There Could Not Be A Happier People

[TheTanakas]

I had some questions on this section of the manual.

344 - As the Savior's disciples began establishing His Church throughout the land, a 
question arose that, to some, might seem like a minor point-what should be the name
of the Church? (see 3 Nephi 27:1-3). What do you learn about the importance of this 
name from the Savior's answer in 3 Nephi 27:4-12?

Wasn't the church already established in the year before Jesus was said to have visited 
the Nephites (in 3 Nephi 7:23-26)?  Nephi was said to be ordaining people and baptizing 
them into the church before Jesus appeared.

What was the name of the church in that 3 Nephi 27:1-12 section?

One thing I also didn't understand. Why did Nephi go into the water by himself to be 
baptized again (3 Nephi 19:11) considering he was already baptized; assuming this was 
a requirement to ordain people as he was already doing?

Pete

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

I had some questions on this section of the manual.

344 - As the Savior's disciples began establishing His Church throughout the land, a 
question arose that, to some, might seem like a minor point-what should be the name
of the Church? (see 3 Nephi 27:1-3). What do you learn about the importance of this 
name from the Savior's answer in 3 Nephi 27:4-12?

Wasn't the church already established in the year before Jesus was said to have visited 
the Nephites (in 3 Nephi 7:23-26)?  Nephi was said to be ordaining people and baptizing 
them into the church before Jesus appeared.

What was the name of the church in that 3 Nephi 27:1-12 section?

One thing I also didn't understand. Why did Nephi go into the water by himself to be 
baptized again (3 Nephi 19:11) considering he was already baptized; assuming this was 
a requirement to ordain people as he was already doing?

Pete

There was not a standard name of the church until Jesus told the disciples to His name). I'm sure it took awhile to catch on.

There are several types of baptism in the practices of ancient Israel which the Lehites presumably carried with them, so this wouldn't be unique. Early members of the Restored Church also would re-baptize themselves at various junctures of recommitment. organization, divine endowment, etc. As the Church gets more established, the protocols become more normalized.

There is "establish" as in to institute, and then there is "establish" as in to promulgate.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

I had some questions on this section of the manual.

344 - As the Savior's disciples began establishing His Church throughout the land, a 
question arose that, to some, might seem like a minor point-what should be the name
of the Church? (see 3 Nephi 27:1-3). What do you learn about the importance of this 
name from the Savior's answer in 3 Nephi 27:4-12?

Wasn't the church already established in the year before Jesus was said to have visited 
the Nephites (in 3 Nephi 7:23-26)?  Nephi was said to be ordaining people and baptizing 
them into the church before Jesus appeared.

What was the name of the church in that 3 Nephi 27:1-12 section?

One thing I also didn't understand. Why did Nephi go into the water by himself to be 
baptized again (3 Nephi 19:11) considering he was already baptized; assuming this was 
a requirement to ordain people as he was already doing?

Pete

Bear in mind, Pete, that John the Baptizer came and baptized, even baptizing Jesus.  Then Jesus and his apostles were baptizing (Matt 3:11, Lk 3:16, Acts 19:3-5).  Yet, even before John the Baptizer, the Essenes were baptizing, not only as a mode of purification, but also as a mode of membership into the covenant community.  Even today, Jews require immersion baptism (mikveh) for new members of the Jewish community.  In addition to that baptism of initiation, the Jews also perform regular ritual purifications through that same immersion in water (mikveh).  Indeed, the rite of washing, anointing, and clothing goes back to ancient biblical times --- see for example Ruth 3:3, followed quickly by formal betrothal and marriage.

As to the name of the church, that has always taken various forms:  Hebrew ˁēdâ “congregation (of Israel)” (as in Ex 12:3,19,47, 1QS 5:20, 1QM 2:1,3,7, 3:4,11),[1] or qol qĕhal ˁădat yîśrāʼēl  “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel” (Ex 12:6), and Greek LXX/NT synagōgē "congregation" (Numbers 27:17, 31:16, Matthew 9:35-36, Acts 13:43) = Syriac ˁedta "church" (early Semitic Christianity) = early Greek Chris­tian synagōgēn "assembly" (James 2:2, KJV marg rdg "synagogue") = Jewish "synagogue" (Mat 4:23, Rev 3:9) = Hebrew qĕhal/qāhāl, LXX Gk ’ekklēsia "an assembly called together,[2] congregation" (Deuteronomy 31:30, 1 Kings 8:14), "assembly" (Ezekiel 23:24) = NT "church" (ʼekklēsia Matthew 16:18. "my church", Revelation 22:16); cf. Acts 2:42 Greek koinōnia "fellowship" = Hebrew yaḥad (1QS 1:12) "union" as in ˁēṣet hăyaḥad "community council, united order"; Jeremiah 39:8 bêt-hāˁām “house of the people”; Psalm 74:8 môˁădêy-’ēl "syna­gogues of God" (KJV); meeting-places of God" (NKJV), "place(s) where God was worshipped" (NIV) = "synagogues" (LXX, Versions, and Midrash); TB Megilla 3:73; Josephus, Jewish War, II, 8, 3 (§122); Origen, Homilies 4:3, in Jeremiam (Patrologiae Graecae 13:287-288); Elath Ostracon bêt kenisa bî-Yrušalem "the synagogue in Jerusalem" (BASOR 84:4-5) — 1 Nephi 4:26, 2 Nephi 9:2, 26:26 ("synagogues" = "houses of worship"), Alma 1:7,19, 4:4-16, 21:16,20, 46:14, Helaman 3:26,33, 4:11, 5:35; Exodus 16:1, Leviticus 25:46, Numbers 14:5, 27:17, 31:16, 35:24, Deuteronomy 33:4, Judges 20:2, 21:16 (James 5:14), 1 Samuel 19:20, 1 Kings 8:65, Psalm 40:10, Lamentation 1:15, 2:6, Zephaniah 3:18, Joel 2:16; Acts 14:23, Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 10:32, 11:16,22, 2 Thessalonians 1:4, Revelation 1:4; D&C 63:31.

---

[1] Apart from Qumran, ˁēdâ is not attested after the 9^th century B.C., being replaced by qāhāl in the postexilic period (J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 4-5).  Cf. ancient Egyptian ˁdt “covenant-stipulations; conspiracy” = Akkadian adû, adē “vassal treaty, formal agreement”

(Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion, 271-272).

[2] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 645.

[The Nehor]

It is also worth noting that in the early days of this dispensation it was not unusual to get rebaptized as a show of devotion to God. All the apostles in the Salt Lake Valley were rebaptized at one point. Some members were rebaptized after being healed or before marriage or before going to the temple and the like. The practice was ended by Joseph F. Smith but it is not sinful in itself. Being rebaptized due to the Savior reorganizing his church seems like it fits the general idea of doing it as part of a life changing event.

[Navidad]

On 10/22/2021 at 3:22 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Even today, Jews require immersion baptism (mikveh) for new members of the Jewish community.  In addition to that baptism of initiation, the Jews also perform regular ritual purifications through that same immersion in water (mikveh).  Indeed, the rite of washing, anointing, and clothing goes back to ancient biblical times

Hi my friend - I think that every one of my Jewish friends, both converted and born in Judaism would disagree with you on this statement, and disagree rather vociferously. Jews do not practice baptism. You put the word mikveh behind the word baptism in your post. That seems to link baptism and the Jewish practice of mikveh or purification (cleansing). You then refer to it as a "baptism of initiation." I think my Jewish friends would roll over at that definition of mikveh. Of course I may be wrong, but I believe all Jews would insist that baptism is a Christian rite; mikveh is totally distinct and separate from baptism. I think you are trying to connect something that is essentially and in its essence different. It is kind of like what I believe you think I do when I connect my baptism (by immersion) and the LDS baptism (by immersion). I think you would insist that LDS baptism is different from mine for several reasons. President Kimball, when an apostle even referred to my baptism as "blasphemy." It seems most LDS Christians would today think that a bit harsh. I think that Jewish mikveh is far more different from Christian baptism than LDS baptism is from Baptist or Mennonite baptism. Not trying to argue or debate - please tell me if you think I am wrong in what I have written.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend - I think that every one of my Jewish friends, both converted and born in Judaism would disagree with you on this statement, and disagree rather vociferously. Jews do not practice baptism. You put the word mikveh behind the word baptism in your post. That seems to link baptism and the Jewish practice of mikveh or purification (cleansing). You then refer to it as a "baptism of initiation." I think my Jewish friends would roll over at that definition of mikveh. Of course I may be wrong, but I believe all Jews would insist that baptism is a Christian rite; mikveh is totally distinct and separate from baptism. I think you are trying to connect something that is essentially and in its essence different. It is kind of like what I believe you think I do when I connect my baptism (by immersion) and the LDS baptism (by immersion). I think you would insist that LDS baptism is different from mine for several reasons. President Kimball, when an apostle even referred to my baptism as "blasphemy." It seems most LDS Christians would today think that a bit harsh. I think that Jewish mikveh is far more different from Christian baptism than LDS baptism is from Baptist or Mennonite baptism. Not trying to argue or debate - please tell me if you think I am wrong in what I have written.

Let's just say that Robert is quite expert on both the LDS and the Jewish sides of the question, perhaps more than you are aware, and may see it quite differently than you or your friends. 

He is seeing from a totally different perspective than your friends, and is making a different point entirely, as different a perspective as anthropology is from religious Doctrine 

Edited October 27, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Let's just say that Robert is quite expert on both the LDS and the Jewish sides of the question, perhaps more than you are aware, and may see it quite differently than you or your friends. 

He is seeing from a totally different perspective than your friends, and is making a different point entirely, as different a perspective as anthropology is from religious Doctrine 

Ok. I said I could be wrong, didn't I? I am not "quite expert" in anything. Several of my friends are rabbis in the reformed and conservative traditions within Judaism. I would only guess the more orthodox branches might even draw a greater distinction between their purification and the very concept of Christian baptism. I also doubt and perhaps in that, agree with you that they are not experts in the various interpretations of baptism within Christianity, including that of the LDS church. I simply think they would recoil at the idea that baptism and ritual purification cleansing are the same. In that, I would certainly agree with them. I also understand that there are differences, perhaps significant differences in the understandings of the meaning and significance of baptism among Christians. That, in and of itself however, does not speak to the difference between Jewish and Christian cleansing and baptisms.

I know I am inviting your wrath, but will also suggest to you that I don't see a difference in perspective between anthropology and religious doctrine, especially when it comes to social anthropology. Religious history, beliefs, and yes, doctrine are important elements of the study of social anthropology. The social anthropologist studies all three. How do I know? Because I teach religious history, beliefs and doctrine as a guest lecturer in the Mexican Federal School of Anthropology and History. I don't speak as an advocate, but as a student and teacher of how the three are ingredients of social anthropology. But of course, I could be wrong. Religious study is a volatile, sensitive, and thus, oft-ignored study here in Mexico. Perhaps that is why they leave it to the Anglo Mennonite guy come into town to teach it and then quickly head back to Chihuahua!!

You refer to LDS and Jewish sides of a "question." What is the question? Is it whether or not Jews accept or equate Christian baptism (whether LDS or not) with Jewish mikveh? Perhaps I am missing the question, or identifying it differently?

Edited October 27, 2021 by Navidad

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend - I think that every one of my Jewish friends, both converted and born in Judaism would disagree with you on this statement, and disagree rather vociferously. Jews do not practice baptism. You put the word mikveh behind the word baptism in your post. That seems to link baptism and the Jewish practice of mikveh or purification (cleansing). You then refer to it as a "baptism of initiation." I think my Jewish friends would roll over at that definition of mikveh. Of course I may be wrong, but I believe all Jews would insist that baptism is a Christian rite; mikveh is totally distinct and separate from baptism. I think you are trying to connect something that is essentially and in its essence different. It is kind of like what I believe you think I do when I connect my baptism (by immersion) and the LDS baptism (by immersion). I think you would insist that LDS baptism is different from mine for several reasons. President Kimball, when an apostle even referred to my baptism as "blasphemy." It seems most LDS Christians would today think that a bit harsh. I think that Jewish mikveh is far more different from Christian baptism than LDS baptism is from Baptist or Mennonite baptism. Not trying to argue or debate - please tell me if you think I am wrong in what I have written.

 

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I said I could be wrong, didn't I? I am not "quite expert" in anything. Several of my friends are rabbis in the reformed and conservative traditions within Judaism. I would only guess the more orthodox branches might even draw a greater distinction between their purification and the very concept of Christian baptism. I also doubt and perhaps in that, agree with you that they are not experts in the various interpretations of baptism within Christianity, including that of the LDS church.

I know I am inviting your wrath, but will also suggest to you that I don't see a difference in perspective between anthropology and religious doctrine, especially when it comes to social anthropology. Religious history, beliefs, and yes, doctrine are important elements of the study of social anthropology. The social anthropologist studies all three. How do I know? Because I teach religious history, beliefs and doctrine as a guest lecturer in the Mexican Federal School of Anthropology and History. I don't speak as an advocate, but as a student and teacher of how the three are ingredients of social anthropology. But of course, I could be wrong. Religious study is a volatile, sensitive, and thus, oft-ignored study here in Mexico. Perhaps that is why they leave it to the Anglo Mennonite guy come into town to teach it and then quickly head back to Chihuahua!!

You refer to LDS and Jewish sides of a "question." What is the question? Is it whether or not Jews accept or equate Christian baptism (whether LDS or not) with Jewish mikveh? Perhaps I am missing the question, or identifying it differently?

Religious groups often go to extremes to distinguish themselves from each other.  Modern Muslims, for example, frequently insist that their God is a different god from that of the Jews and Christians -- even though the Quran itself says otherwise and sees Jews and Christians as people of the book.  For normative christians too, LDS views are heretical at best, and nothing the LDS do has anything in common with normative christianity.  If Elder Kimball actually made the claim that non-LDS baptism was blasphemy, that would be an utterly childish thing to say.  A lot of sincere people try their best to follow Christ, and we should be very tolerant of those attempts -- even ecumenical.  Interfaith cooperation for the betterment of our communities is very important.  In nearly all cases, it is the non-LDS communities which have shown extreme intolerance toward the LDS community, not the other way around, thus showing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not uppermost in their minds.  Rather it is vengeance-seeking and anger which has been directed at the LDS community.  Anti-LDS hate and vilification is still quite common today.

The early Christian Church was a completely Jewish Church.  Jesus, his apostles, and other disciples were all Jews.  Jesus himself was baptized by a Jewish priest named John.  Baptism by immersion was a completely Jewish rite, as it is today for both Jews and Christians.  It did not begin with Christians, but had been practiced already for over a century before Jesus by the Essenes, a Jewish group near the Dead Sea.  The Essenes used immersion baptism as a rite of initiation into their covenant community, just as the rabbinic Jews do today.  Nothing has changed in the past two thousand years.  The Jews also require circumcision for male initiates, although the Christians speak only of circumcision of the heart (as Jeremiah the prophet did).  For scholars what we see is continuity.  This is true across the board in liturgy and doctrine, as we can see in Eric Werner's Sacred Bridge.

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited October 27, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

.

I know I am inviting your wrath, but will also suggest to you that I don't see a difference in perspective between anthropology and religious doctrine, especially when it comes to social anthropology.

Inviting my wrath? Oh my! What a fearsome beast I am!

So for example, you are saying that there is no difference in point of view between a social  anthropologist studying Roman capital punisment techniques and a Christian seeing Christ's crucifixion as the belief which changed his life and saved him from eternal hellfire?

Well I beg to differ.

But not very much because if you don't see the difference, not much discussion is necessary 

And you don't see that baptism and mikveh are both ritual washings, despite the fact that there is a vast difference in the significance of that ritual washing between Jews and Christians?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Error

A Buddhist joke:

Quote

Mañjuśrī and Vimalakīrti walk into a bar.

Mañjuśrī is silent.    

Vimalakīrti turns to him and says:

“Why didn’t you just say so?”

Is the Buddha field to be found elsewhere, in some distant galaxy, far, far away? Or, is it right here, in the present world? Or is it not external at all, but in the mind alone? Are they just both reflections of the mind, as pure or impure? But when they become co-extensive and co-temporal, is there any difference between this and any other world, whether external or mental qua
internal? Dual, and relative, purity and impurity also thus cease to exist, for the insubstantial mind cannot construct any world in empty space. To affirm the existence of any Buddha field at all, any pure land, defeats itself. No this or other, no internal or external. No world at all.   SHI, Huifēng (Matthew B. Orsborn), “Vimalakīrti’s Aporia: Chiasmus & Apophasis in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa,” Fo Guang Journal of Buddhist Studies, 1/ 2 (2016): 199-264, online at https://www.academia.edu/21478462/Vimalakīrti_s_Aporia_Chiasmus_and_Apophasis_in_the_Vimalakīrtinirdeśa?email_work_card=view-paper .

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Religious groups often go to extremes to distinguish themselves from each other.  Modern Muslims, for example, frequently insist that their God is a different god from that of the Jews and Christians -- even though the Quran itself says otherwise and sees Jews and Christians as people of the book.  For normative christians too, LDS views are heretical at best, and nothing the LDS do has anything in common with normative christianity.  If Elder Kimball actually made the claim that non-LDS baptism was blasphemy, that would be an utterly childish thing to say.  A lot of sincere people try their best to follow Christ, and we should be very tolerant of those attempts -- even ecumenical.  Interfaith cooperation for the betterment of our communities is very important.  In nearly all cases, it is the non-LDS communities which have shown extreme intolerance toward the LDS community, not the other way around, thus showing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not uppermost in their minds.  Rather it is vengeance-seeking and anger which has been directed at the LDS community.  Anti-LDS hate and vilification is still quite common today.

The early Christian Church was a completely Jewish Church.  Jesus, his apostles, and other disciples were all Jews.  Jesus himself was baptized by a Jewish priest named John.  Baptism by immersion was a completely Jewish rite, as it is today for both Jews and Christians.  It did not begin with Christians, but had been practiced already for over a century before Jesus by the Essenes, a Jewish group near the Dead Sea.  The Essenes used immersion baptism as a rite of initiation into their covenant community, just as the rabbinic Jews do today.  Nothing has changed in the past two thousand years.  The Jews also require circumcision for male initiates, although the Christians speak only of circumcision of the heart (as Jeremiah the prophet did).  For scholars what we see is continuity.  This is true across the board in liturgy and doctrine, as we can see in Eric Werner's Sacred Bridge.

I am not sure where your reply is going? No one is attacking the LDS views of anything as heretical, least of all me. I am quite sure that the LDS faith has much in common with normative Christianity, whatever you consider that to be. No one has brought up any intolerance toward the LDS community, certainly not me. I agree completely with your perspective on interfaith cooperation. I would not and do not tolerate any vengeance-seeking, anger, hate or vilification toward the LDS community. I am completely unsure where all that is coming from. I merely and only pointed out that my Jewish friends, as recently as several hours ago assured me that the Jewish cleansing and purification ceremonies are in no way synonymous with Christian baptism ceremonies, in all their disparate forms and with all their disparate meanings. I merely suggested that Baptism by immersion is a very different rite than cleansing and purification by immersion within the Jewish Halakha tradition. Certainly Christ is not the Messiah within that same tradition, is He? I am not saying I agree with them. I simply don't agree that Jews believe that baptism is the same as their ritual purification and cleansing ceremonies any more than they believe that Christ was the prophesied Messiah.  Again, what I believe about all of that is irrelevant to the conversation.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Navidad

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Inviting my wrath? Oh my! What a fearsome beast I am!

So for example, you are saying that there is no difference in point of view between a social  anthropologist studying Roman capital punisment techniques and a Christian seeing Christ's crucifixion as the belief which changed his life and saved him from eternal hellfire?

Well I beg to differ.

But not very much because if you don't see the difference, not much discussion is necessary 

And you don't see that baptism and mikveh are both ritual washings, despite the fact that there is a vast difference in the significance of that ritual washing between Jews and Christians?

Yes, you can at times be quite fearsome to me. That is a confession. I wish that were not true, but it is.

In this context, it doesn't matter what I believe about baptism.  My original statement was that the Jews I know and interact with would not agree that Christian baptism and Jewish mikveh are synonymous or equivalent types of ritual washings in either their mode or meaning.

My opinion regarding baptism is irrelevant unless we are talking about the fact that my LDS friends believe non-LDS Christian baptism to be invalid. Then I certainly might opine. I certainly don't claim that LDS baptisms are invalid. That was never part of the discussion that you all were having in this thread. I have great respect for Brother Smith. I simply think he is incorrect if he believes that Jewish scholars or rabbis equate Christian baptism and Jewish purification ceremonies by requisite use of naturally sourced water. He (Brother Smith) may equate them, but in my experience Jewish scholars do not. And I will say it again - I may be wrong. There is absolutely nothing bad about being wrong, nor about occasionally being right! Best wishes.

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure where your reply is going? No one is attacking the LDS views of anything as heretical, least of all me. I am quite sure that the LDS faith has much in common with normative Christianity, whatever you consider that to be. No one has brought up any intolerance toward the LDS community, certainly not me. I agree completely with your perspective on interfaith cooperation. I would not and do not tolerate any vengeance-seeking, anger, hate or vilification toward the LDS community. I am completely unsure where all that is coming from. I merely and only pointed out that my Jewish friends, as recently as several hours ago assured me that the Jewish cleansing and purification ceremonies are in no way synonymous with Christian baptism ceremonies, in all their disparate forms and with all their disparate meanings. I merely suggested that Baptism by immersion is a very different rite than cleansing and purification by immersion within the Jewish Halakha tradition. Certainly Christ is not the Messiah within that same tradition, is He? I am not saying I agree with them. I simply don't agree that Jews believe that baptism is the same as their ritual purification and cleansing ceremonies any more than they believe that Christ was the prophesied Messiah.  Again, what I believe about all of that is irrelevant to the conversation.

You miss the point entirely.  Jews do have ritual purification ceremonies, which you seem unable to distinguish from their clearcut initiatory rite of immersion baptism for membership conversion.  Since you know nothing about Judaism, I suppose that explains your failure to understand that simple fact.  Likewise for messianism in Judaism, which was already being preached by hard core Jews long before the appearance of Jesus.  Jewish scholars agree on that and publish books on the subject.  Of course Jews don't accept Jesus as that Messiah.  We all know that.  However, I was specifically taught by rabbis that Jesus taught the mainstream ethical and moral norms of the talmud, as one would expect from a Pharisaic rabbi of Beth Hillel.  Indeed, Saul-Paul was a Pharisaic rabbi in that same tradition.  I realize that you don't understand that, but that is to be expected since you have no training or reading in that area.

[Navidad]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point entirely.  Jews do have ritual purification ceremonies, which you seem unable to distinguish from their clearcut initiatory rite of immersion baptism for membership conversion.  Since you know nothing about Judaism, I suppose that explains your failure to understand that simple fact.  Likewise for messianism in Judaism, which was already being preached by hard core Jews long before the appearance of Jesus.  Jewish scholars agree on that and publish books on the subject.  Of course Jews don't accept Jesus as that Messiah.  We all know that.  However, I was specifically taught by rabbis that Jesus taught the mainstream ethical and moral norms of the talmud, as one would expect from a Pharisaic rabbi of Beth Hillel.  Indeed, Saul-Paul was a Pharisaic rabbi in that same tradition.  I realize that you don't understand that, but that is to be expected since you have no training or reading in that area.

Ok since I have no training or reading in Judaism I won't bother to point out to you that North American Reform Judaism has no required immersion baptism for conversion. It is an option.  Orthodox Jews certainly do, but also have other specific requirements for the mode and method of initiatory baptism/purification which I won't point out either because you have already decided I have no training or reading in that area or in the teachings on messianic Judaism. I will simply fade out of the conversation, back into my blissful ignorance.

But before I do, perhaps I will simply link you to a statement by the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Although you are probably quite certain they have no training or reading in Judaism either! Oh, and at the end of the document it clearly states that tevilah was also considered a purification ritual as well as an initiatory rite for the convert.  At the beginning of their document is the following: "This question reflects current reality in that a number of Reform rabbis in North America include mikveh, either as a requirement or as an option, in the conversion process. This is a marked change from the situation a century ago, when the Central Conference of American Rabbis formally resolved to permit the admission of converts “without any initiatory rite, ceremony, or observance whatever.”[1] Thus, North American Reform Judaism does not require ritual immersion, in a mikveh or in any suitable body of water, for conversion. Although the argumentation which accompanied that resolution has been examined critically by subsequent responsa,[2] the resolution itself remains the official policy of the Conference."  Here is the link: https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/nyp-no-5756-6/

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok since I have no training or reading in Judaism I won't bother to point out to you that North American Reform Judaism has no required immersion baptism for conversion. It is an option.  Orthodox Jews certainly do, but also have other specific requirements for the mode and method of initiatory baptism/purification which I won't point out either because you have already decided I have no training or reading in that area or in the teachings on messianic Judaism. I will simply fade out of the conversation, back into my blissful ignorance.

I confess that I don't pretend to know anything whatsoever about Judaism except a few Yiddish phrases I picked up living in Manhattan. 

But it is clear you have not understood what Bob is saying at all.  Just read what he has actually said.  In trying to refute him, you yourself give evidence for his position.

In some sects and at different times, a ritual washing has been required for admission to the community. It is as clear as a bell.

In early LDS practice, baptism could also be used as a purification ritual, so people could be baptized several times in their lives.

It's undeniable that there are and were parallels with Judaism.

Edited October 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok since I have no training or reading in Judaism I won't bother to point out to you that North American Reform Judaism has no required immersion baptism for conversion. It is an option.  Orthodox Jews certainly do, but also have other specific requirements for the mode and method of initiatory baptism/purification which I won't point out either because you have already decided I have no training or reading in that area or in the teachings on messianic Judaism. I will simply fade out of the conversation, back into my blissful ignorance.

But before I do, perhaps I will simply link you to a statement by the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Although you are probably quite certain they have no training or reading in Judaism either! Oh, and at the end of the document it clearly states that tevilah was also considered a purification ritual as well as an initiatory rite for the convert.  At the beginning of their document is the following: "This question reflects current reality in that a number of Reform rabbis in North America include mikveh, either as a requirement or as an option, in the conversion process. This is a marked change from the situation a century ago, when the Central Conference of American Rabbis formally resolved to permit the admission of converts “without any initiatory rite, ceremony, or observance whatever.”[1] Thus, North American Reform Judaism does not require ritual immersion, in a mikveh or in any suitable body of water, for conversion. Although the argumentation which accompanied that resolution has been examined critically by subsequent responsa,[2] the resolution itself remains the official policy of the Conference."  Here is the link: https://www.ccarnet.org/ccar-responsa/nyp-no-5756-6/

Again, your blissful ignorance is showing:  Reform rabbis are not considered real rabbis in the State of Israel, and they are not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies in that state.  Only Orthodox marriages are performed there.  I have accompanied friends to the Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem who were going there for conversion and I understand the process in detail.  You do not.  I was trained by rabbis, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox.  They all have differing points of view on a host of issues, the ultra Orthodox being even more extreme, but there is nothing to be gained by discussing the matter if you are not willing to at least address the issues in a scholarly way.

You will never understand Christianity unless and until you are willing to understand the Jewish roots of Christianity.  Of course that proviso applies as much to Mormons as to Mennonites.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I confess that I don't pretend to know anything whatsoever about Judaism except a few Yiddish phrases I picked up living in Manhattan. 

But it is clear you have not understood what Bob is saying at all.  Just read what he has actually said.  In trying to refute him, you yourself give evidence for his position.

In some sects and at different times, a ritual washing has been required for admission to the community. It is as clear as a bell.

In early LDS practice, baptism could also be used as a purification ritual, so people could be baptized several times in their lives.

It's undeniable that there are and were parallels with Judaism.

My friend - I don't question that in the LDS mindset, there are and were parallels with Judaism. For years that has been the case as a means of attaching continuity and credibility to certain LDS beliefs and practices. I would never question or debate that. The same is true of Messianic Christianity with which I am very familiar, having served as a dean and professor in a Christian college where we had a Messianic Christianity Studies major. To a lesser degree it is also true of Christianity as a whole. There is always a desire to connect to the OT roots of Christianity, especially in disciplines such as prophecy and certain ritual practices.

Perhaps what is missing here in our dialogue is an understanding of my two points, the first of which is that I am skeptical that a similar correlation would be made by a majority of Jewish scholars, both liberal and conservative. In my experience, it is offensive to Jews to even attach the Greek term "baptism" to their initiatory rites (where performed either by requirement or option) and purification rites (sometimes they are the same thing). I understand Bob to be expressing a distinctly LDS point of view to add validity to the historicity of the LDS church as "thee" historic Christian church founded in the beginning of Christianity with direct roots in Judaism. He even ties it into the Essene branch of Judaism, in much the same way that some non-LDS Christians connect John the Baptist to Essene tradition. The connection is speculative at best.

My second point is that I respectfully believe Bob is incorrect in insisting on a blanket statement that initiatory "baptism" is a requirement in Judaism for conversion, which depending on the branch of Judaism it clearly is not (see above link) . This again appears to me to be an attempt to connect the current requirement for initiatory baptism in LDS practice to historic Judaism to provide an extra layer of credibility and validity, especially to a non-LDS Christian audience. It is an apologetic methodology. It is somewhat similar to Landmark Baptists’ desire to connect a Baptist tradition with a scarlet or crimson thread of Baptistic Christianity existing outside of the Catholic church through the centuries. That Christ taught as a Rabbi and Paul was a Pharasaic rabbi are widely accepted concepts within both Judaism and Christianity. I have no idea why Bob would suggest that I don't understand that.

I mean no offense through either of my points. Disagreeing with someone on a very specific point is very different that stating that the other person is ignorant, uninformed, unread, and therefore less-than. The former is an enjoyable exercise in dialogue; the latter is simply sad.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps what is missing here in our dialogue is an understanding of my two points, the first of which is that I am skeptical that a similar correlation would be made by a majority of Jewish scholars, both liberal and conservative. In my experience, it is offensive to Jews to even attach the Greek term "baptism" to their initiatory rites (where performed either by requirement or option) and purification rites (sometimes they are the same thing).

No, that all is irrelevant.

That's what you don't understand. 

This is not a discussion about ideas that make Jewish people happy or sad. 

I thought I made that clear on my first post where I made a simple distinction between anthropology and religious belief. Of course Jews would not see it that way.

The discussion is about links between Judaism and Christianity and the link with baptism is obvious, but you keep saying "but Jews don't like to hear that", and apparently you cannot see the irrelevance of the point.

Noted. So what?

LDS people might be offended that our baptism is not accepted by other Christans because they don't even see us as Christians, and we don't want to see it that way. So what?

Some Jews may not want to see connections between their ritual washings and baptism.

None of that is relevant.

The connections are there and obvious

 

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would never question or debate that. The same is true of Messianic Christianity with which I am very familiar, having served as a dean and professor in a Christian college where we had a Messianic Christianity Studies major.

As an argument, incidentally this is not persuasive

Being a dean in a university that teaches physics does not make one an expert in physics, though one might in fact be an expert in physics, but not because they are a dean. That is why universities HAVE different departments,  no one can be an expert in everything 

I think we all acknowledge your vast knowledge, you don't need to keep reminding us!

But we all make bad arguments occasionally!

 

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, that all is irrelevant.

That's what you don't understand. 

This is not a discussion about ideas that make Jewish people happy or sad. 

I thought I made that clear on my first post where I made a simple distinction between anthropology and religious belief. Of course Jews would not see it that way.

The discussion is about links between Judaism and Christianity and the link with baptism is obvious, but you keep saying "but Jews don't like to hear that", and apparently you cannot see the irrelevance of the point.

Noted. So what?

LDS people might be offended that our baptism is not accepted by other Christans because they don't even see us as Christians, and we don't want to see it that way. So what?

Some Jews may not want to see connections between their ritual washings and baptism.

None of that is relevant.

The connections are there and obvious

 

 

A fascinating journey into exclusivity. It doesn't matter what anyone else - Jewish or Non-LDS Christian thinks or believes about anything? Do I now understand?  So what? - Wow! What LDS folks believe is thee Truth and that Truth is obvious to all thinking folks - ergo all LDS folks and no one else. What LDS folks think about their connections is there and obvious! So what if Jewish folks or non-LDS Christians think otherwise? "That is all irrelevant. So what?

I regularly got into trouble here some years ago for my conclusion that the LDS faith was exclusive by its very truth and onlyism claims. I was routinely disparaged for saying that. Remember?  Is that not correct? Now you assure me that your conclusions are "there and obvious" regardless of anyone else's beliefs or thoughts, even those who are included in the connections of your conclusions!  The only relevance is found in your conclusions and the connections made as part of those conclusions. What Judaism has to say about that makes no difference - that is irrelevant! What non-LDS Christians might believe about their own baptism makes no difference - it is irrelevant! Now do I understand correctly? Am I now thinking how you want me to think?

My wife and I are heading out in an hour or so to attend a fundraising event at our local LDS academy. Perhaps you should simply tell me how I am supposed to feel after this "dialogue?" Right now I simply feel "less than." But then of course, "none of that is relevant," is it?

Edited October 29, 2021 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

As an argument, incidentally this is not persuasive

Being a dean in a university that teaches physics does not make one an expert in physics, though one might in fact be an expert in physics, but not because they are a dean. That is why universities HAVE different departments,  no one can be an expert in everything 

I think we all acknowledge your vast knowledge, you don't need to keep reminding us!

But we all make bad arguments occasionally!

 

 

Certainly I do make bad arguments occasionally! I would be a fool to deny that. I also plead guilty to feeling too much. I was a sensitive child and now I am a sensitive old man. I very much want to enjoy fellowship with my LDS Christian friends. These discussions however are not fellowship. Would you agree? Sometimes that which is said hurts. I am fairly sure that I have hurt people here in the past. I have tried very hard not to do so in the present. I have many strikes against me on this forum. That reality gets to me. It is something I don't feel in other LDS settings. Today I made comments about what I do know about Judaism, which certainly is from a limited base of information, and was mocked for those. I am not sure what I am allowed to make comments about without being disparaged? It is hard to belong in a place where you simply don't belong! 🙃 The edge of inside can be a very uncomfortable place at times.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My wife and I are heading out in an hour or so to attend a fundraising event at our local LDS academy. Perhaps you should simply tell me how I am supposed to feel after this "dialogue?" Right now I simply feel "less than." But then of course, "none of that is relevant," is it?

Nope. I can't MAKE you feel anything.

Take control of your emotions.  Don't let some jerk on the internet control them. ( me). Don't let people make you feel "less than" and then blame them for doing so.

Either you find an idea to be truth that God has revealed to you or you don't.

But I do need to be kinder. Very much kinder, and for that I am very sorry.

I put the logic of what makes a paradigm work or not work ahead of everything, and that is what drives me.

I knew that your concern about "superiority" of others was about to arise, and if you now feel "less than", it seems tied to blaming others for THEIR - what you see as- "superior attitude".

I don't know.

I am still seeking good arguments, and always will be,even if I have emotional certainty now.

There is always more, and though I need to be kinder, please don't blame me for your emotional reactions 

I am out of this one.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, your blissful ignorance is showing:  Reform rabbis are not considered real rabbis in the State of Israel, and they are not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies in that state.  Only Orthodox marriages are performed there.  I have accompanied friends to the Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem who were going there for conversion and I understand the process in detail.  You do not.  I was trained by rabbis, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox.  They all have differing points of view on a host of issues, the ultra Orthodox being even more extreme, but there is nothing to be gained by discussing the matter if you are not willing to at least address the issues in a scholarly way.

You will never understand Christianity unless and until you are willing to understand the Jewish roots of Christianity.  Of course that proviso applies as much to Mormons as to Mennonites.

Wow! Now I will never understand Christianity? I will agree it is pretty diverse and complex, isn't it?

Do you consider Reform rabbis real rabbis? Your comments about Judaism to me (a blissfully ignorant one) seem to focus on Orthodox beliefs and practices. Only Orthodox marriages are performed in Israel because the Orthodox are in charge of religious practice in that country. Only recently did the supreme court there hand down rulings that made the Orthodox quite irate and the rest of the Jewish community quite happy. The supreme court ruled about citizenship. If the Orthodox had their way, that never would have happened. Is that not correct?

I have a fairly good knowledge of the Jewish roots of Christianity. I am interested about learning more about the LDS beliefs regarding their specific, unique, and perhaps only (in all of Christendom) roots in Judaism. Would you not advocate that the roots of LDS Christianity in Judaism are different from the roots of Baptist and Methodist Christianity in Judaism? If so, what are those differences? That would be a fun and productive discussion. Don't you think?

Edited October 29, 2021 by Navidad

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow! Now I will never understand Christianity? I will agree it is pretty diverse and complex, isn't it?

Do you consider Reform rabbis real rabbis? Your comments about Judaism to me (a blissfully ignorant one) seem to focus on Orthodox beliefs and practices. Only Orthodox marriages are performed in Israel because the Orthodox are in charge of religious practice in that country. Only recently did the supreme court there hand down rulings that made the Orthodox quite irate and the rest of the Jewish community quite happy. The supreme court ruled about citizenship. If the Orthodox had their way, that never would have happened. Is that not correct?

I have a fairly good knowledge of the Jewish roots of Christianity. I am interested about learning more about the LDS beliefs regarding their specific, unique, and perhaps only (in all of Christendom) roots in Judaism. Would you not advocate that the roots of LDS Christianity in Judaism are different from the roots of Baptist and Methodist Christianity in Judaism? If so, what are those differences? That would be a fun and productive discussion. Don't you think?

I like rabbis.  I don't really care which tradition they come from.  I find them very open and interesting, very broad-minded.  They love discussion and value high intellectual attainment.  Most christians have no idea what Judaism is and what Jews believe.

When I said that "You will never understand Christianity unless and until you are willing to understand the Jewish roots of Christianity.  Of course that proviso applies as much to Mormons as to Mennonites," you clearly did not understand me or take me seriously.  I have seen no evidence at all that you have the slightest understanding of Judaism, and the same applies to Mormons.  That is no surprise to anyone.  Why would any christian study Judaism?  So ignorance reigns supreme.  Reversing that ignorance requires systematic training and reading, which most people (and even most Jews) have no time for.

As I have already said (and ignored by you):  Early Christianity was a fully Jewish belief system having nothing at all to do with much later denominational christianity.  You mention baptists, methodists, and lds as though they were direct offshoots of early Christianity, which ignores over a thousand years of christian history.  You did not even take seriously my mention of one book, Eric Werner, The Sacred Bridge.  I didn't want to burden you with an entire reading list and years of systematic study, since you show no sign of being sincerely interested in this subject anyhow.  It is likely far too late for you to heed the words of Anthony J. Saldarini, "What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus?" Bible Review, XV/3 (June 1999):17,

Quote

"A Christian Jesus is a parochial, self-serving myth and an Aryan Jesus a perverse one.  But why then have Christians so persistently thought of Jesus as a Christian and resisted admitting the obvious, that Jesus was a Jew?  Answer: the pervasive problem of uniqueness."

". . . many Christian scholars, . . seek to make Jesus dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and from the Greco-Roman world in which it was set."

    [Ferdinand] "Baur argued successfully that early Christianity had originated historically within Judaism . . . ."  His enduring, basic point was "the Jewish matrix of Christianity" . . . .

    "A Jesus who taught like a Jew and an early Christian community that looked like a Jewish sect troubled many 19th-century German Lutheran scholars, who preferred to envision a Jesus who taught a new and unique doctrine that overthrew the established tradition."

    "To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings.  Even Jesus' most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role.  If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus' life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who has loved and protected Israel and the church.  They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness."

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Robert F. Smith