Devils Advocate On Water Baptism

[Uncle Dale]

Do you understand what it means by having the holy ghost come to you?

 

According to the Rev. Alexander Campbell, the modern gift of

the Holy Spirit was generally that of a guide and companion,

a comforting presence following baptism -- and an enlightener

of the Christian's mind, especially in comprehending scripture.

While there may indeed be extraordinary results coming from

this gift, the need for a public demonstration of miracles had

passed, along with the initial apostolic age.

 

Elders Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt (former disciples of Campbell

who were among the very first Mormons) and others professed

that the Holy Spirit was CONFERRED after water baptism,

in a confirming "baptism of fire," and that the Spirit remained in

the worthy Mormon, fully of capable of (and prone to) bestowing

all the signs and wonders of apostolic times -- immunity

from poison -- the gift of tongues -- safe handling of snakes --

interpretation of unknown tongues -- healing -- even, in

some cases, raising of the dead, etc.

 

Of course, in the Mormon view of things, this Spirit was only

transferred by Elders having genuine Authority -- so the

continual indwelling of the Spirit of God was reserved for

Latter Day Saints, exclusively. Any manifestations among

the Gentiles would be temporary and probably superficial.

 

THAT is the LDS response to a non-member's questioning

whether he/she knows by experience what it means to be

overcome and overwhelmed by the special manifestation of

the Holy Spirit in their life (not an event that an observer at

the time would generally even be aware of, or suspect).

 

UD

Edited February 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[marktheshark]

Matthew 3:16

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

He came up out of the water. Which means that he had to go down into the water first. He was submerged. The scriptures are clear. Anyone practicing anything other than this for water baptism is in error and disregards the witness of how it is properly done.

[danielwoods]

Or they present the same message from a different perspective.  The Holy Ghost converts people to the gospel.  The Holy Ghost is need to be present before baptism to convict people to the truth.  This is why missionaries tell investigators to pray about the Book of Mormon for example and the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of it to them.  Then when they are baptized, they receive something different.  They receive the gift of the Holy Ghost which can allow access to things of the Holy Ghost that extend far beyond what they had initially had before.  To be a constant companion if one lives right rather a situational, temporary companion to those who have not been baptized.

 

Acts 2:37 :Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

 

Peter tells them the truth, the Holy Ghost pricks them in the heart. and then

 

Acts 2:38:" Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

 

You can view it how you wish, however, when things are plainly contradictory, that's what they are. A doesn't equal non-A.

D&C 39:6 "And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost"

 

Peter states, "he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith." And so they were given the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water.  

 

Now you can claim that it was just to convict them of sin, yet that's not what it states. It says, they were given the Holy Spirit just like he did to us. Baptism of fire. 

[carbon dioxide]

 

You can view it how you wish, however, when things are plainly contradictory, that's what they are. A doesn't equal non-A.

D&C 39:6 "And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost"

 

Peter states, "he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith." And so they were given the Holy Spirit before they were baptized in water.  

 

Now you can claim that it was just to convict them of sin, yet that's not what it states. It says, they were given the Holy Spirit just like he did to us. Baptism of fire. 

Would you agree that Acts 2:38 and D&C 39:6 are not contradictory?  I did not say the Holy Ghost just convicts people of sin before they are baptized.  I said that the Holy Ghost is needed to convict people of the truth.  It helps in the conversion process.  People can receive the Holy Ghost before baptism for specific purposes but the gift of the Holy Ghost is different as the gift is one of a constant companionship if we keep the commandments.  The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost.  A does equal A.  But it is the relationship that one has with the Holy Ghost before and after baptism when one receives confirmation that is different.   Say Joe is a great friend of mine but I can only see Joe occasionally as he lives across town   Now think of a situation where Joe becomes my neighbor and I can associate with him on a regular basis.  Clearly Joe is the same person but my relationship with Joe is different now that he is my neighbor.

Edited February 4, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[danielwoods]

Would you agree that Acts 2:38 and D&C 39:6 are not contradictory? 

 

yes, and that helps how? 

[carbon dioxide]

yes, and that helps how? 

So the gift of the holy Ghost and baptism by fire or the holy Ghost being the same comes after baptism.  So nothing is contradictory.  Having experience with the Holy Ghost before baptism is not the same as the baptism by fire or the gift of the holy Ghost after.  Same Holy Ghost but a different relationship.

[danielwoods]

Would you agree that Acts 2:38 and D&C 39:6 are not contradictory?  I did not say the Holy Ghost just convicts people of sin before they are baptized.  I said that the Holy Ghost is needed to convict people of the truth.  It helps in the conversion process.  People can receive the Holy Ghost before baptism for specific purposes but the gift of the Holy Ghost is different as the gift is one of a constant companionship if we keep the commandments.  The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost.  A does equal A.  But it is the relationship that one has with the Holy Ghost before and after baptism when one receives confirmation that is different.   Say Joe is a great friend of mine but I can only see Joe occasionally as he lives across town   Now think of a situation where Joe becomes my neighbor and I can associate with him on a regular basis.  Clearly Joe is the same person but my relationship with Joe is different now that he is my neighbor.

 

Right. And according to Acts 15 the Holy Ghost is their neighbor (using your analogy) or they had their baptism of fire before their water baptism, and according to D&C 39 that's not supposed to happen. 

 

So, one or the other is correct, both cannot be correct at the same time. 

[Duncan]

 

Not an extension, but a contradiction. 

 

Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

 

According to the Bible, the gospel was heard, and their hearts were purified and were baptized after the Holy Spirit came on them. 

D&C 39:6 And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

 

According to this, the gospel includes baptism, and then the Holy Spirit comes after that. 

 

The second doesn't expand on the first. It contradicts it. Teaching something different in it's place. 

 

The conclusion. The Bible isn't limited. Rather it has it's own unique message. The D&C has a different message. 

 

 

how do you reason the second verse contradicts the first and why do you assume the DC has to be wrong and not those verses in the Bible? I think you are reading more into than what they both say, I don't see a problem with both. Just remember the Bible is not religion but about people who had religion, both are to hear the gospel,as faith cometh by hearing the gospel as per Romans, you have faith unto repentance, you get baptized and you get the Holy Ghost by the laying on of Hands and you endure to the end in faith, although I suppose some get baptized without repentance and some hear the true gospel and do nothing with it

 

if you say the DC has a different message what do you think God is teaching us and you can't say "the Bible" it's just some verses in the Bible, as if the Bible is one coherent message which it isn't

[Storm Rider]

I have never felt that the scriptures, any of them, were written in a technical manner.  There is a message to share; the focus is Christ crucified and resurrected.  There are specific verses that are technical.  The purpose of having an organization built on prophets and apostles is to clarify what is technical, what and how we as followers go about realizing the ordinances given to us to follow Christ.  

 

It is clear to me that the scriptures recognized by the Church of Jesus Christ are mutually supportive and follow one another in teaching one gospel.  

[Stargazer]

Right. And according to Acts 15 the Holy Ghost is their neighbor (using your analogy) or they had their baptism of fire before their water baptism, and according to D&C 39 that's not supposed to happen. 

 

So, one or the other is correct, both cannot be correct at the same time.

Wrong. The Holy Ghost works with people to bring them to the point of belief where they might be ready for water baptism followed by the baptism of fire (or of the Holy Ghost). The Gift of the Holy Ghost is distinct from the influence or inspiration of the Holy Ghost as part of the conversion process, regardless of whether in the English translation it says they had the "gift" of the Holy Ghost beforehand. The gentiles in Peter's case had been brought to the point of conversion, and when they were baptized they were surely "confirmed", or given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Even though this was not recorded in Acts. Now, if a doctrinal point was intended that the normal course was to be inverted, surely it would have been noted? The formal "Gift of the Holy Ghost" as connected with baptism is always written of as occurring subsequent to the water baptism.

When it came to the Apostles's notice that the Gospel had been introduced and accepted in Samaria by the ministration of Phillip, they sent Peter to confer upon them the Holy Ghost. Which is where it came up that the one gent tried to pay Peter for the authority to confer the Holy Ghost. But surely the Holy Ghost had been working with them already to prepare them for conversion? And then there was the case of the man who said he had been baptized unto John's baptism, but when asked if he had received the Holy Ghost since then, said he hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost. So they re-baptized him and gave him the Holy Ghost.

And when it comes to Jesus's baptism itself, surely Jesus had had the guidance of the Holy Ghost throughout his life to that point, and yet when did he receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost? AFTER his water baptism -- that's when the Holy Ghost came upon him in the form of a dove. And NOT before.

And here we have John the Baptist preaching to those he was baptizing that One would come AFTER him who would baptize them with Fire. Those who were converted to John's baptism were certainly being guided by the Holy Ghost, but they did not yet have the GIFT of the Holy Ghost.

The New Testament is full of examples to counter your claim. When Joseph Smith received the First Vision, it was only possible for him to be preserved in the presence of God the Father through the power of the Holy Ghost -- yet he had not yet been baptized. And he had not yet received the Gift of the Holy Ghost -- the baptism of fire.

[danielwoods]

how do you reason the second verse contradicts the first and why do you assume the DC has to be wrong and not those verses in the Bible? I think you are reading more into than what they both say, I don't see a problem with both. Just remember the Bible is not religion but about people who had religion, both are to hear the gospel,as faith cometh by hearing the gospel as per Romans, you have faith unto repentance, you get baptized and you get the Holy Ghost by the laying on of Hands and you endure to the end in faith, although I suppose some get baptized without repentance and some hear the true gospel and do nothing with it

 

if you say the DC has a different message what do you think God is teaching us and you can't say "the Bible" it's just some verses in the Bible, as if the Bible is one coherent message which it isn't

 

If the bible contradicts the DC, which do you choose to believe? I choose the Bible. 

 

If you don't see a problem with both, then there must not be an issue. 

[danielwoods]

Wrong. The Holy Ghost works with people to bring them to the point of belief where they might be ready for water baptism followed by the baptism of fire (or of the Holy Ghost). The Gift of the Holy Ghost is distinct from the influence or inspiration of the Holy Ghost as part of the conversion process, regardless of whether in the English translation it says they had the "gift" of the Holy Ghost beforehand. The gentiles in Peter's case had been brought to the point of conversion, and when they were baptized they were surely "confirmed", or given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Even though this was not recorded in Acts. Now, if a doctrinal point was intended that the normal course was to be inverted, surely it would have been noted? The formal "Gift of the Holy Ghost" as connected with baptism is always written of as occurring subsequent to the water baptism.

When it came to the Apostles's notice that the Gospel had been introduced and accepted in Samaria by the ministration of Phillip, they sent Peter to confer upon them the Holy Ghost. Which is where it came up that the one gent tried to pay Peter for the authority to confer the Holy Ghost. But surely the Holy Ghost had been working with them already to prepare them for conversion? And then there was the case of the man who said he had been baptized unto John's baptism, but when asked if he had received the Holy Ghost since then, said he hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost. So they re-baptized him and gave him the Holy Ghost.

And when it comes to Jesus's baptism itself, surely Jesus had had the guidance of the Holy Ghost throughout his life to that point, and yet when did he receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost? AFTER his water baptism -- that's when the Holy Ghost came upon him in the form of a dove. And NOT before.

And here we have John the Baptist preaching to those he was baptizing that One would come AFTER him who would baptize them with Fire. Those who were converted to John's baptism were certainly being guided by the Holy Ghost, but they did not yet have the GIFT of the Holy Ghost.

The New Testament is full of examples to counter your claim. When Joseph Smith received the First Vision, it was only possible for him to be preserved in the presence of God the Father through the power of the Holy Ghost -- yet he had not yet been baptized. And he had not yet received the Gift of the Holy Ghost -- the baptism of fire.

 

"The formal "Gift of the Holy Ghost" as connected with baptism is always written of as occurring subsequent to the water baptism."

 

Except when it isn't, like in Acts 15. 

 

"Now, if a doctrinal point was intended that the normal course was to be inverted, surely it would have been noted?"

 

Or the doctrinal point was that God accepted them just as he did the Jewish believers, and that the Gift of the Holy Ghost could be given when ever God felt like giving it. Before,during, or after. God is God after all. 

[Uncle Dale]

"...

God is God after all.

Then again, I was taught that the God of Israel has delegated

His authority and divine voice to the President of the High

Priesthood in these latter days, and that what the Living Prophet

says is true, is undeniably true.

If he says a man who is not baptized (and does not accept the

Nephite Record) is damned, then that is the truth.

If he says some special dispensation has been granted to

bypass standard operating procedure, then that is the truth.

Or, so it was explained to my ancestors, when my great

great grandpa, Samuel Broadhurst, was admitted into the

LDS Church, without baptism, by special dispensation

from President John Taylor (see Sam Taylor's partial

biography, "The Kingdom or Nothing").

G-G Grandfather was on his deathbed, and literally

had only moments left to live when Taylor's decision

was announced.

UD

ps -- Great Grandfather's Josephite friends speculated

that he would have been better off, had Taylor demanded

the then impossible requirement of baptism and confirmation.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Uncle Dale