8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

When speaking of the practice of rhetoric, this thread might be said to be an example of an immovable rhetorical object coming into active contact with an irresistible rhetorical force, with both elements doomed to push and resist forever in an absurd, never ending stalemate. On one side of this particular exercise in futility are testimony bearing Latter-Day Saints who believe revelation from God has authoritatively answered a great many important questions pertaining to their religion, and on the other are those who either disbelieve or seriously question the divine authenticity and truthfulness of the same revelations.

It’s now obvious that whatever arguments are mustered by those on one side to persuade those on the other are going to utterly fail to have any desired convincing impact. But why? It’s because testimony bearing Latter-Days believe that God has spoken forcefully, clearly, unambiguously on the subject at hand, and that, in fact, they really do happen to believe it. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the argument either no longer believe the scriptures or have serious doubts that they actually are the words of God. Therefore, when believers appeal to holy writ in oder to validate their position the scriptural passages they quote are dismissed as irrelevant by those on the other side.

Wouldn’t it be better to simply agree to disagree rather than attempt to convince believing Latter-day Saints to deny the divine origin and verity of their own canonized revelations? Consider the following revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 68, and then ask yourself why believing Latter-Saints would be willing to budge even a nano centimeter in acquiescence to the arguments made by those on the opposing side? And in light of the fact that eight year-olds (unlike babies) really are capable of understanding the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, and that they are also capable of doing things that are morally wrong for which they will need to receive forgiveness, what strong reasoning can be offered to believers that would make them willing to contradict, even slightly, what they revere as the most solemn edicts of God?

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands. (Doctrine and Covenants 68)

 

There's not really a semantic problem when the semantic differences have been clearly identified and openly acknowledged.

This is an issue that can be appreciated even by believers, as I know I appreciated it to some extent when five of my children were baptized into the LDS church.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The real question: does God know what it's like to be a bat?

I honestly think no. 

Good question, and I understand what you are saying, but I suppose it depends on what interpretation of "know" we use and that's just the beginning.

And some have criticized the interpretation of the phrase "what it's like".  When you start slicing and dicing, what the heck does that mean anyway?    I mean what does the WHAT mean in that context?   It's like WHAT?  And how do we know if it's like "what" or not.  ??   

And how "alike" does it need to be to qualify to be "like"?  I mean it's LIKE this, but not exactly....  

Hey when we start thinking about words, ain't no end to the problems we can dream up.   It's like tripping over your own shoelaces or something LIKE that.... 🤯

The very tools you have to solve the problem create more problems than solutions!

 

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

This premise (Bolded) is preposterous.  By definition LDS seek after all righteousness.  No righteous path can nor should be rejected.  In fact, that would be sin.

(In your reply you have put your remarks inside the box quoting me. I fixed it here, though.)

Anyhow, no, LDS are not expected to chose every righteous path. We've been clearly taught that sometimes we must chose between two good paths, so that argument does not work.

 

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

You don't presume that God does what?  

 

 

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I just don't presume that God does. So when the question of being baptized in the LDS church is asked, God may will either way. 

It's very clear in the context of the conversation and in my answer.

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Here is what she said:

Do you disagree that God knows what is best for us?  Do you disagree that all good things come from God?  Do you disagree that God speaks to man?  Seems like a fair premise that all Christians would readily accept. 

Yes it does actually.  By rejecting the premise, you presume the opposite.  You presume to know that God doesn't want all people to be baptized as Later-day Saints.

 

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's very clear in the context of the conversation and in my answer.

So, you don’t object that God may will all mankind to be baptized as Later-day Saints?

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe Science can identify parents who will most likely have children with medically significant genetic disorders or higher probabilities of less than current average intelligence?

I haven't looked into that.  I suppose it's possible...or perhaps something along the lines of estimating chances of a disorder or something.  Not sure doing something like that would be promoting well being.  

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Because if morality is said to be objective, then it must be measured objectively.  If the measure of morality (well-being) is subjective, then so is morality.  Just like pain - it is said to be subjective until we have a reliable objective measure for it. 

Alright.  And?  

Quote

No, I 'm serious.  Human acts are simply acts of nature. We are puppets of nature no different from anything else.  Why is one act of nature said to be moral and another is not?  What is the point.  Seems arbitrary to proscribe morality to human acts of nature and not other acts of nature.

 

 

Alright.  I think consciousness supplies us with the start of a difference.  

Edited August 25, 2020 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

No doubt...just not salvation. 

That's because it's a make-believe unverifiable concept.  Like Scientology's Full Operating Thetan idea, or Buddhism's Nirvana.  

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Ahab said:

I suppose that depends on how a person defines what "good" is. Science is essentially a tool for measuring and evaluating things, and the results are only as good as those who use and understand the tool.

Good in the sense of morality is well being.  DOes it further well being for anyone if the parent physically abuses his children?  If no, then we can say, without much room to wonder, it is not good to beat your child, in spite of what Christian scripture teaches.  Religious morality is listening to an unknown God to set rules.  Humanism would rely on our sense of morality, decided through pursuing well being-decided through, as much as possible, scientific methods.  Its not good to abuse children because it can cause trauma, and psychological problems.  

Edited August 25, 2020 by stemelbow

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

By definition LDS seek after all righteousness.  No righteous path can nor should be rejected.  In fact, that would be sin

Great! Let me mail you a rosary and you can get started on it. It is a very righteous practice -- I'm glad you don't reject it.

Joking aside, here's my problem with your statement. It's the same problem I have with President Hinkley's (I think?) statement that non-LDS can bring their good to the LDS church and the LDS church will just add to it. Statements like these sound ecumenical and inclusive, but that's not what practiced. Why don't you pray the rosary? Why don't you pray to Mecca? Why don't you practice tantric yabyum? Because you don't consider these religious practices righteous, and if someone were to join the LDS church they would have to give them up, which means they don't qualify as the "good" that Hinkley said we can bring if we convert.

I love the rosary. I love the Blessed Virgin Mary. If I were to become LDS, I'd have to leave that behind, because it is not righteous or good, right?

[Calm]

Quote

Why don't you pray the rosary? Why don't you pray to Mecca? Why don't you practice tantric yabyum? Because you don't consider these religious practices righteous, and if someone were to join the LDS church they would have to give them up, which means they don't qualify as the "good" that Hinkley said we can bring if we convert.

I see the first two practices righteous, they are prayer behaviours, are they not?  The last would depend if done with a spouse, I am guessing. I don’t know enough of the details beyond a sexual position. 
 

The way I look at what was meant is what is the purpose of such practices, how is it supposed to change us or what is it supposed to make available to us?  Can we find practices with the same purpose we can do within the structure of both church doctrine and our local communities’ culture?

Edited August 25, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  And?  

If you are agreeing that morality can't be based in objectivity - "and" therefore...the following statement you made is entirely flawed:

Quote

 The point here is to suggest we need not rely on subjectivity when it comes to arriving at a moral truth.  We can arrive at objectivity through science

And now it appears you see why, and are in agreement.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  I think consciousness supplies us with the start of a difference.  

That doesn't make us different in the critical regard I was talking about - being puppets of nature.  In that regard of moral responsibility - we are the SAME.  I didn't ask what makes us different, in general.   Why should consciousness give anything accountability for actions that it has no control over?  Consciousness is simply one manifestation and act of nature - a natural phenomenon void of free-will like anything else.  Conscious acts of nature and unconscious acts of nature are all acts of nature and not independent and free acts of the self.  The self is an illusion (according to Sam Harris).  How can moral responsibility be established without free will, or even a self?  Consciousness without free-will is like being a character in a movie where the character (self) is not real and has ZERO control over anything, and where amoral nature is the author and creator of the movie.  To impose moral responsibility for the actions of an illusion of a character which was created and controlled by an amoral nature seems irrational.

Consciousness void of free-will is no more morally responsible or accountable for the acts of nature manifest in it, then a rock, or a tree, or a slug.   You see, moral responsibility doesn't make sense where there is no free will.  

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's because it's a make-believe unverifiable concept.  Like Scientology's Full Operating Thetan idea, or Buddhism's Nirvana.  

It is not an "unverifiable" concept.  It simply is not objectively verifiable.  I can verify the concept subjectively just as well as I can verify the concept of pain.  If you want to dismiss all concepts that cannot be objectively verified, then you also have to dismiss the concept of pain.

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

I suppose it depends upon how one defines objectivity, then, because, as you say...

...so how do they do it?  How do they objectively study anything and everything they study when they use the scientific method? 

"Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors."  

An objective study also requires the results to be independently verified by an unbiased third party.  

Subjective evidence = "my foot hurts", or "I am saved!"  It can't be verified by an unbiased third party.

Objective evidence = "my heart rate is 100 BPM", or "The Church of Jesus Christ has ____ baptized members"  It can be verified by an unbiased third party. 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not an "unverifiable" concept.  It simply is not objectively verifiable.  I can verify the concept subjectively just as well as I can verify the concept of pain.  If you want to dismiss all concepts that cannot be objectively verified, then you also have to dismiss the concept of pain.

And love.

[Tacenda]

I saw someone suggest this elsewhere and wanted some feedback. They said that someone's baptism technically shouldn't be taken away if they resign or are ex'd. It should stay in place, it's only in the confirmation that links it to the LDS church. What say any of you about this suggestion or statement?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Wait, you are agreeing that if morality can't be measured objectively, then it can't be objective?  Ok. 

And therefore (if it wasn't already abundantly clear)...the following statement you made is entirely flawed:

Nonsense.  And now it appears you see why and are in agreement.

But as we discussed we may not achieve complete objectivity, but it is what we are in pursuit of, if you will.  Physical health works the same.  We may not objectively know everything about perfect physical health (I mean someday we might declare someone unhealthy if they are unable to run a marathon at 150 years old, or something), but that hardly means our rules and ideas are thrown out the window, as we create standards.  As it is we simply don't expect perfection for most things we measure.  Morality should be no different.  We may not be able to answer every moral question, but that hardly means we have no measure to help us decide.  

Quote

That doesn't make us different in the critical regard I was talking about - being puppets of nature.  In that regard of moral responsibility - we are the SAME.  I didn't ask what makes us different, in general.   Why should consciousness give anything accountability for actions that it has no control over? 

The control, if we need control as per a control freak, is goals are set (well being) and rules are crafted based on that goal.  our individual brains gain that input and we act according to our desires, which happen to be out of our control on an individual basis.  On this, I see your declarations wrong here.  

Quote

Consciousness is simply one manifestation and act of nature - a natural phenomenon void of free-will like anything else.  Conscious acts of nature and unconscious acts of nature are all acts of nature and not independent and free acts of the self.  The self is an illusion (according to Sam Harris).  How can moral responsibility be established without free will, or even a self?  Consciousness without free-will is like being a character in a movie where the character (self) is not real and has ZERO control over anything, and where amoral nature is the author and creator of the movie.  And you want to impose moral responsibility for the actions of that illusion of a character which was created and controlled by an amoral nature?  That's nonsense.  

Not really.  Though in actuality we aren't responsible for what we do, because what we do is a direct result of our desire; it can be that our doing does not really achieve our ultimate goal (well being).  That may mean we can't really call our doing wrong, if we want to be technical, we can call it a misunderstanding to achieve our goal, or something, to be more technical.  But that feels like a waste of time.  It's easier to say "it's wrong to do that". 

And here we go.  If say, a father loses his job and everything else, including his health to be able to do the work he was able to do and yet still has a child to care for.  At some point, without any support the father may think it best to shop lift in order to feed his child.  His goal may be well being for himself and child, but that goal may not be achieved by shop lifting.  He may, for instance, get caught and put himself in danger with the law and put his child in a more precarious predicament.  But it may be that he has other options.  Perchance if you knew this father, and he confided in you that he was going to shoplift to feed his child, you may be aware of a better option.  You may step in and say, "hey man, let's go see if there are other resources.  Let's start by seeing if your physical difficulties qualify you for disability payments etc".  

It may be that this father feels compelled to shoplift anyway, feeling perhaps down on his luck, jaded, thinking, the resources or options really won't work.  Or he may get a refresh on hope and think these other options will help.  If say to shoplift does not get him the desired result of well being, and we'll say following your advice does get him the desired result, we can safely say it is right to follow your advice and wrong to shoplift.  Sure technically we may not be correct to say it's wrong to...but it conveys the point well enough.  To shoplift in this example is to not achieve the ultimate goal.  

Quote

Consciousness void of free-will is no more morally responsible or accountable for the acts of nature manifest in it, then a rock, or a tree, or a slug.   You see, moral responsibility doesn't make sense where there is no free will.  How is that not abundantly clear?

 

You have equated responsibility with accountability for one.  They are two different things.  But beyond that there is no reason to think morality goes out the window if we lack control over our wants or desires.  It may mean we're not culpable, but it also means the forces put upon us can guide us to a higher morality.  it is afterall how we handle children.  We teach them as we see fit, feeding them info and guiding them.  They choose, just like the rest of us, based on things like biology, environment and experience.  In truth free will is not possible simply because we could not have chosen different.  As choice happens, what is happening inside us is many competing, contradicting or unrelated things.  Our brains go a mile a minute compared to the slowness of our response.  But at any given moment, as choice is made, it's as if the stars align and we choose that which we can't stop ourselves from choosing because of all the activity inside us, all dependent on all the input given us.  

Quote

It is not an "unverifiable" concept.  It simply is not objectively verifiable.  I can verify the concept subjectively just as well as I can verify the concept of pain.  If you want to dismiss all concepts that cannot be objectively verified, then you also have to dismiss the concept of pain.

You can certainly say or think your spiritual experience or internal feelings, or outside influence is verifying this concept of salvation.  But, my point is saying it's unverified, is to say there is no scientific basis for the claim.  I'm not touching on some strict notion of objectivity here.  I'm simply pointing out it's not findable in our world.  Pain is.  Much different.

Edited August 25, 2020 by stemelbow

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I saw someone suggest this elsewhere and wanted some feedback. They said that someone's baptism technically shouldn't be taken away if they resign or are ex'd. It should stay in place, it's only in the confirmation that links it to the LDS church. What say any of you about this suggestion or statement?

Baptism and confirmation are conjoined ordinances - without the latter, the former is of no effect. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The control, if we need control as per a control freak, is goals are set (well being) and rules are crafted based on that goal.  our individual brains gain that input and we act according to our desires, which happen to be out of our control on an individual basis.  On this, I see your declarations wrong here.  

You seem to be incapable of letting go of control.  I am not the control freak in this conversation.  I am the one telling you to let go of control.  As much as you desperately want to believe that you can influence alternate endings through "desire" and "goal setting" and "rules", you can't.  They are just as determined as you are.  You don't have control to influence a different fate in determinism.  Everything is unavoidable and determined by nature.  Nothing is or can be independently influenced.  You are a puppet of nature.  Remember?  What control does a puppet have in influencing its story or morality?    

 Unfortunately, your paradigm of determinism doesn't allow for "control".  That implies free-will.  You have as much control of what you think, or what goals you set, as a tree has control over where it is planted. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That may mean we can't really call our doing wrong, if we want to be technical...It's easier to say "it's wrong to do that". 

So your argument is that morality technically can't exist in determinism, but it's just easier to pretend like it does?  And it is the religionists who get picked on for playing "make-believe"!

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

But it may be that he has other options. 

And this is where your story falls apart.  There are no options in a determined path, just the illusion of options and independent choices.  Where there is no free-will and everything is determined, there are no true "options".

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

But it may be that he has other options.  Perchance if you knew this father, and he confided in you that he was going to shoplift to feed his child, you may be aware of a better option.  You may step in and say, "hey man, let's go see if there are other resources.  Let's start by seeing if your physical difficulties qualify you for disability payments etc".  

Yes, keep imagining that you have power to influence a different outcome if that helps you pretend that you are a "moral" being and are in control. 

Now let's pretend like these people in your story are remote-control robots with consciousness.  Every thought, every goal, every feeling, every action, is determined and controlled by an amoral being called nature.  How silly would it be to judge these robots as moral or immoral?    

You are having a difficult time shedding the illusion. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

You have equated responsibility with accountability for one.  They are two different things.  But beyond that there is no reason to think morality goes out the window if we lack control over our wants or desires.  It may mean we're not culpable, but it also means the forces put upon us can guide us to a higher morality.  it is afterall how we handle children.  We teach them as we see fit, feeding them info and guiding them.  They choose, just like the rest of us, based on things like biology, environment and experience.  In truth free will is not possible simply because we could not have chosen different.  As choice happens, what is happening inside us is many competing, contradicting or unrelated things.  Our brains go a mile a minute compared to the slowness of our response.  But at any given moment, as choice is made, it's as if the stars align and we choose that which we can't stop ourselves from choosing because of all the activity inside us, all dependent on all the input given us.  

I somehow overlooked this, sorry. 

Quote

Responsibility

1: the quality or state of being responsible: such as

a: moral, legal, or mental accountability

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsibility

This is interesting:

Quote

It may mean we're not culpable, but it also means the forces put upon us can guide us to a higher morality.   it is afterall how we handle children...

First, if there is no moral culpability, then morality is no longer morality.  You have to call it something else.   

Second, if "the forces put upon us can lead us to a higher morality",  are you arguing that the forces of nature (like a moral parent who cares for the welfare of his children) are inherently moral then?  No this is not a joke.  You keep implying that nature is moral, but you refuse to acknowledge that is actually the case. Which is it?

"A higher morality"?  An inculpable morality that we have no control and which an amoral nature dictates is a "higher morality"? That is funny.  One robot is more moral than another robot because the person controlling the robot makes it do good deeds?  Who is the moral actor in this scenario?  The person behind the controls - nature.  

You say this

Quote

But beyond that there is no reason to think morality goes out the window if we lack control over our wants or desires

If you don't control your wants and desires, then who, or what, is doing the "choosing"?

Quote

They choose, just like the rest of us,

It is not a true choice if you can't have chosen differently.  Do puppets or remote-control robots have choice?  It is like suggesting that oxygen has a choice as to which 2 helium molecules it will bond with to form water. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The real question: does God know what it's like to be a bat?

I honestly think no. 

Good for you! You’ve Just successfully identified something the God who knows all things doesn’t know, thereby proving he doesn’t know all things.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You seem to be incapable of letting go of control.  I am not the control freak in this conversation.  I am the one telling you to let go of control.  As much as you desperately want to believe that you can influence alternate endings through "desire" and "goal setting" and "rules", you can't.  They are just as determined as you are.  You don't have control to influence a different fate in determinism.  Everything is unavoidable and determined by nature.  Nothing is or can be independently influenced.  You are a puppet of nature.  Remember?  What control does a puppet have in influencing its story or morality?    

uh ok.  I need to let go of control because I don't think I have it?  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 Unfortunately, your paradigm of determinism doesn't allow for "control".  That implies free-will.  You have as much control of what you think, or what goals you set, as a tree has control over where it is planted. 

People have will, just not free will.  That is they have wills the determine their course of action, they simply aren't free to choose whatever.  Their choice is determined.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

So your argument is that morality technically can't exist in determinism, but it's just easier to pretend like it does?  And it is the religionists who get picked on for playing "make-believe"!

Morality can too exist.  That is my point.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

And this is where your story falls apart.  There are no options in a determined path, just the illusion of options and independent choices.  Where there is no free-will and everything is determined, there are no true "options".

Surely for an individual that's true.  Let's say on any given day you can either go to the store or got to the park.  One day you might "choose" park, another store.  The point of determinism is simply that all that is you has already destined the choice on the day of park is set.  Every part of your being, all that's gone into it, has already had all the causes to effect that choice.  We think we are the ones "choosing", when we choose, but as it is everything that caused the choice has already played out.   Those firing synapses in our brain are just firing away without our control or say so.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yes, keep imagining that you have power to influence a different outcome if that helps you pretend that you are a "moral" being and are in control. 

Not me influencing, silly, but you know the elements that form the cause of our "choice".  You see our "choice" is simply an effect of all that went into it.  Thus my "choice" to point out that free will is an illusion, and my choice to promote moral causes, the ones to reach the goal of well being, are really simply effects of all the previous causes.  Power comes in determinism.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Now let's pretend like these people in your story are remote-control robots with consciousness.  Every thought, every goal, every feeling, every action, is determined and controlled by an amoral being called nature.  How silly would it be to judge these robots as moral or immoral?    

Of course, perhaps about as silly as believing Mormonism.   

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are having a difficult time shedding the illusion. 

Everyone does.  It's near impossible, it seems, to completely shed ourselves of that illusion.  That's the whole trick of it.  

 

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, if there is no moral culpability, then morality is no longer morality.  You have to call it something else.   

Why would you force that upon me?  

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Second, if "the forces put upon us can lead us to a higher morality",  are you arguing that the forces of nature (like a moral parent who cares for the welfare of his children) are inherently moral then?  No this is not a joke.  You keep implying that nature is moral, but you refuse to acknowledge that is actually the case. Which is it?

Nature doesn't have consciousness at all.  

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

"A higher morality"?  An inculpable morality that we have no control and which an amoral nature dictates is a "higher morality"? That is funny.  One robot is more moral than another robot because the person controlling the robot makes it do good deeds?  Who is the moral actor in this scenario?  The person behind the controls - nature.  

Or God.  It feels like you are determined (yes I said it) to put fault on others.  I think that's the great benefit of this line of reasoning.  We stop complaining about everyone else and start finding goodness in what we are.  

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

You say this

If you don't control your wants and desires, then who, or what, is doing the "choosing"?

"choosing" in scare quotes?  That's you.  Choosing as in reality?  no one.  Its just an effect of previous causes.  

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

They choose, just like the rest of us,

It is not a true choice if you can't have chosen differently.  Do puppets or remote-control robots have choice?  It is like suggesting that oxygen has a choice as to which 2 helium molecules it will bond with to form water. 

That is what proves determinism.  You simply can't choose different then you do.  YOu may think you can, but you can't.  If you try to make yourself aware of your choosing, and you choose differently then you might otherwise, then it's really just a factor of adding an element of needing to make a point by choosing differently for that sake.  Thus your desire to prove a point, happens to be stronger then your desire to do what you really want.  You are controlled by that awkward external factor, in such a case.  

 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Baptism and confirmation are conjoined ordinances - without the latter, the former is of no effect. 

 

Do you think the following verses from D&C 84 tend to either bolster or disprove your belief that without the ordinance confirmation baptism is of no effect?

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;

26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. (D&C 84)

[Amulek]

32 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Do you think the following verses from D&C 84 tend to either bolster or disprove your belief that without the ordinance confirmation baptism is of no effect?

[...]

27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. (D&C 84)

That is talking about the practice of baptism as it existed under the previous covenant. 

After Christ instituted the new covenant, however, baptism and the gift of the holy ghost became conjoined. So much so that, if you didn't receive the gift of the holy ghost, then you weren't really baptized to begin with:

Acts 19

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

This comports with what Joseph Smith said on the subject as well:

“The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use,” he declared. “They are necessarily and inseparably connected. An individual must be born of water and the spirit in order to get into the kingdom of God.”

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Amulek

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I haven't looked into that.  I suppose it's possible...or perhaps something along the lines of estimating chances of a disorder or something.  Not sure doing something like that would be promoting well being.  

Whose well being? I think this thread is hilarious, i'm just a carpenter but even I know that the feeling of well being is subjective and cannot be objective.