Baptism

[thesometimesaint]

John the Baptist, Peter, James and John were not angels. The Bible does not state they were.

As for the apostles not passing on the keys to new apostles that is pure specualtion that cannot be substantiated. Granted a few hundred years after Christ wS crucified the church became immoral for a long time. But by what you wrote the church had lost all authority within a generation.

For all we know there were those apostles who did pass on the key. Granted by fhe 3rd and 4th time I can than agree thingsxwould habe massively changed.

All of this is just my opinion as what you wrote. Im not atracking what you wrote just giving another plausible theory.

 

What were they when they visited JS?

 

Actually the Bible itself talks of apostasy.

 

Thessalonians 2:3

 

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Edited January 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[JLHPROF]

John the Baptist, Peter, James and John were not angels. The Bible does not state they were.

 

You just have a different definition of "angel" than Mormonism does.

Most protestant Christians believe angels to be a unique species.  Mormons believe them to be people assigned to a specific role, often as messengers.

 

They would be considered angels if they came as messengers from God.

[bluebell]

Neither am I aay that I am right and you are wrong. Or I am wrong and you are right.

I dont play those games.

What it is is a matter of difference of opinions due to you attending one church and I another.

And using a doesnt take away the fact that I feel belittled by another poster on here. Who think all they know is correct and dump on the other poster.And suggest when I say I follow the teachings of Christ found in the Bible insinuate I do not.

I wouldn't be on ths forum if I wasnt studying and alwaya attmpting to gain more knowledge and understanding from the world around me.

I try to look at things from a variety of angles. And at this point in time I am attempting to look at it from a LDS point of view. But dont belittle me because I am just a Christian and somehow I dont have the full knowledge thaat you do.

 

I'm sorry if you feel belittled by another poster.  We must try to be merciful to the weaknesses of others, since we hope  and desire that others will be merciful when our own weakness come flying out.  Though it is hard.

 

I was not trying to belittle you.  I put the smiley face to help you read the tone of my post (because that is difficult on a message board, and too many misunderstandings happen when people don't get someone's tone).  I apologize if i did not do enough to help you read my words the way they were written.  

 

I only meant to point out that it is very easy to assign nefarious motives to doctrinal teachings we don't agree with (as you did, when you said that our beliefs about baptism were 'legalistic', or when you say that our beliefs about how someone should dress when worshiping God is judgmental) instead of studying out the teaching to see if there is a reasonable and sincere reason for someone to believe it, even if we personally don't agree with it.

[Avatar4321]

Read the doctrine and covenants, particular sections 20-30 and you will have your answer.

 

If one has no authority to baptize, why would you expect God to recognize the ordinance? If someone randomly stopped your car with no authority and issued you a ticket, would you pay it?

[PtolemyGlenn]

Read the doctrine and covenants, particular sections 20-30 and you will have your answer.

 

If one has no authority to baptize, why would you expect God to recognize the ordinance? If someone randomly stopped your car with no authority and issued you a ticket, would you pay it?

Things are not so black and white.

Jesus gave authority to his disciples to baptise. They in return would have continued to pass that authority dowm as they bqptised. other disciples.

Jesus didnt return to make it even harder to get into Heaven with a series of stingent rules. Its also very arrogant to assume one faith alone has the power of baptism and that no one else has had a true baptism over a certain amount of time.

[PtolemyGlenn]

You just have a different definition of "angel" than Mormonism does.

Most protestant Christians believe angels to be a unique species.  Mormons believe them to be people assigned to a specific role, often as messengers.

 

They would be considered angels if they came as messengers from God.[/quo

They would be spiritual messengers not Heavenly Angels.

Most Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical regard as seperate created being by God.

[PtolemyGlenn]

I'm sorry if you feel belittled by another poster.  We must try to be merciful to the weaknesses of others, since we hope  and desire that others will be merciful when our own weakness come flying out.  Though it is hard.

 

I was not trying to belittle you.  I put the smiley face to help you read the tone of my post (because that is difficult on a message board, and too many misunderstandings happen when people don't get someone's tone).  I apologize if i did not do enough to help you read my words the way they were written.  

 

I only meant to point out that it is very easy to assign nefarious motives to doctrinal teachings we don't agree with (as you did, when you said that our beliefs about baptism were 'legalistic', or when you say that our beliefs about how someone should dress when worshiping God is judgmental) instead of studying out the teaching to see if there is a reasonable and sincere reason for someone to believe it, even if we personally don't agree with it.

I never said the LDS view on dress was judgemental. I said people who I had contact ithin the chuch. And I seem to recall over 60% of respondents on that threat confirmed it was judgemental. Which the actions werecall bcause as a visitor I did not wear a tie.

Not a postice approach or very welcoming.

[bluebell]

Not a postice approach or very welcoming.

 

I completely agree.  It was a jerky thing to do, and in every ward i have ever been in, he would have had a talking to if other ward members had over  heard him.

 

I regret that he was one of your first contacts at church and i hope he eventually learns to be more charitable and to see the bigger (and much more important) picture.

[thesometimesaint]

Things are not so black and white.

Jesus gave authority to his disciples to baptise. They in return would have continued to pass that authority dowm as they bqptised. other disciples.

Jesus didnt return to make it even harder to get into Heaven with a series of stingent rules. Its also very arrogant to assume one faith alone has the power of baptism and that no one else has had a true baptism over a certain amount of time.

 

Are you Roman Catholic? They are the ones whom claim that the original Apostles in unbroken succession past down the authority to baptize.

 

One faith, one Lord, one baptism is rigth there in the Bible. Then why did the original Apostles rebaptize the followers of John the Baptist?

Acts 19:2-7 ² He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

³ And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

⁴ Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

⁵ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

⁶ And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

⁷ And all the men were about twelve.

[WmLaw]

Read the doctrine and covenants, particular sections 20-30 and you will have your answer.

 

If one has no authority to baptize, why would you expect God to recognize the ordinance? If someone randomly stopped your car with no authority and issued you a ticket, would you pay it?

The question shouldn't be "would you pay it?", the question should be "would the court system process your payment of the ticket and deposit the money in their coffers?". 

[bluebell]

The question shouldn't be "would you pay it?", the question should be "would the court system process your payment of the ticket and deposit the money in their coffers?". 

 

The answer to that question would be no.

[bluebell]

 

Are you Roman Catholic? They are the ones whom claim that the original Apostles in unbroken succession past down the authority to baptize.

 

One faith, one Lord, one baptism is rigth there in the Bible. Then why did the original Apostles rebaptize the followers of John the Baptist?

Acts 19:2-7 ² He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

³ And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

⁴ Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

⁵ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

⁶ And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

⁷ And all the men were about twelve.

 

 

I believe that PtolemyGlenn is Evangelical, but I might be mistaken in that.  

[thesometimesaint]

I believe that PtolemyGlenn is Evangelical, but I might be mistaken in that.  

 

I thought so myself, but I could be wrong.

[WmLaw]

Read the doctrine and covenants, particular sections 20-30 and you will have your answer.

 

If one has no authority to baptize, why would you expect God to recognize the ordinance? If someone randomly stopped your car with no authority and issued you a ticket, would you pay it?

Are saving ordinances invalidated if the person performing it was unworthy?

[thatjimguy]

not sure what you are referring to here, could you clarify please?

 

It comes from one of the church videos. Joseph wanted to get baptizsed and asked a minister to do so. He stated however, that he would not be joining his congreation becuase he felt some of it's doctrines were wrong. The minister, as first, refused to baptizse him. Then, Joseph Smith said somethig to convince him to do so, some sort of guilt trip, but he did baptizse him. I cannnot remember which video it is. It is one of the "start to finish" Book of Mormon / Joseph Smith" videos.

[cinepro]

Are saving ordinances invalidated if the person performing it was unworthy?

 

No.  It might be good to say that unworthily-performed ordinances are invalid in principle, but from a practical standpoint, it would be a logistical nightmare.

[Freedom]

Are saving ordinances invalidated if the person performing it was unworthy?

There are three components to the priesthood: keys, authority, and power. The power of the priesthood is dictated by worthiness. Authority is dictated by the laying on of hands. keys are administrative since some ordinances, such as baptism, require authorization from someone holding keys. We are encouraged to have inactive fathers perform ordinances for their children. Since baptisms are authorized by a priesthood leader who holds keys, they determine whether an individual can perform the ordinance. 

 

If a person performs an ordinance and it was determined that they were guilty of a serious sin, it is up to the discretion of the leader with the appropriate keys to determine if the ordinance must be done over again. I have never seen this happen personally. 

[Freedom]

Things are not so black and white.

Jesus gave authority to his disciples to baptise. They in return would have continued to pass that authority dowm as they bqptised. other disciples.

Jesus didnt return to make it even harder to get into Heaven with a series of stingent rules. Its also very arrogant to assume one faith alone has the power of baptism and that no one else has had a true baptism over a certain amount of time.

So then I can be baptized by a Muslim? What about just going for a swim at the pool? Christ made it very strict. Not only are you not allowed to commit adultery, but you are not even allowed to think about it. He is demanding of your thoughts words and deeds. You have a lot of opinions, but as you have pointed out, the bible is not clear which makes the restoration all the more necessary. 

[TrespassersW]

Jesus gave authority to his disciples to baptise. They in return would have continued to pass that authority dowm as they bqptised. other disciples.

I agree that that would be a possibility. The simple question is... did they? And has their authority (and God's approval with it) remained intact all these years? The LDS answer is: "No. There was a great apostasy in the years following the deaths of the apostles and the authority to act in God's name was lost from the earth." 

 

Whether or not we believe that claim will likely have a lot to do with just how much we are willing to believe that the LDS church is truly the church of Jesus Christ on earth. 

 

Jesus didnt return to make it even harder to get into Heaven with a series of stingent rules. Its also very arrogant to assume one faith alone has the power of baptism and that no one else has had a true baptism over a certain amount of time.

When Simon wanted to buy from the apostles the right to act in God's name, I suppose it could have been arrogance of them to assume that only they held this authority. But I don't think it was. And I don't think they were assuming. They knew that they had the authority to act in God's name because they had been called and ordained to do so. I could understand, I suppose, how some people at the time might have construed it as arrogant, but in the end, we are stuck with what the Lord tells us. And in the case of the LDS church, He has told us in no uncertain terms that one must be called of God and ordained before one can administer in the ordinances of the gospel. You see, LDS believe that there are still prophets alive on the earth who receive instruction from the Lord. And in fact, all of us are expected to develop a personal relationship with Him and find out for ourselves that these things are really true.

 

I agree with you that Jesus didn't come to make things harder. I believe that anyone who strives to live a good life will enjoy a measure of happiness both in this life and in the hereafter. But, baptizing others goes a bit further than that. That isn't just living a good life, that is participating in the work of the Lord. And if you want to do that, then, yeah, you have to follow the rules as he has laid them out.

[cinepro]

Things are not so black and white.

Jesus gave authority to his disciples to baptise. They in return would have continued to pass that authority dowm as they bqptised. other disciples.

Jesus didnt return to make it even harder to get into Heaven with a series of stingent rules. Its also very arrogant to assume one faith alone has the power of baptism and that no one else has had a true baptism over a certain amount of time.

 

Dude, you're arguing against absolutely core tenets of the LDS faith.  It's even in our "Articles of Faith":

 

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

 

There are even other churches that trace their priesthood authority directly back to Joseph Smith (Community of Christ, FLDS etc.), and the LDS Church doesn't even accept their baptisms.

 

You should also understand that LDS believe this way not because we think it's the "nicest" thing, or the least "stringent" or "legalistic".  We believe this because we think that's the way God wants it done (and based on that, it's the "nicest" way from the eternal perspective.)

 

I can't figure out if this is something you don't understand, or if you do understand it and you just don't like it. 

[thatjimguy]

I would say we do have the authority. But our gospel is different. It's just not the same. I know that is not what our PR deptartment would like to have me say, but it's the truth of it. Someone that wants to get baptizsed LDS is accepting a dfferent set of rules and lifestyle than your average everyday Christian. It would make sense that the person get baptizsed by way of the right church authority.

[TrespassersW]

As for the apostles not passing on the keys to new apostles that is pure specualtion that cannot be substantiated. 

Actually, it's not speculation at all. We assert this as true because that is what the Lord has revealed to prophets in modern times. I agree that it cannot be substantiated using any secular means. That information was lost long ago. The only way that could be validated or falsified would be if the Lord were to reveal that information to you. 

 

And that is precisely the invitation the LDS church extends. Listen to the message, and then pray to seek guidance from your Heavenly Father about whether or not it is true.

[Scott Lloyd]

Joseph Smith went to a minister back in the day. We said he wanted to get baptizsed, but not join the church because he felt they were doctrinally wrong or something similar. Reluctantly, the pastor agreed to. Later however, Joseph was baptizsed again once the church started up.

 

 

not sure what you are referring to here, could you clarify please?

Apparently, thatmjguy is confusing Wilford Woodruff with Joseph Smith.

 

There is a Church-produced video that dramatizes events in the life of Wilford Woodruff as he was searching for the true religion with proper doctrine, organization, ordinances and authority. An incident such as that mjguy describes above is depicted in that video.

 

It's fresh in my mind, because I showed the video last night to our family for my family home evening lesson.

[Scott Lloyd]

It comes from one of the church videos. Joseph wanted to get baptizsed and asked a minister to do so. He stated however, that he would not be joining his congreation becuase he felt some of it's doctrines were wrong. The minister, as first, refused to baptizse him. Then, Joseph Smith said somethig to convince him to do so, some sort of guilt trip, but he did baptizse him. I cannnot remember which video it is. It is one of the "start to finish" Book of Mormon / Joseph Smith" videos.

If you check your facts, you'll find the video was about Wilford Woodruff, not Joseph Smith. (See my post above.)

 

As I said, it's fresh in my mind, because I just showed the video to my family last night for family home evening.

 

I'll try to find an online source.

 

Edited to add:

 

I hesitate to post this link, because the guy might have posted it to YouTube without permission, as many people do, but it will refresh your memory on the video you to which you are referring.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thatjimguy]

On another note, can LDS baptize someone that wants ot get baptizsed and not join the church, much like Joseph Smith did? Lets say an antheist changes their mind and wants to get baptizsed, get into the Bible and Christ, but is sure he does not want to be LDS for whatever reason.

 

As much as this would be not a member of the church, they would still be closer to God than they were before. Would we tell them no?

 

EDIT : Please let me know if this should be a new thread.

Edited January 29, 2014 by thatjimguy