'd bet they'd get better responses. The reason they do not is that they don't want to ask people.

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. You can't really ask the dead, can you? They're not vicariously baptising the living, only the dead.

And again, since we both acknowledge that vicarious baptism doesn't work, they're not doing ANYTHING to the dead.

It still requires my participation, to which I decline. Would it be right for me to force you to attend my church, even if you believe that it will have no effect on you? No. The same is with this case of baptising the dead. I do not get an option to refuse my participation.

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

Regardless, the analogy is wrong, because it wouldn't be akin to them forcing me to go to church, it would be akin to them asking me whether or not I wanted one last shot to go to church before the doors closed, according to their beliefs. Now, if those beliefs are wrong (as you and I both accept), then it's akin to nothing. It's akin to them asking someone else standing in for me if I wanted to go to church or not after I'm dead and gone and not a factor in it!

So when I die I stop practicing my religion? That again assumes that one does not have an immortal soul, that one cannot be resurrected from the dead, something that the Mormons do believe, and is a reason why they baptise the dead.

No, BK, you're utterly missing the point. This exasperating now. If your religion is correct, then it is the one true way and all others are wrong. So when it comes to religious freedom, there is none in the afterlife, as alternative religious beliefs won't be tolerated, will they? So with this in mind, it doesn't matter WHAT the Mormons do vicariously after you're dead, because you'd be enjoying the fruits of heaven, yada yada yada and it wouldn't have any effect on you whatsoever.

In a broader sense, however, the point was that religious freedom doesn't exist in the afterlife under this model because there's no longer any reason to debate--the certain truth will be known by everyone, so freedom of religion will be an utterly moot point. Religious freedom is a human concept and doctrine, not a religious one (except maybe for universalists). Christians, Jews, Mulsims, Hindus, etc. all believe their way is the only real one and when they get to the beyond, that one truth will be all that is known for everyone. See now how religious freedom then doesn't apply to the dead?

I'm commanded to spread the truth about my religion, but that does not mean that I have to force people into my church to do so.

Good to know, but the Mormons aren't doing this, either, since the people in question are dead and gone and their status vis-a-vis any earthly church is irrelevant. Again, this would be akin to my just putting your name on a list of Muslims after you've died. Is it factually correct? No. Does it violate your religious freedoms? No, because you're dead, and either you're obliterated or you're experiencing the aforementioned distinct lack of religious freedom in the afterlife.

No, there isn't although unbelievers are banished, they will not be destroyed. They will suffer for their decisions made here on Earth, which is why we have to be as up front as we can with those who do not believe while they are still alive.

According to your beliefs, but the Mormons believe that the dead can be saved still. So what they are doing, in their minds, is a great, compassionate good that will save everyone, eventually. You disagree? Fine. But don't try to say they're violating anybody else's religious freedom by doing so. Under this logic, I could say the same for your belief that only your religion is correct and all unbelievers will go to hell. You're violating my religious freedom by believing I'm wrong! Waaaah!

Would you really believe someone who only repents after God returns, and demonstrates his power and authority to everyone? No. They are only doing so because now they have finally been shown the truth in such a way, as the truth cannot be rejected.

Irrelevant. Whether or not YOU don't believe it, the Mormons do, and they're religion specifically calls upon them to offer salvation vicariously to the dead. You're not obliged to agree with it, but you're going to have to live with the fact that they do so, since it's not illegal to offer dead people salvation.

But you did not start with AFAIK.

Please. So from now on, on any subject matter, I will expect you to begin with "AFAIK" before you state something, since I'll have become too dense to realize that you're speaking from what you know and instead assume you must claiming to be an unassailable expert in the field.

How do you discuss anything with anyone? It must be an interesting exercise in which you tell them that unless they're a recognized expert, anything they say can't be believed. Do people not like to talk to you much?

So far, it seems, that the only reconciliation made is that if there is a contradiction, the Book of Mormon takes priority.

Which, as far as the right for the Mormons to practice their beliefs is concerned, is all that is needed. There's nothing about the right to practice one's religion freely that entails doctrinal consistancy. Thankfully.

Perhaps you should ask the actual believers to testify whether they believe their religion has contradictory practices. Just because you believe that they ALL have contradictions does not mean that they do, any more than the testimony of the believers means that there exist no contradictions.

So, I'm not allowed to say another religion has contradictions, but you are? Oh thank you, Grand Arbiter of All Things Religious.

If you don't like people talking about their being contradictions in your religious dogma, then don't talk about other religions that way. I'm sure the Mormons have just as vociferous apologists as you are for your beliefs that will use the best possible explanation, no matter how tortuous and unlikely, to reconcile any inconsistencies.

Rather than being irrelevant to your assertions that all holy books are equal, this presupposition of contradictions is one of your fundamental assumptions. And the only way to examine this assumption is to go over these perceived contradictions.

Not at all, since a religion can be completely internally consistent and it would still be on the same footing. Internal consistency does not equate to something being fact. There have been plenty of philosophical doctrines that were internally consistent but ended up having little or no bearing on reality.

If you say that you are not interested, then what you are really saying is that you are not interested in evidence that may show your position to be true or false.

My position? My position isn't based on the doctrines of Mormonism being true or false. I would think that would be obvious, considering I'm an atheist. I think the Mormons are wrong, just as you are. That's a moot point, because what matters is the Mormons have a right to act as if they are right, just as you do, so long as they're practices don't interfere with the rights of others to practice their beliefs. Since, as expressed above, vicarious baptism doesn't in any way violate religious freedom, it is well within their rights, just as it would be mine to posthumously claim you were a Muslim, whether it were true or not.

In short you have greater faith that they are all contradictory than even the believers!

Perhaps, but so what? Believers aren't exactly the most unbiased sources for examining religious contradictions, now are they?

[Verto]

Verto has not answered my second question, as to whether or not they believe Christ to have always been, and shall always be eternally the Son of God.

The reason for this is that they believe that Adam is now God, and to assert that Christ is eternally the Son of God, does not work with eternal progression.

We do not believe that Adam is now God.

[Verto]

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?

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

--

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.

We receive revelation and clarification from God, through living prophets and apostles. This takes precedence over someone's opinion. Through revelation we have been taught that we must be baptized, by immersion, by one holding the proper Priesthood.

It is in contrast to this claim, the claim of the Protestants, particularly Martin Luther that they did not start up a new church, because it made no sense. Rather they sought to renew the church, to restore the principles of the primitive church believed to be lost.

It would not make sense to Luther, since he believed the Catholic Church WAS the true Church of Christ, albeit filled with corruption. We believe that, following the deaths of the apostles, members began slowly changing doctrines of Christ's church, leading to an Apostasy. While many truths remained, a complete restoration was needed - as Peter prophesied, a 'restitution of all things'.


Now, please point out the contradiction you see between the doctrine and principles of the LDS church and the Book of Mormon, and the content of Romans 4. You have said our baptisms show a lack of trust in God's power to save, but I don't see it as that. I see the baptisms as helping to fulfill the promise.