Jewish group wants Mormons to stop proxy baptisms

[silvermoon383]

Isn't the priesthood a divinely-appointed office?

Sorry to butt in again...

Yes, the priesthood is a divinely-appointed office, but so is motherhood, sisterhood, and Relief Society-hood.

 

[Katzpur]

Isn't the priesthood a divinely-appointed office?

Yes, of course it is. God is divine and He appoints certain individuals to do certain things for Him and other individuals to do other things for Him. All of us were spoken of by a former prophet as being "gods in embryo." He wasn't speaking strictly of priesthold holders or even of just men.

No, I'm assuming that out of logical consistency, there is no reason. A reason imposed on God to act one way instead of another would represent a limitation on what God could do; but apparently God can do anything.

There is nothing logical or consistent about your argument. When you speak of a "reason imposed on God," you make your ignorance on the subject clear. Nobody imposes reasons on God. I can't figure out why that's so beyond your ability to understand.

If God does not need anything, then God does not need to make salvation or exaltation contingent on baptism... hence baptism is unnecessary, except to whatever extent God makes it so.

Yes, "except to whatever extent God makes it so." That's the extent with which we concern ourselves.

And based on my limited understanding of Mormon theology, I think it's a fair statement to say that God could not be compelled to do anything... correct? If so, then how could any reason God had to make exaltation contingent upon baptism been a compelling one?

Now your questions don't even make sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is nothing logical or consistent about your argument. When you speak of a "reason imposed on God," you make your ignorance on the subject clear. Nobody imposes reasons on God. I can't figure out why that's so beyond your ability to understand.

Arrgh. I understand that, and it's precisely my point: if God cannot have reasons for His action imposed on him and cannot be compelled to choose one alternative over another, then all that's left as the basis for His decision on both the form of baptism and the necessity of it would be His own whims.

Yes, "except to whatever extent God makes it so." That's the extent with which we concern ourselves.

In deciding how to conduct ourselves, perhaps. It doesn't stop us from wondering about God's motivations, though.

Now your questions don't even make sense.

Sure it does: God must not have had a compelling reason to choose baptism as a necessary element of salvation, because nothing can be compelling to God.

 

[Watchmen]

Arrgh. I understand that, and it's precisely my point: if God cannot have reasons for His action imposed on him and cannot be compelled to choose one alternative over another, then all that's left as the basis for His decision on both the form of baptism and the necessity of it would be His own whims.


In deciding how to conduct ourselves, perhaps. It doesn't stop us from wondering about God's motivations, though.


Sure it does: God must not have had a compelling reason to choose baptism as a necessary element of salvation, because nothing can be compelling to God.

So the bottom-line is this: Does God have a reason for choosing baptism as a necessary ordinance or was it just his whim?

Is that right, Penguin?

 

[DeepShadow]

So you want me to quit being LDS?

You're opposed to self-defense?

You don't think the Lord will win in the end?

I want fewer LDS who blithely encourage others to fight against the work of God, and/or encourage LDS to take violent action in the name of thier faith.

As long as we're making this disagreement public.

 

[Watchmen]

I want fewer LDS who blithely encourage others to fight against the work of God, and/or encourage LDS to take violent action in the name of thier faith.

As long as we're making this disagreement public.

So you didn't answer any of my questions.

That's fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So the bottom-line is this: Does God have a reason for choosing baptism as a necessary ordinance or was it just his whim?

Is that right, Penguin?

Basically.

And my argument is that the nature of God inherent in Mormon theology implies that there was no reason other than God's whim.

 

[DeepShadow]

So you didn't answer any of my questions.

That's fine.

You really can't tell?! It's no on all three. Nothing I said suggested I wanted you to stop being LDS, or that I was opposed to self-defense, or that I thought the Lord would lose.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have to agree with the Jews. Many of them died for being Jewish, and since they died for there faith and heritage, they should always be remembered as such, and there should be no question as to if they were Jewish or not. Another faith should not be brought upon there memory.

 

[Watchmen]

You really can't tell?! It's no on all three. Nothing I said suggested I wanted you to stop being LDS, or that I was opposed to self-defense, or that I thought the Lord would lose.

Does that make it clearer?

So - no, you don't think the Lord will win in the end?

 

[Watchmen]

Basically.

And my argument is that the nature of God inherent in Mormon theology implies that there was no reason other than God's whim.

Why do you believe Mormon theology implies that there was no reason other than God's whim?


God gives us ordinances in the similitude of the Only Begotten of the Father. Baptism is symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection and represents us lowering ourselves before rising up again. Hence, we are "born again."

Here is what the LDS Bible Dictionary says about "baptism."

 

[DeepShadow]

So - no, you don't think the Lord will win in the end?

On the contrary, I'm sure He will.

 

[madhatter85]

Dannite is a term that gets thrown around without people actually knowing who or what the dannites stood for.

The dannites were a fraternity group made up of primarily LDS men who formed a militia group in missoury to protect the members of the church from the attacking Mobs.

while some of the later groups such as the Prophet's bodyguards and such consisted sometimes of some who were previously danites, it was not led by the leader of the fraternity group.

As for "unleashing the danites" it makes them sound like a bloodthirsty mod when in reality they were protectors, Sentinels if you will.

but i have to completely agee with Watchmen/Disneyman that the Lords work will not stop and will trample under it's feet those who attempt to stop it.

I posted in the LDS DIR a great article that proves that the Lord work continues unhindered in the face of oppression and terrorism.

 

[DeepShadow]

Dannite is a term that gets thrown around without people actually knowing who or what the dannites stood for.

The dannites were a fraternity group made up of primarily LDS men who formed a militia group in missoury to protect the members of the church from the attacking Mobs.

...you forgot about the part where they were terrorists led by Sampson Avard, who pretended to have authority from the prophet when he didn't.

As for "unleashing the danites" it makes them sound like a bloodthirsty mod when in reality they were protectors, Sentinels if you will.

Avard said the Danites were formed to fulfil the prophecies about the riches of the Gentiles falling into the hands of believers. That's his euphemism for KILLING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEIR STUFF. Hardly sentinels or protectors!

but i have to completely agee with Watchmen/Disneyman that the Lords work will not stop and will trample under it's feet those who attempt to stop it.

As do I, but there's a big difference between saying that people won't be able to stop the work and blithely inviting them to fight against God.

38. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

So was Gamaliel wrong to discourage people from fighting against God? He should have said, "Go ahead and fight! I'm gonna laugh my head off when you get crushed under the stone cut without hands! Somebody get me some popcorn!"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you believe Mormon theology implies that there was no reason other than God's whim?

I've already been through this several times now. If you're interested to know why I think that, you can go back and read my previous posts in the thread.

God gives us ordinances in the similitude of the Only Begotten of the Father. Baptism is symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection and represents us lowering ourselves before rising up again. Hence, we are "born again."

Here is what the LDS Bible Dictionary says about "baptism."

Sitting in a cave for three days would be symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection, too, but the LDS Church doesn't demand that people do that. So would carrying around a stone or a vial of soil in your pocket. There's more to making baptism a divine requirement than just symbolism.

 

[DeepShadow]

I've started a debate thread on the nature of the Danites, so we don't derail this one.

 

[Watchmen]

...you forgot about the part where they were terrorists led by Sampson Avard, who pretended to have authority from the prophet when he didn't.



Avard said the Danites were formed to fulfil the prophecies about the riches of the Gentiles falling into the hands of believers. That's his euphemism for KILLING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEIR STUFF. Hardly sentinels or protectors!



As do I, but there's a big difference between saying that people won't be able to stop the work and blithely inviting them to fight against God.



So was Gamaliel wrong to discourage people from fighting against God? He should have said, "Go ahead and fight! I'm gonna laugh my head off when you get crushed under the stone cut without hands! Somebody get me some popcorn!"?

That's hardly how I said it. Shame on you.

 

[Watchmen]

I've already been through this several times now. If you're interested to know why I think that, you can go back and read my previous posts in the thread.


Sitting in a cave for three days would be symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection, too, but the LDS Church doesn't demand that people do that. So would carrying around a stone or a vial of soil in your pocket. There's more to making baptism a divine requirement than just symbolism.

Disagree.

When all the ordinances of the gospel are taken together it's pretty clear what's happening. I don't expect you to understand - maybe someday.

 

[DeepShadow]

I've already been through this several times now. If you're interested to know why I think that, you can go back and read my previous posts in the thread.

It looks to me like your argument is really with baptism itself, which belongs in a new thread. This one is about whether the LDS church needs to do more by the Jewish groups that have been offended here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It looks to me like your argument is really with baptism itself, which belongs in a new thread. This one is about whether the LDS church needs to do more by the Jewish groups that have been offended here.

Perhaps, but I think they're related.

As I see it, the LDS response to Jewish groups and other is that baptisms by proxy need to continue because they're important. This raises the question of why they're important.