sefton

i like turtles too

i read the Bible Dictionary text on Baptism before my original post. and im not sure you realize that the book of Moses is not in the Old Testament

lol, ceremonial cleansing mikvahs are and always have been entirely different from mormon baptism.

even if it were possible, why would people at the time of the Great Apostasy take out all mentions of baptism in the Old Testament, but not from the New Testament?

if i was intending on mocking your beliefs i would take an entirely different approach and it would be obvious. i was raised mormon and this is something i never got an answer to so im asking. and i think there are things to learn from everyone

according to biblical scholars, John the Baptist is widely regarded to have been raised an Essene and left their community. The Essenes were an unconventional sect of Jews around the time of Jesus who were initiated through baptism. it makes sense that John would have continued this practice after he left the Essene sect

gosh where do i start. 1st, Jews in the time of the new testament also didnt use the word baptism; the word they used would be translated to us as "to immerse" and no where in the Old Testament does it use words from any translations to describe this immersion. 2nd, i dont believe in God in the 1st place. and 3rd, according to the Old Testament, there are coventants between God and man, such as circumcision, but NOT baptism--you would think that such a covenant would be noted in the Old Testament if it existed. (and yes, the word circumcision comes from a Latin word which people in the times of the Old Testament did not know, yet it is still translated, explained, and named in the Old testament). anyway, the fact remains that in the OT there is not even a subtle description of anything similar to what mormons consider baptism

it strikes me as rather profound that in the entire Old Testament there is not a single reference, mention, or description of baptism, when according to the Mormon church, baptism has been a vital and central part of the gospel since Adam and Eve. To be fair, isn't it a huuuge stretch (to say the least) to suggest that the Jews in the Old Testament, who were extreeeemely strict with following all the laws and practices that were commanded of God, would somehow leave out one of the most crucial central beliefs in over a thousand pages over a period of about a thousand years? or to suggest perhaps that someone edited out every single reference in every biblical text and no one noticed? id like to further note that no where in the New Testament does it reference or explain that people in the times of the Old Testament practiced baptism. the only 2 references that the New Testament gives to baptism in the Old Testament are from 1 Cor 10 and 1 Peter 3; both of which use the idea of baptism from the Old testament only symbolically to show that the great flood and the passing through and collapse of the Red Sea foreshadowed the coming of baptism: 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 "For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Peter 3: 20-21: "...who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." how can you wrap your mind around the idea that baptism was of extreme importance thoughout the entire Old Testament, yet no references exist?

THANK YOU MOKSHA. good for you! :) as for most of the others, correct me if im wrong, (but i am confident that i am not wrong), that you all seem to (unconsciously?) think of knowing as the abandonment of all doubt. you realize there may be doubts there, but you convince yourselves to not take them seriously. you believe you dont need proof to be sure of something, and that even if you think youre certain that something is true, you still think that there can be doubts and those doubts should be cast away and not dwelled upon; this just shows to me that you dont actually KNOW because if you KNEW, then there could be no doubts possible and you wouldnt have a problem needing to fend away your own doubts (whether you consciously admit there are doubts or not). if you are actually sure of something, then you shouldnt need to convince yourself that you shouldnt doubt it, you should be able to prove to yourself that its true and that there are not doubts. i refuse to be brainwashed to think that im evil for doubting and questioning things that i do not know! please tell me, do you think that is so terrible or can you respect that? if you dont know something, do you think it's bad to question it and have some doubts as long as youre not absolutely sure? Maxwell used the argument of your beliefs being like the scientific method, yet the scientific method embraces and uses any criticism of the validity of something to be able to find out if it isnt really true, but mormons always act like you should never challenge your own faith and if something challenges your beliefs, that instead of testing those doubts, you just keep telling people to pray about the church and they will know that the mormon church is true, which is just completely dismissing anything that raises doubts about mormonism! yes i am atheist/agnostic, but i have no problem with people being religious. the only problem i have is when people say they know it is true when i can tell they dont. i find it funny how so many religious people know their religion is true because a voice in their head told them so. i have been where you guys are before so i know where you're coming from. i was raised mormon until i became christian at 17, and then became atheist after i read most of the bible. this is why this topic bothers me so much. i have so many LDS family members (no longer any LDS friends because they all ostracized me), and they are all so dogmatic and can not respect at all that i am doing what i think should be done and believing in what i think is true. im not saying this to stir things up or anything, but this whole mentality of "knowing" honestly seems very cult-like; since many mormons believe that they know the mormon church is true, they also assume that since i left the church, that i must have been consumed by some terrible sins that caused me to lose the holy ghost and that that is the only way i could have possibly left the church and denied it's truthfulness (or the only other explanation is that i have never intently searched out answers in the first place, which i also totally resent the idea of because i have searched out answers far more that anyone i know). they do not understand and will not accept that i am doing the best i can and with the best of my knowledge and judgment to find what is true and live a good/moral life. i can respect and understand that religious people are doing the same for their own beliefs, but you can not be sure that god exists the same way that i can not be sure that god does not exist. we should each go by faith and judgment of our own convictions, not be bigots and act like we know everything when we do not. as Bill Maher said, "religion is dangerous because it allows people, who dont have all the answers, to think that they do." Many religious people believe that the humble thing to do is to believe in a higher power, when the TRUELY humble thing to do is to admit that you do not have all the answers! Matt 23:10-12 "Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." thank you to all who shared your points of view

ok, one quick reply before i go... once again, you are giving me evidence to support your belief, but you are not telling me what your proof is and furthermore, one of you said, that you dont need proof to know it....that is strictly a LOGICAL FALLACY. by definition you must PROVE something to yourself to know it's true. if youre really trying to answer me, just word it this way..."i am certain that the feelings ive gotten that testify of the truth of the chruch are from God because ________" pleeeeease do not answer with evidence, answer me with what literally proves to you those feelings are from god. someone please acknowledge that EVIDENCE does NOT equal PROOF.

i can believe in a religion and go by faith, but i can not know it is true and i dont know why you claim to be able to for no reason

ok, for example, if according to a particular religion, the world will end tomorrow, and a week later the world still hasnt ended, then that PROVES that that religion is false. however if according to another religion, the moon is prophesied to break apart in two tomorrow, and the moon actually breaks apart in two on that day, that is not proof that the religion is true. it is only strong evidence that the religion is true sorry, but i have to go soon, i will try to reply to everyone later.

all of you seem to be missing my point entirely. i understand that you experience things that reaffirm your faith, but strong faith does not equal knowing. why do you say you know? there must be proof (NOT JUST EVIDENCE) to KNOW something, right? im not asking for you to prove it to me, im asking what your proof to yourself is, not just what the evidence is. consistent and reliable evidence doesnt equal proof

Maxel, i dont want to get into a shouting match over semantics. my question is plain and simple and fair; answer it or dont: how can you be absolutely certain that a feeling comes from God? your question seems like a pointless argument over semantics with out really addressing my question, but sure i guess the scientific method is a process capable of finding truth. but to prove something is true 100%, to yourself or to an entire poplutation, there has to be indisputable proof that it is true. finding truth and proof are demonstratively different things, i dont see why i need to explain that.

why ask? because you should question everything that you dont know! why not? like i said in my post, it is only by admitting you do not know, that you will be able to pursue the unknown and find out what is in fact true. if you just accept all you believe as true, then if youre wrong, you will never be disillusioned.