Baptism and the Atonement

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

If "forgiveness" = "remission" and if remission comes only through baptism, then forgiveness of sin comes only through baptism, and therefore non-members cannot be forgiven of sin through the atonement

THAT to me sounds very harsh and unreasonable.  Possibly God is really like that, but I find it hard to believe.  God can forgive whom he forgives and this belief could theoretically limit God's ability to forgive to, say, the whim of a bishop who does not want to baptize someone for whatever reason, or limits the ability for someone in Tibet who has not heard the gospel to live their lives in guilt truly knowing by personal revelation through the spirit that their sins are NOT forgiven.   These examples are concocted obviously to illustrate the principle.  I find it difficult to imagine that God limits himself to the dictates of the church- it should be the other way around.

 

If one looks at the baptism problem from mainstream Christianity, you have a point, but at some point in time, according to LdS theology, everyone will have the opportunity for the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" whether in this life or the life to come. That is why the commandment is not harsh or unjust. I am reminded of the parable about "a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard." (Matthew Chapter 20)

The man hired laborers all during the day, as he could find them, and promised them all the same wage, a penny, as it were. Those hired at the eleventh hour received the same wage as those hired in first hour.

No one will lose anything if they are unable to be baptized at eight years old, or fifty, or nigh unto death. I do know who will fit into any of those categories. People who never heard the gospel during their lifetimes almost certainly will be in that group. But God is the one making that call.

The main point, baptism is a requirement for a remission of sins according to LDS theology.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi John,

Mark used to be Catholic and while he never understood much,  he is aware that Catholics believe that one can be forgiven without formally joining the Catholic Church or even receiving valid baptism. Only God would know what souls were saved/sanctified by "baptism of desire," since it means that through no fault of the person, there was not adequate opportunity for water baptism. Only God could know the interior soul to that extent. Therefore, we still urgently need the missions. I was thinking that this way of looking at it might be compatible with an LDS understanding in this life, for temporary forgiveness. But it would not seem to me that "baptism of desire" could work in the LDS post-mortal life. In LDS thought, it seems to me like the one who refuses post-mortal baptism, would be a candidate for some of the less desirable positions/places in the LDS eschatology, reserved for those who actually refuse to be forgiven.

Rory

Remember for LDS it will be perfectly clear that we are the "true church" so to refuse baptism would kind of be like spiritual suicide.  Since we are (we believe) the true church of Christ, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" means that everyone who sees that will be baptized, in effect

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Therefore, if I am not permitted to be baptized I cannot be cleansed/forgiven of my sins....

 

I won't argue the point- this speaks for itself

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

If one looks at the baptism problem from mainstream Christianity, you have a point, but at some point in time, according to LdS theology, everyone will have the opportunity for the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" whether in this life or the life to come. That is why the commandment is not harsh or unjust. I am reminded of the parable about "a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard." (Matthew Chapter 20)

The man hired laborers all during the day, as he could find them, and promised them all the same wage, a penny, as it were. Those hired at the eleventh hour received the same wage as those hired in first hour.

No one will lose anything if they are unable to be baptized at eight years old, or fifty, or nigh unto death. I do know who will fit into any of those categories. People who never heard the gospel during their lifetimes almost certainly will be in that group. But God is the one making that call.

The main point, baptism is a requirement for a remission of sins according to LDS theology.

Glenn

We agree- kind of

That portion that you quoted from me, was a summary of the position I was arguing against.  Sorry if that was not clear

The idea that all will be baptized kind of makes the whole point irrelevant anyway as your argument shows

If everyone will be baptized in the long run then I have no problem with the idea that one must be baptized to be forgiven- the bottom line is that all will be forgiven and essentially baptism becomes irrelevant because everyone will receive it.  It's kind of like saying you have to be alive to be forgiven

The point was whether or not nonmembers will be forgiven.  Your answer I think is "yes" to that, as was mine

One is not harmed by not being baptized on this side of the veil on that view and that is all that is required to fit with my point

Edited August 12, 2016 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Remember for LDS it will be perfectly clear that we are the "true church" so to refuse baptism would kind of be like spiritual suicide.  Since we are (we believe) the true church of Christ, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ" means that everyone who sees that will be baptized, in effect

Yes. That is how I perceived things. So to refuse baptism is pretty serious stuff, to commit "spiritual suicide", would seem to risk the possibility of being unforgiven? (You note that I allowed for "growth" apart from valid water baptism in this life.) I am also thinking that the context of your comments about forgiveness without baptism was only intended for this life?

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Yes. That is how I perceived things. So to refuse baptism is pretty serious stuff, to commit "spiritual suicide", would seem to risk the possibility of being unforgiven? (You note that I allowed for "growth" apart from valid water baptism in this life.) I am also thinking that the context of your comments about forgiveness without baptism was only intended for this life?

The assertion was that children would be damaged by not being allowed to be baptized at the age of 8, and I was opposing that view and called it "false" for all the reasons which have been listed here.

Remember I was speaking of "spiritual suicide" for those refusing baptism on the other side when the choice is perfectly clear- when essentially standing in full knowledge of the right course and refusing it.  That is not the case on earth obviously

Edited August 12, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

The question seems to me to obviously be "YES" without question, and I am sticking to that.  THAT is my belief and interpretation of doctrine and I am not likely to change it unless the spirit testifies otherwise to me

It seems to me that the atonement is a requirement for the ordinance to even exist, that Christ said to the thief that he would be in paradise, obviously without baptism, and we have other instances of Christ forgiving sins without baptism.

Jesus made it quite clear that baptism was a requirement for salvation via the Atonement.  What he told Nicodemus didn't admit of exception.  Although we are aware that little children don't require baptism because the Atonement covers them.  Christ forgave sins of those who had repented, sure, but of course the next day or the next week they went out and sinned again.  Did they suddenly have a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card?  Clearly not..  Christ can do what He wants, but it is through our baptism that we take His name upon us and become able to receive forgiveness through the weekly act of partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  If baptism were not required for forgiveness of sins, then why bother to perform proxy baptisms for those who passed away without having received the ordinance?  It is a strange interpretation of doctrine you have there, pardner.

I would propose that being told your sins are forgiven before you have been baptized is told in anticipation that you will be baptized.

Joseph Smith taught, “Baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come to Him to be saved, and enter into the kingdom of God, except faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins … ; then you have the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (History of the Church,4:555.) (emphasis added)  

Baptism is for the remission of sins.  If it were possible to have one's sins remitted without baptism, then why be baptized?  On the street many years ago I was once handed a little pamphlet by some street preacher, and I actually read it.  It instructed me to say with my mouth "I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior!"  And then what?  Nothing!  I was IN!  The pamphlet suggested that I might want to be baptized, but clearly treated it as totally optional.  This directly contradicts all of scripture.

Consider this: in the Book of Enos in the Book of Mormon, Enos prayed for his sins to be forgiven for many hours, and then we read:

“And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee. … Wherefore, my guilt was swept away. And I said: Lord, how is it done? And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ” (Enos 1:4–8)."

Had the Atonement had occurred at that time?  No!  But it was the act of the Atonement that gave Christ the power and authority to forgive sins.  Yet here He is forgiving them before he had earned the right!  The key of course is that it was an Infinite Atonement, and its effects permeated all of time, from beginning to end.  Because Christ would suffer the Atonement, the echoes of that sacrifice extended in both directions of time.  

This still doesn't give a Freebie Pass to someone who was told his sins were forgiven him.  Baptism is still required.  Now or later, it's absolutely necessary.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let me re-state the problem a bit more clearly then using the logic of language and grammar, and then show that again the problem is the ambiguity of language, as usual.

I too think “forgiveness” like “salvation” is a matter of degree, where the linguistic logic (sometimes “salvation” equals “resurrection” and sometimes it equals “exaltation”) has to be found in the context(s). So we need a lot of patience and faith and spiritual assistance to know what is meant for any particular circumstance, since we are fortunately made to communicate with more than words.

(I’m not sure if “equals” = “means,” either!)

But your experience reminds me of John 8:11, where Jesus only says that He does not condemn the woman. Condemnation would be held off until Judgement Day (verses 21, 24), but hopefully she would repent, and this is the intent of His reprieve, to invite and encourage her to succeed in her mortal probation. He did not actually forgive her (yet, anyway), but gave her a reprieve for punishment, which we all enjoy (Alma 34:33). He instructed her to “sin no more” (and hopefully repent continue in the faith unto baptism so she could be forgiven). In the same manner, the people He healed, raised and exorcised were only given a reprieve from sickness, death and possession, a “fullness” to occur in the resurrection and judgement, after they continued in the faith, ordinances and covenants.

Now did she feel or presume she was forgiven by interpreting “not condemn” to mean or equal “forgive”? She may have, with limited light, and that may have served the Lord’s purposes (and hers) for the time being, which is the important thing, but she probably changed her perspective after she was baptized and received the Holy Ghost. Then she felt what she would consider really forgiven. Then as you described for yourself, she alternately continues to feel forgiven and then not as she progresses on to perfection. I think we can all relate to discerning the difference between feeling a reprieve, forgiveness and remission.

As always, great thread!

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The assertion was that children would be damaged by not being allowed to be baptized at the age of 8, and I was opposing that view and called it "false" for all the reasons which have been listed here.

Remember I was speaking of "spiritual suicide" for those refusing baptism on the other side when the choice is perfectly clear- when essentially standing in full knowledge of the right course and refusing it.  That is not the case on earth obviously

So, which is it? Was the assertion that non-members can't be forgiven of sin or that children are harmed by not having the blessings of baptism and confirmation? Seems odd to start a thread about the former when you're really talking about the latter. 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Yes. That is how I perceived things. So to refuse baptism is pretty serious stuff, to commit "spiritual suicide", would seem to risk the possibility of being unforgiven? (You note that I allowed for "growth" apart from valid water baptism in this life.) I am also thinking that the context of your comments about forgiveness without baptism was only intended for this life?

Every knee will bow and tongue confess.  No one will reject it.  Bowing the knee and confessing is accepting.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, which is it? Was the assertion that non-members can't be forgiven of sin or that children are harmed by not having the blessings of baptism and confirmation? Seems odd to start a thread about the former when you're really talking about the latter. 

Just butting in before I leave for the weekend...

A non-member can be forgiven to the extent someone can be without baptism. Those who have to wait for baptism for whatever reason enjoy this kind of forgiveness and have hope for a remission.

I say that because wherever the word "remission" appears in scripture (especially Restoration scripture), it is connected with the word "baptism," or if "baptism" isn't expressly mentioned, "remission" is used in connection with people who are identified as having been baptized. None of the scriptures (Bible or Restoration) that use the word "forgiveness" connect it with the requirement of baptism of the forgiven.

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

On a few occasions Jesus told someone that their sins are forgiven, with no mention of them having been baptized. So yes it is possible; or at least it was back then when He said that, and I suppose He could do that now if He were to appear to someone and tell them their sins are forgiven

 

I was going to bring these up, but you beat me to it. Here is one: 

Matthew 9:2

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Quote

. However, God's instructions to us now are that baptism is required, which is what makes temple work so important for our ancestors.

"thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost." (D&C 19: 31)
"Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water," (D&C 33:11)
 "preach repentance and remission of sins by way of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God." (D&C 55:2)
 "And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned." (D&C 112:29)
"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," (D&C 39: 10) 

Not sure how one can argue that baptism is not required for forgiveness of sins, given these and other scriptures.

Well, these don't quite say that baptism is required for sins to be forgiven. I think this is a sticking point for some modern Christians who say baptism is not required at all. Baptism is a covenant. We do not have to covenant for our sins to be forgiven. However, those who do enter into the covenant, I believe are "justified" as Paul calls it. In other words, we are now intending to follow Christ and our unintentional shortcomings, and failures are forgiven in him. I don't believe our intentional sins would be tho. This is how I interpret the matter. So yes, if we get baptized and believe, we will be saved. If we repent and are forgiven, but don't get baptized, and then offend someone, we may not be justified. It is a continual repentance process. The very fact of resisting baptism could be called into question.

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

PLUS the idea of first Faith, then Repentance, THEN Baptism...

Repentance is a pre-requisite for Baptism.

yep, but will you go to the CK without baptism? probably not.

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  Of course.

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;
third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;
fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Of course it's possible to have faith and repent without moving on to Baptism.  Baptism is a sign of repentance, not a requirement for it.
And if repentance is possible without baptism then it stands to reason that forgiveness is too.

What is not possible without baptism is entering into the covenant to follow Christ and become part of his kingdom.  But that doesn't bar you from forgiveness, just progression.

As usual JLHprof, you are well versed on matters of the law and covenants, so I give you an A+.

Edited August 12, 2016 by RevTestament

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Just butting in before I leave for the weekend...

A non-member can be forgiven to the extent someone can be without baptism. Those who have to wait for baptism for whatever reason enjoy this kind of forgiveness and have hope for a remission.

I say that because wherever the word "remission" appears in scripture (especially Restoration scripture), it is connected with the word "baptism," or if "baptism" isn't expressly mentioned, "remission" is used in connection with people who are identified as having been baptized. None of the scriptures (Bible or Restoration) that use the word "forgiveness" connect it with the requirement of baptism of the forgiven.

Have a marvelous weekend!

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not buying that one must be a member of the church to have your sins forgiven. That seems totally wrong. God can forgive whomever he likes, he knows their hearts. Ordinances are not magic spells, they are tokens of obedience, if they are understood at all

 

I totally agree, but I don't think that's what the church teaches.

The "one true church" claim and the teachings of the necessity of ordinances for salvation dispute that claim. What good is forgiveness if the individual is still unable to receive salvation/exaltation? What does forgiveness even mean if it doesn't allow for salvation/exaltation?

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, which is it? Was the assertion that non-members can't be forgiven of sin or that children are harmed by not having the blessings of baptism and confirmation? Seems odd to start a thread about the former when you're really talking about the latter. 

OK John YOU JUST CAN'T LET GO can you?

Here is the original quote from the other thread:

On 8/10/2016 at 1:38 PM, jkwilliams said:

Yup. The cleansing power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial to help guide young people as they grow up and face increasing temptations, unless of course their parents are gay. 

This states that young people of gay members have NO cleansing power of the atonement NOR any companionship of the Holy Ghost to guide them through increasing temptation.

In light of this thread then, John, show us all how this is a true statement.

I am out.

You have derailed it- you rave on from here.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What good is forgiveness if the individual is still unable to receive salvation/exaltation? What does forgiveness even mean if it doesn't allow for salvation/exaltation?

Come on, I know you understand the atonement better than that.

Repentance and acceptance of Christ as Lord is required for salvation from death (aka resurrection).
Baptism is required for salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.
Exaltation requires living (or a willingness to live) every law and ordinance that God follows so that we become like him.

Forgiveness is good for the individual because they will receive salvation from death even without baptism.
They just won't be in God's kingdom.  They will be one of those who bow the knee and confess with the tongue that Jesus is the Christ and escape perdition (hence none are lost because every knee will bow) - those who refuse to accept Christ as Lord.

Forgiveness of the individual removes the sin that would require them to remain in the grave because the wages of sin is death.
All but perdition receive this salvation in some kingdom of glory.  To enter God's kingdom is to covenant to follow Christ's laws as evidenced in baptism.

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally agree, but I don't think that's what the church teaches.

The "one true church" claim and the teachings of the necessity of ordinances for salvation dispute that claim. What good is forgiveness if the individual is still unable to receive salvation/exaltation? What does forgiveness even mean if it doesn't allow for salvation/exaltation?

 

Of course this thread shows otherwise, but go ahead and show how "the one true church" disputes these claims

No one is denying exaltation to anyone but I won't waste my time on this drivel.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OK John YOU JUST CAN'T LET GO can you?

Here is the original quote from the other thread:

This states that young people of gay members have NO cleansing power of the atonement NOR any companionship of the Holy Ghost to guide them through increasing temptation.

In light of this thread then, John, show us all how this is a true statement.

I am out.

You have derailed it- you rave on from here.

I suppose I do tend not to let it go when someone continues to misrepresent my position. And again, you repeat your misrepresentation here.

I'm not upset, but I can't let that stand lest someone think I hold the position you erroneously attribute to me. I can understand a simple misunderstanding, but not when what was meant has been stated a number of times. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I was going to bring these up, but you beat me to it. Here is one: 

Matthew 9:2

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Well, these don't quite say that baptism is required for sins to be forgiven. I think this is a sticking point for some modern Christians who say baptism is not required at all. Baptism is a covenant. We do not have to covenant for our sins to be forgiven. However, those who do enter into the covenant, I believe are "justified" as Paul calls it. In other words, we are now intending to follow Christ and our unintentional shortcomings, and failures are forgiven in him. I don't believe our intentional sins would be tho. This is how I interpret the matter. So yes, if we get baptized and believe, we will be saved. If we repent and are forgiven, but don't get baptized, and then offend someone, we may not be justified. It is a continual repentance process. The very fact of resisting baptism could be called into question.

yep, but will you go to the CK without baptism? probably not.

As usual JLHprof, you are well versed on matters of the law and covenants, so I give you an A+.

Baptism is clearly a requirement to achieve the CK, nobody is disputing that.

Baptism is the first step in a long progression to the CK, but obviously delaying that has nothing to do with the ability to eventually take that first step.  You climb the ladder a little later, that's all

But the issue is for me is whether or not one can feel the comfort of the atonement, that sense of peace of forgiveness upon repentance before baptism and I know for a fact that one can, because I felt that for the 31 years I was alive before I joined the church and was baptized.  I knew God's forgiveness when I needed it.  I will not nor cannot deny that because God himself has taught me that.  Ask any Catholic if they feel forgiven after confession- ask anyone of any other faith if they have felt forgiven by God.  Ask any Evangelical if they feel forgiven after "accepting Jesus".  Are they all wrong in their testimonies??   Are all those testimonies the lies of Satan?

I am sure not going to assert that!!

The comfort of the spirit of repentance comes through the atonement to everyone.   We can argue about the definition of "remission" til doomsday, but I know the comfort of the atonement is available to all upon repentance.

For me, baptism is the first step to the ordinances of exaltation and is of course necessary to achieve the celestial kingdom

But the celestial kingdom is the olympics - gold silver and bronze.

We have to do an awful lot of running and practice before we get to the olympics- that spirit of the atonement is reward we get for at least going for a walk and starting an exercise program.

No one gets gold silver or bronze right after baptism

Edited August 12, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose I do tend not to let it go when someone continues to misrepresent my position. And again, you repeat your misrepresentation here.

I'm not upset, but I can't let that stand lest someone think I hold the position you erroneously attribute to me. I can understand a simple misunderstanding, but not when what was meant has been stated a number of times. 

Classic

I quote you and that is misrepresentation

Bye John

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Baptism is clearly a requirement to achieve the CK, nobody is disputing that.

Baptism is the first step in a long progression to the CK, but obviously delaying that has nothing to do with the ability to eventually take that first step.  You climb the ladder a little later, that's all

But the issue is for me is whether or not one can feel the comfort of the atonement, that sense of peace of forgiveness upon repentance before baptism and I know for a fact that one can, because I felt that for the 31 years I was alive before I joined the church and was baptized.  I knew God's forgiveness when I needed it.  I will not nor cannot deny that because God himself has taught me that.  Ask any Catholic if they feel forgiven after confession- ask anyone of any other faith if they have felt forgiven by God.  Ask any Evangelical if they feel forgiven after "accepting Jesus".  Are they all wrong in their testimonies??   Are all those testimonies the lies of Satan?

I am sure not going to assert that!!

The comfort of the spirit of repentance comes through the atonement to everyone.   We can argue about the definition of "remission" til doomsday, but I know the comfort of the atonement is available to all upon repentance.

Can someone feel the comfort of the Atonement before baptism? Can someone be forgiven for their sins without being baptized? Of course! Why pick a fight over something that we already agreed to in the other thread? 

As you say, the current policy delays when kids can "climb the ladder." If you don't believe that this harms anyone in the long or short term, that's fine (I would disagree for the reasons I said), but the premise for this thread (which, again, you directly attributed to me) is something entirely different: the nonsensical idea that non-members " have NO cleansing power of the atonement NOR any companionship of the Holy Ghost to guide them through increasing temptation".

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Can someone feel the comfort of the Atonement before baptism? Can someone be forgiven for their sins without being baptized? Of course! Why pick a fight over something that we already agreed to in the other thread? 

As you say, the current policy delays when kids can "climb the ladder." If you don't believe that this harms anyone in the long or short term, that's fine (I would disagree for the reasons I said), but the premise for this thread (which, again, you directly attributed to me) is something entirely different: the nonsensical idea that non-members " have NO cleansing power of the atonement NOR any companionship of the Holy Ghost to guide them through increasing temptation".

How do these words NOT mean that?

Quote

Yup. The cleansing power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial to help guide young people as they grow up and face increasing temptations, unless of course their parents are gay. 

What did you really mean then??

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How do these words NOT mean that?

What did you really mean then??

Do you really want me to explain it again after you waved it off as "nuanced stuff" last time? According to church doctrine, there are blessings in the here and now that only apply to those who are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If you think delaying those blessings has no effect in the long- or short term for kids, that's fine, but I disagree. But I never said non-members can't be forgiven of sins or be guided by the Holy Ghost. And yet you keep saying I did. Not sure why.

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by jkwilliams

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Baptism is clearly a requirement to achieve the CK, nobody is disputing that.

Baptism is the first step in a long progression to the CK, but obviously delaying that has nothing to do with the ability to eventually take that first step.  You climb the ladder a little later, that's all

But the issue is for me is whether or not one can feel the comfort of the atonement, that sense of peace of forgiveness upon repentance before baptism and I know for a fact that one can, because I felt that for the 31 years I was alive before I joined the church and was baptized.  I knew God's forgiveness when I needed it.  I will not nor cannot deny that because God himself has taught me that.  Ask any Catholic if they feel forgiven after confession- ask anyone of any other faith if they have felt forgiven by God.  Ask any Evangelical if they feel forgiven after "accepting Jesus".  Are they all wrong in their testimonies??   Are all those testimonies the lies of Satan?

I am sure not going to assert that!!

The comfort of the spirit of repentance comes through the atonement to everyone.   We can argue about the definition of "remission" til doomsday, but I know the comfort of the atonement is available to all upon repentance.

For me, baptism is the first step to the ordinances of exaltation and is of course necessary to achieve the celestial kingdom

But the celestial kingdom is the olympics - gold silver and bronze.

We have to do an awful lot of running and practice before we get to the olympics- that spirit of the atonement is reward we get for at least going for a walk and starting an exercise program.

No one gets gold silver or bronze right after baptism

Doctrine and Covenants 10:67

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

So can Catholics be saved? Definitely. Can they feel the love of the Savior and know they are forgiven? Definitely. Do they have authority to perform an authorized baptism and enter the CK? I don't think so. Their doctrine is full of some bad errors that blind them to the truth about the Godhead and many other things.

Edited August 12, 2016 by RevTestament

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Classic

I quote you and that is misrepresentation

Bye John

You provided a quote and then attributed a different assertion to me, which I did not make. If you're going to start a thread attacking something, make sure that something was actually said.