Avatar4321 Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Moderators, I have no desire to reopen the old thread. So if this starts heading in that direction feel free to close this thread.The issues the last few days have puzzled me a bit on this point. If we don't have authority to baptize, what does it matter who or if we do baptize anyone?And if we do have authority to baptize, which I know we do, they arent we obligated to subject ourselves to the condition of baptism to receive it?If we have priesthood and keys, then we need to follow them. If not, it doesn't matter what we do. 3
mfbukowski Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 I have no clue what you are talking about. Each thread needs to stand on its own. Not all of us read every word on every thread, thank God. 2
JAHS Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 In the eyes on non-LDS we don't have authority so they don't recognize any baptism or rite we perform in the name of Jesus. But we do have authority given to us directly from God, and if so then we must conform to the requirements and conditions of the ordinances that are performed on our behalf, otherwise God will not recognize them. If we are not able to do that then we should not submit ourselves for the ordinance; similar to what happens in the temple where patrons are given the chance to excuse themselves if they do not agree to the covenants they will make there.
Tsuzuki Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 You guys used to have it. Those were good times.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 A good many people probably see the LDS Church as a voluntary association or club which should be subject to moderate social pressure to conform to currently accepted behavioral norms -- such as would be accepted in any association or club in America (or any other country in which organized and functioning). Since those accepted behavioral norms change through time, the LDS Church is expected to progressively adjust to those changing norms. If not, then public criticism and calumny can be brought to bear -- as has been done against various groups historically: One thinks of the pogroms and other forms of persecution of the Jews through time, primarily due to their "otherness," or lack of conformity to the social norms of whatever society they found themselves a part of. Their dedication to their ethnicity and different religious belief & practice posed a severe problem for them, and some of them accommodated themselves to the prevailing social norms, adopting gentile dress and manners, and even converting to the prevailing religious practices, assimilating to the surrounding cultures, and finally disappearing as separate and distinct people. We Mormons can do that, and receive the praise of the world. It is a clearcut option, and some will go that route. It is a real choice. 4
JLHPROF Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 A good many people probably see the LDS Church as a voluntary association or club which should be subject to moderate social pressure to conform to currently accepted behavioral norms -- such as would be accepted in any association or club in America (or any other country in which organized and functioning). Since those accepted behavioral norms change through time, the LDS Church is expected to progressively adjust to those changing norms. If not, then public criticism and calumny can be brought to bear -- as has been done against various groups historically. This exactly. So true. (I think there are even members who take this approach).The Church is not a social club and has no obligation to reflect any trend or desire of society.
The Nehor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 You guys used to have it. Those were good times.God says I am not yet ready for the power to strike someone down or shoot lightning out of my hands or conjure fire at will.Someday..............
Robert F. Smith Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 And even within Hinduism and Buddhism, it is not occult powers (siddhi) which are sought, but enlightenment. So students are constantly told by the masters not to get waylaid by occult powers because they can prevent moving on to the next stage of advancement. Don't get waylaid by the Darkside . . . 1
The Nehor Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 And even within Hinduism and Buddhism, it is not occult powers (siddhi) which are sought, but enlightenment. So students are constantly told by the masters not to get waylaid by occult powers because they can prevent moving on to the next stage of advancement. Don't get waylaid by the Darkside . . ."I want it all or nothing at all! There's nowhere left to fall."
BCSpace Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Moderators, I have no desire to reopen the old thread. So if this starts heading in that direction feel free to close this thread.The issues the last few days have puzzled me a bit on this point. If we don't have authority to baptize, what does it matter who or if we do baptize anyone?And if we do have authority to baptize, which I know we do, they arent we obligated to subject ourselves to the condition of baptism to receive it?If we have priesthood and keys, then we need to follow them. If not, it doesn't matter what we do. The corollary: And what does it matter if we baptize on behalf of the dead?
Tony Frank Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Moderators, I have no desire to reopen the old thread. So if this starts heading in that direction feel free to close this thread.The issues the last few days have puzzled me a bit on this point. If we don't have authority to baptize, what does it matter who or if we do baptize anyone?And if we do have authority to baptize, which I know we do, they arent we obligated to subject ourselves to the condition of baptism to receive it?If we have priesthood and keys, then we need to follow them. If not, it doesn't matter what we do. Worthy priesthood holders have authority from God to act in His name, but I really have no idea what your question is. When it comes to baptism, we do not have any keys, but the bishop has the keys that have been delegated to him by the prophet. We only have authority to baptize someone if the bishop has interviewed the person and has given the go ahead. This stuff is pretty basic.
Crypto Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 God says I am not yet ready for the power to strike someone down or shoot lightning out of my hands or conjure fire at will.Someday..............I thank the heavens.
Tsuzuki Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 And even within Hinduism and Buddhism, it is not occult powers (siddhi) which are sought, but enlightenment. So students are constantly told by the masters not to get waylaid by occult powers because they can prevent moving on to the next stage of advancement. Don't get waylaid by the Darkside . . .Even in occultism, it's not occult powers that are sought, and according to Aleister Crowley, all magick should be used in service to finding and doing one's True Will.
Meadowchik Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Worthy priesthood holders have authority from God to act in His name, but I really have no idea what your question is. When it comes to baptism, we do not have any keys, but the bishop has the keys that have been delegated to him by the prophet. We only have authority to baptize someone if the bishop has interviewed the person and has given the go ahead. This stuff is pretty basic. I understand the implied question to be, considering that an ordinance has power from God contingent on God's terms, why want an ordinance on terms other than God's? In such, there is no power. 2
Avatar4321 Posted November 12, 2015 Author Posted November 12, 2015 Let me be more explicit:If we have authority from God to baptize, then we should submit to that authority to be baptized on the Lords term. It doesn't matter when we want to be baptized we need to wait until we've been authorized to be baptized.If we don't have any authority, then who cares what restrictions those with the keys place on it? Without the authority baptism is absolutely irrelevant
hagoth7 Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 ...in service to finding and doing one's True Will.And what is your true will? 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Let me be more explicit:If we have authority from God to baptize, then we should submit to that authority to be baptized on the Lords term. It doesn't matter when we want to be baptized we need to wait until we've been authorized to be baptized.If we don't have any authority, then who cares what restrictions those with the keys place on it? Without the authority baptism is absolutely irrelevantI think the big disconnect is how one distinguishes between the Lord and the Church. For some the policy being written at all means that it is the Lord's terms. Others don't view revelation to the Lord's anointed happening in quite such a clear fashion - so just because the church issues a policy doesn't necessarily mean it's the Lord's policy. Edited November 12, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
Tony Frank Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) I think the big disconnect is how one distinguishes between the Lord and the Church. For some the policy being written at all means that it is the Lord's terms. Others don't view revelation to the Lord's anointed happening in quite such a clear fashion - so just because the church issues a policy doesn't necessarily mean it's the Lord's policy. Some who lack understanding would do well to grasp the fact that Jesus Christ leads and directs His Church through His prophet on the earth. I, myself, will always abide by policies that come down through His servants on the earth. I am not about to risk my eternal salvation based on my own thinking and the idea that something might not have come from the Lord. As for anyone who thinks they can frown on a policy and proclaim that it did not come from the Lord, I would ask: "What if you are wrong?" How grotesque an error to say, "Christ and I know that the policy is wrong, but Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth does not know the policy is wrong." Edited November 13, 2015 by Tony Frank
Robert F. Smith Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I am unsure whether this is the real thing, or a placebo. Maybe volgadon was right to term it "Mormongelical." In any case, it gives new meaning to grotesquerie. 3
Tsuzuki Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 And what is your true will?That's something that can take a lifetime to discover. It's also personal.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 ....I am not about to risk my eternal salvation based on my own thinking and the idea that something might not have come from the Lord. As for anyone who thinks they can frown on a policy and proclaim that it did not come from the Lord, I would ask: "What if you are wrong?" I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like the God you believe in will punish those that do their best to seek and find truth, but reward those who violate their own conscience and best understanding of God's will in order to follow another? Could you clarify? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like the God you believe in will punish those that do their best to seek and find truth, but reward those who violate their own conscience and best understanding of God's will in order to follow another? Could you clarify?The only thing Tony needs to clarify is his infallibility quotient.
Tony Frank Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) The only thing Tony needs to clarify is his infallibility quotient. You obviously think there is no question of "fallibility." You believe it to be an absolute given, which would mean every prophet from Nephi to Moroni could have made a mistake in the Book of Mormon. It seems that you believe Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth can err when revealing God's will to the Church and that God will reveal the error to you. Is that the case? The way I see it, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe the prophet will err, or Satan wants you to believe the prophet will err. And by the same token, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you, or Satan wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you. Edited November 13, 2015 by Tony Frank
Teancum Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Moderators, I have no desire to reopen the old thread. So if this starts heading in that direction feel free to close this thread.The issues the last few days have puzzled me a bit on this point. If we don't have authority to baptize, what does it matter who or if we do baptize anyone?And if we do have authority to baptize, which I know we do, they arent we obligated to subject ourselves to the condition of baptism to receive it?If we have priesthood and keys, then we need to follow them. If not, it doesn't matter what we do. No religion on the planet has exclusive authority to God.
Recommended Posts