thatjimguy Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 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 YouTube without permission, as many people do, but it will refresh your memory on the video you to which you are referring. Yeah, alright, it was him then. Does that sound more familiar then Calimorah?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Thanks for that. The link finally openedI actually jumped on mormon.org. and got chatting to a missionary which I am chatting to. But instead of badgering him I also like doing my own reading.I actually jumped on this firum for further comms with people. Especially after I copped attitude from a female missionary when I returned to mormon.org with a question.In defense of the Sisters and Elders, they are there to teach and not to discuss every negative question about the Church...this would be better place for this kind of thing.
Flyonthewall Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 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.It seems like most protestant faiths are not concerned with authority so much, but more concerned with intent. Now I could be way off base about this but this is what I gather from conversations I have participated in or have heard. If this is true, then it would be very chaotic, with very little organization, or order if you will, at least from my POV.
Calm Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 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.Thanks...
Calm Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Yeah, alright, it was him then. Does that sound more familiar then Calimorah?I hadn't been aware of it for JS which was surprising to me...something that significant. Not too familiar with other prophets though...Thanks to both of you.. Edited January 29, 2014 by calmoriah
thatjimguy Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Thanks... No problem. I was correctd earlier by Scott LLoyd, it was the Woodword Woodruff video "Seeking for Truth" Now you can look it up.
TrespassersW Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 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?I'm not sure that I would agree that the person would be "closer to God than they were before". Baptism is a covenant. Entering into a covenant with no intention of keeping your end of the bargain is not an effective way of coming closer to God. My guess would be that most bishops and/or mission presidents would probably not be inclined to allow someone to be baptized if they made it clear that they had no intention of participating in the church afterward. Though I would hope that they would follow the Spirit in such things and allow the Lord to determine what is best for the person. 1
TrespassersW Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 It seems like most protestant faiths are not concerned with authority so much, but more concerned with intent. Now I could be way off base about this but this is what I gather from conversations I have participated in or have heard.If this is true, then it would be very chaotic, with very little organization, or order if you will, at least from my POV.Since I'm not a protestant, take this with a grain of salt... I'm not sure I'd say that they "are not concerned with authority" so much as they believe in the "Priesthood of all believers". That is, (as I understand it) that one has the authority if they have been called to the work. And this calling is a personal prompting that will be known to the individual internally. Chaotic? I suppose it can be. But I think they (at least some of them) just see this as the Lord working with different people in different ways. Different manifestations, same Spirit--sort of thing. Besides, I know some who view the LDS concept of personal revelation as inviting chaos. And I can see where they're coming from, though my experience has been just the opposite. 1
Calm Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 "Those who are baptized enter into a covenant with God to take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end (see Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37). Church members renew this covenant each time they partake of the sacrament (see D&C 20:77, 79).Those who keep the covenants they made at baptism are blessed by the Lord for their faithfulness. Some of the blessings include the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, the remission of sins, and the privilege of being spiritually reborn. If they continue faithfully, they are promised eternal life (see 2 Nephi 31:19–20)."From the Gospel Topic "Baptism"Part of the commandments are supporting others of our faith community which we cannot do if we do not meet with them. I highly doubt that a leader would allow someone to be baptised knowing they weren't intending to live some of the commandments.And intentionally not fulfilling a covenant will distance you from God, even if one is living part of it. That is what we need the renewal of our covenants through the Sacrament.
thatjimguy Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure that I would agree that the person would be "closer to God than they were before". Baptism is a covenant. Entering into a covenant with no intention of keeping your end of the bargain is not an effective way of coming closer to God. My guess would be that most bishops and/or mission presidents would probably not be inclined to allow someone to be baptized if they made it clear that they had no intention of participating in the church afterward. Though I would hope that they would follow the Spirit in such things and allow the Lord to determine what is best for the person. Ah, I guess I should have stated was the idea of the person to be baptizsed would be an active Christian, just active in another church. Like I said, still Christian, just not LDS. They possess a lot of truth by themselves don't they? Isn't that better than nothing? Edited January 29, 2014 by thatjimguy
Flyonthewall Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Since I'm not a protestant, take this with a grain of salt... I'm not sure I'd say that they "are not concerned with authority" so much as they believe in the "Priesthood of all believers". That is, (as I understand it) that one has the authority if they have been called to the work. And this calling is a personal prompting that will be known to the individual internally.This would fall into what I term "intent". As long as they believe they have been called, intent to do good, then they have the authority to do it. Chaotic? I suppose it can be. But I think they (at least some of them) just see this as the Lord working with different people in different ways. Different manifestations, same Spirit--sort of thing. Besides, I know some who view the LDS concept of personal revelation as inviting chaos. And I can see where they're coming from, though my experience has been just the opposite.Chaotic in that anyone can claim authority just by believing they have been called to the work... and no need to be in harmony with anyone else. The difference with LDS personal revelation is that it does not convey authority....authority still has to be passed thru proper lines.
EllenMaksoud Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 If someone has already been baptised within theur own church and than they switch to a LDS church are they required to do baptism again?I've been Baptised 4 or 5 times, lost track. One of them was into the Reorganized LDS church. Another was into a Community Church. I thought that when I was Baptised in the river Jordan, in Israel, that would be the most important. The last time was in the LDS church and that has proven to be the most effective. I can elaborate if you wish. The point is that re-baptism is common.
TrespassersW Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Ah, I guess I should have stated was the idea of the person to be baptizsed would be an active Christian, just active in another church. Like I said, still Christian, just not LDS. They possess a lot of truth by themselves don't they? Isn't that better than nothing?Yeah, that's what I assumed you meant. I guess I just didn't adequately explain that an LDS person keeps their baptismal covenant, in part, by being an active participant in the LDS church. I don't think it's ever wise to enter into a covenant that you don't intend to keep. Actively participating in some other religion, even one that is very good and has much truth, is certainly better than nothing, but doesn't really constitute keeping the LDS baptismal covenant.
TrespassersW Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Chaotic in that anyone can claim authority just by believing they have been called to the work... and no need to be in harmony with anyone else.The difference with LDS personal revelation is that it does not convey authority....authority still has to be passed thru proper lines.I'm with you. What I was trying to say was that I think in their eyes the differences that result aren't all that significant because everyone just goes with the brand of beliefs that best suit them. And it's all good. (OK. I'm not representing that very well. I don't mean to make it sound as capricious as I probably did.) I agree with you about authority. I think that is a very significant difference. And me, I'm a "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" kind of guy myself.
danielwoods Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 This would fall into what I term "intent". As long as they believe they have been called, intent to do good, then they have the authority to do it. Chaotic in that anyone can claim authority just by believing they have been called to the work... and no need to be in harmony with anyone else.The difference with LDS personal revelation is that it does not convey authority....authority still has to be passed thru proper lines. The difference is that one trusts that the (LDS church's) authority ultimately came from Christ, and the other trusts Christ alone.
Recommended Posts