Baptism and the Atonement

[mfbukowski]

Question:

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. 

Answer:

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What good would the Holy Ghost be if he will not dwell in certain places where he is needed. And how useful would he be if he was unable to have influence on a child who lives in household where all gospel principles are not taught or followed? Serious question.

 

Serious indeed.

[jkwilliams]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Question:

Answer:

Serious indeed.

If you don't want to engage what I said, that's fine. Not sure why you're pairing two unrelated posts together. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If you don't want to engage what I said, that's fine. Not sure why you're pairing two unrelated posts together. 

Unrelated posts?

Hmmm, odd

It seems some others understand it just fine.

[jkwilliams]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Unrelated posts?

Hmmm, odd

It seems some others understand it just fine.

I'm kind of slow. Oh, well. I was hoping you'd explain what you meant. 

[CV75]

On 8/12/2016 at 1:17 PM, mfbukowski said:

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 think this is the way it is, too.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm kind of slow. Oh, well. I was hoping you'd explain what you meant. 

Now that I see this discussion addresses the remark that, "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" I can say that I think they are crucial too, that the children you reference can feel forgiveness without the Gift of the Holy Ghost, that these children can feel the power of the Holy Ghost sufficient to enjoy a hope for a remission of sins through an anticipated future baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. I too was a child that had to wait without attending Church as a non-member, though not because my parents were gay. But I know that God will teach them and give them this forgiveness and hope (as He did me, at least when I repented!) in His own way, and that the policy is in their best interest and supports this course.

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now that I see this discussion addresses the remark that, "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" I can say that I think they are crucial too, that the children you reference can feel forgiveness without the Gift of the Holy Ghost, that these children can feel the power of the Holy Ghost sufficient to enjoy a hope for a remission of sins through an anticipated future baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. I too was a child that had to wait without attending Church as a non-member, though not because my parents were gay. But I know that God will teach them and give them this forgiveness and hope (as He did me, at least when I repented!) in His own way, and that the policy is in their best interest and supports this course.

I appreciate that. As I explained in the other thread, I agree with you that God doesn't leave people alone. I really don't know why a thread was started over something Mark and I had agreed on. 

My point, perhaps inelegantly stated, was that denying children baptism deprives them of specific blessings, and I stand by that. I wish I could believe the policy was in the children's best interests, but I don't. I understand that you do. 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I appreciate that. As I explained in the other thread, I agree with you that God doesn't leave people alone. I really don't know why a thread was started over something Mark and I had agreed on. 

My point, perhaps inelegantly stated, was that denying children baptism deprives them of specific blessings, and I stand by that. I wish I could believe the policy was in the children's best interests, but I don't. I understand that you do. 

I think “denying children baptism” is not so relevant here, since the way the Church is “denying” and the way the gay parents are “denying” are two very different things. With the Church, “denial” is about appropriate timing for a baptism that can ultimately take place. With the parents, “denial” is about their voluntary lifestyle into which they have incorporated an acquiescent child who, as with any other person, must wait on Church decision-makers for the appropriate timing of his baptism.

Setting the policy (pros and cons) aside for a moment, given that timing is not much of a factor when the Lord is involved with it*, and His grace is extended to the faithful (whether they are gay parents or the children), I don’t see what blessings are being deprived the patient (that's "patient," the adjective!).

* When I was sealed to my parents some 30 years after I was baptized, my father joining the Church in his eighties some 10 years after my mother died (who did not join the Church in her lifetime), I had the amazing experience of feeling as though I had always been sealed to them. The long wait was irrelevant, and no blessing was deprived as far as I can tell; I don’t view my parents as having deprived me the blessings of being sealed in those years even though there was definitively a big difference between my pre-sealing perspective and my post-sealing perspective of my eternal family. I see no deprivation in the intervening years since I was only given (and never deprived) any blessings along the way.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think “denying children baptism” is not so relevant here, since the way the Church is “denying” and the way the gay parents are “denying” are two very different things. With the Church, “denial” is about appropriate timing for a baptism that can ultimately take place. With the parents, “denial” is about their voluntary lifestyle into which they have incorporated an acquiescent child who, as with any other person, must wait on Church decision-makers for the appropriate timing of his baptism.

 

Setting the policy (pros and cons) aside for a moment, given that timing is not much of a factor when the Lord is involved with it*, and His grace is extended to the faithful (whether they are gay parents or the children), I don’t see what blessings are being deprived the patient (that's "patient," the adjective!).

 

* When I was sealed to my parents some 30 years after I was baptized, my father joining the Church in his eighties some 10 years after my mother died (who did not join the Church in her lifetime), I had the amazing experience of feeling as though I had always been sealed to them. The long wait was irrelevant, and no blessing was deprived as far as I can tell; I don’t view my parents as having deprived me the blessings of being sealed in those years even though there was definitively a big difference between my pre-sealing perspective and my post-sealing perspective of my eternal family. I see no deprivation in the intervening years since I was only given (and never deprived) any blessings along the way.

 

Thank you for that. I wish I could see it that way. 

[CV75]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Thank you for that. I wish I could see it that way. 

I'll refer you to Mark 9:24 and Alma 32, and wish you the very best in the Lord's timing!

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'll refer you to Mark 9:24 and Alma 32, and wish you the very best in the Lord's timing!

Exactly- timing is irrelevant when we have eternities to get it right.  That is exactly what "eternal progression" is!

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Quote

 

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 3:38 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. 

 

 

MF- Answer:

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 4:38 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

What good would the Holy Ghost be if he will not dwell in certain places where he is needed. And how useful would he be if he was unable to have influence on a child who lives in household where all gospel principles are not taught or followed? Serious question.

 

MF-Serious indeed.

 

ME-MF, you are missing the part about the "companionship" of the Holy Ghost. While everyone has the light of Christ and all people could have flashes of inspiration from the HG, the companionship only comes after baptism and the laying on of hands. It's the baptism talk we've all heard a million times about how the companionship of the HG is the flashlight that is always with us.

But if someone is refused the opportunity to be baptized and receive the gift of the HG (like the children of gays) they have no flashlight and therefore less access to the promptings of the HG. If this is not true, why does the church focus so much on the "Gift of the Holy Ghost". Either there's a difference, or there isn't. If there's no difference, the church should stop teaching that there is.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

 

MF- Answer:

MF-Serious indeed.

 

ME-MF, you are missing the part about the "companionship" of the Holy Ghost. While everyone has the light of Christ and all people could have flashes of inspiration from the HG, the companionship only comes after baptism and the laying on of hands. It's the baptism talk we've all heard a million times about how the companionship of the HG is the flashlight that is always with us.

But if someone is refused the opportunity to be baptized and receive the gift of the HG (like the children of gays) they have no flashlight and therefore less access to the promptings of the HG. If this is not true, why does the church focus so much on the "Gift of the Holy Ghost". Either there's a difference, or there isn't. If there's no difference, the church should stop teaching that there is.

That was my point. It's fine to argue, as mfb did later on, that this kind of delay doesn't matter in the eternities, but it's another thing to say that all the blessings of baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost are available to the unbaptized or that these blessings are insignificant to a child growing up.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 8:27 PM, jkwilliams said:

I appreciate that. As I explained in the other thread, I agree with you that God doesn't leave people alone. I really don't know why a thread was started over something Mark and I had agreed on. 

My point, perhaps inelegantly stated, was that denying children baptism deprives them of specific blessings, and I stand by that. I wish I could believe the policy was in the children's best interests, but I don't. I understand that you do. 

Is the Gift of the Holy Ghost a blessing? Is this gift important?

Assuming it is, I cannot understand why anyone would argue that refusing this blessing/gift to a child, doesn't matter.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is the Gift of the Holy Ghost a blessing? Is this gift important?

Assuming it is, I cannot understand why anyone would argue that refusing this blessing/gift to a child, doesn't matter.

Maybe it's not a blessing.  Maybe it's a burden and yet treat it like we're given it to bless us.  After all anyone out there can have the story of the HG whispering don't turn there when driving down the road.  The gift is not beneficial there. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe it's not a blessing.  Maybe it's a burden and yet treat it like we're given it to bless us.  After all anyone out there can have the story of the HG whispering don't turn there when driving down the road.  The gift is not beneficial there. 

 

Maybe I need to change my perspective on this particular church teaching like I have on many others. But perhaps the church should consider changing the 4th article of faith so as to not imply that the gift of the Holy Ghost is important.

Quote

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.

This makes it sound like the gift is significant enough that it is one of the first principles and ordinances. Surely they're overselling it, right?

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe I need to change my perspective on this particular church teaching like I have on many others. But perhaps the church should consider changing the 4th article of faith so as to not imply that the gift of the Holy Ghost is important.

This makes it sound like the gift is significant enough that it is one of the first principles and ordinances. Surely they're overselling it, right?

I don't know.  The ordinance might be essential, but the actual tool itself might mean very little.  beats me, though.  I feel like the policy change of last year, threw a wrench into this for sure.  Also, these essential ordinances feel less and less essential when you consider everyone has it done for them anyway. 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is the Gift of the Holy Ghost a blessing? Is this gift important?

Assuming it is, I cannot understand why anyone would argue that refusing this blessing/gift to a child, doesn't matter.

Requiring someone to wait for baptism and confirmation is not at all the same as denying him these ordinances and their related blessings. One may feel tried by having to wait, but also may feel the Lord's grace and strengthened by the experience.

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Requiring someone to wait for baptism and confirmation is not at all the same as denying him these ordinances and their related blessings. One may feel tried by having to wait, but also may feel the Lord's grace and strengthened by the experience.

We disagree on that.

But others are saying it doesn't even matter that someone has the gift of the holy ghost because they can be led by the spirit just as well as someone who has the gift. If that's the case, whats the point of having the gift? Similarly they are saying people receive a remission of sins/forgiveness without baptism. If they are to be believed, these ordinances mean nothing.

 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We disagree on that.

But others are saying it doesn't even matter that someone has the gift of the holy ghost because they can be led by the spirit just as well as someone who has the gift. If that's the case, whats the point of having the gift? Similarly they are saying people receive a remission of sins/forgiveness without baptism. If they are to be believed, these ordinances mean nothing.

 

membership is superfluous.  Time doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter when we bow to our knees and confess, or it shouldn't.  That's what Jesus taught.  And all knees will bow and tongues confess at some point anyway.  I don't even know what we're stressing about in regards to Church.  God will make it all work out anywho.   

And one main focus we should have now is to accomplish all ordinances for everyone so no one need worry.  Our biggest worry should be not putting temples up but figuring out how we're going to do ordinances for people before 1800, and then beyond that before 1600--when record keeping was pretty much non existent.  Too bad because even in our modern era there are tons of people living today without records of their existence, or so we're told.  But today, at least we have more records than ever before. Then again.  who cares?  God will make it all work out.  He ain't gonna leave the unrecorded guy who lived on a remote island circa 400 AD out to dry any more than He'll leave out a lady from Siberia circa 2000 BC.  I think we're just supposed to pretend to stay busy in our lives while all things just end up the same no matter what we do. 

Edited August 15, 2016 by stemelbow

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

membership is superfluous.  Time doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter when we bow to our knees and confess, or it shouldn't.  That's what Jesus taught.  And all knees will bow and tongues confess at some point anyway.  I don't even know what we're stressing about in regards to Church.  God will make it all work out anywho.   

And one main focus we should have now is to accomplish all ordinances for everyone so no one need worry.  Our biggest worry should be not putting temples up but figuring out how we're going to do ordinances for people before 1800, and then beyond that before 1600--when record keeping was pretty much non existent.  Too bad because even in our modern era there are tons of people living today without records of their existence, or so we're told.  But today, at least we have more records than ever before. 

If it's all going to work out anyhow and the ordinances of baptism and confirmation aren't really that significant anyway in helping a person receive forgiveness or the constant companionship of the HG, why stress about temple work at all?

It's fascinating to me what a wide range of ideas and understanding exists about "basic" Mormonism. These would be wonderful discussions to have at church. By doing so a less dogmatic theology would result.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it's all going to work out anyhow and the ordinances of baptism and confirmation aren't really that significant anyway in helping a person receive forgiveness or the constant companionship of the HG, why stress about temple work at all?

It's fascinating to me what a wide range of ideas and understanding exists about "basic" Mormonism. These would be wonderful discussions to have at church. By doing so a less dogmatic theology would result.

hah...that's what I'm going for (your last line).  I corrected my post to say something that agrees with your first point and question as well.  But I didn't copy.  I fixed it before I saw your response, so please don't claim plagiarism.  that'd really be upsetting. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We disagree on that.

But others are saying it doesn't even matter that someone has the gift of the holy ghost because they can be led by the spirit just as well as someone who has the gift. If that's the case, whats the point of having the gift? Similarly they are saying people receive a remission of sins/forgiveness without baptism. If they are to be believed, these ordinances mean nothing.

I’m not sure what “others” rationale is, or what your understanding of their rationale is, but there is a difference between our innate intelligence, the light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Spirit of promise. Being led by the Spirit doesn’t require the gift of the Holy Ghost. Anyone who qualifies can be led by the Spirit. The point of having the gift of the Holy Ghost is found here:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

As far as the discussion of the relationship between forgiveness, remission, and baptism goes, I recommend doing a scriptural word search for “remission” and “forgiveness.” Note that wherever the word "remission" appears in scripture (especially Restoration scripture), it is connected with the word "baptism," or in connection with people who are identified as having been baptized. But none of the scriptures (Bible or Restoration) that use the word "forgiveness" connect it with baptism or with people identified as having been baptized.

The ordinances certainly mean something, whether we've received them or are waiting to receive them (and who is being denied the Holy Spirit of promise and thus being deprived the blessings thereof? Same answer for baptism). And while having received them is certainly an advantage for the faithful, this can only be so if received in the right spirit,  time, place and manner under the direction of those possessing the keys. No requirement or condition given under the authority of the priesthood keys in connection with receiving the ordinances is detrimental to the faithful who are waiting to receive them. This is where God’s grace is found.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure what “others” rationale is, or what your understanding of their rationale is, but there is a difference between our innate intelligence, the light of Christ, the power of the Holy Ghost, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Spirit of promise. Being led by the Spirit doesn’t require the gift of the Holy Ghost. Anyone who qualifies can be led by the Spirit. The point of having the gift of the Holy Ghost is found here:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

 

As far as the discussion of the relationship between forgiveness, remission, and baptism goes, I recommend doing a scriptural word search for “remission” and “forgiveness.” Note that wherever the word "remission" appears in scripture (especially Restoration scripture), it is connected with the word "baptism," or in connection with people who are identified as having been baptized. But none of the scriptures (Bible or Restoration) that use the word "forgiveness" connect it with baptism or with people identified as having been baptized.

 

The ordinances certainly mean something, whether we've received them or are waiting to receive them (and who is being denied the Holy Spirit of promise and thus being deprived the blessings thereof? Same answer for baptism). And while having received them is certainly an advantage for the faithful, this can only be so if received in the right spirit,  time, place and manner under the direction of those possessing the keys. No requirement or condition given under the authority of the priesthood keys in connection with receiving the ordinances is detrimental to the faithful who are waiting to receive them. This is where God’s grace is found.

It seems we agree on Gift of the Holy Ghost. If a person does not have the gift of the Holy Ghost they are missing out on one of God's gifts. Whether it is temporary or permanent, missing out on the gift of the Holy Ghost is significant. Others on this thread claim differently.

RE: Remission of sins and forgiveness- I understand they appear differently in the scriptures, but what really is the difference. Can you define Remission of sins and Forgiveness. How are those definitions different?

I've asked the question a few times now but no one has answered. What good is forgiveness if it doesn't cleanse someone like a remission of sins does? So even if God forgives people who have never been baptized (which I believe he does, BTW), what is the effect? JLHPROF thinks it makes the resurrection possible, but I don't buy that. What good is forgiveness without a remission of sins (If they are truly different things)?

[consiglieri]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 0:11 PM, jkwilliams said:

For what it's worth, I have never said people cannot have their sins forgiven through the Atonement without being a member of the church.

Strangely, D&C 20:37 says a person has to have their sins forgiven BEFORE they are baptized.
 

Quote

 

D&C 20:37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

 

So apparently one CAN receive forgiveness of sins WITHOUT baptism.

And in fact, this scripture says a person MUST receive forgiveness of their sins BEFORE being baptized.

Curioser and curioser.