8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism

[teddyaware]

29 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

An interesting answer because it’s obvious that under the right circumstances believers can be officially baptized, and have it count, without also having to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This was the standard practice during the Lord’s entire earthly ministry, and it didn’t change until after his resurrection. So baptism can officially count as an ordinance without simultaneously being confirmed.

So this brings us back to Tacenda’s original question. Do you believe excommunicated members shouldn’t have to be rebaptized if they come back into full fellowship but that they should only need to be reconfirmed?

Edited August 25, 2020 by teddyaware

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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

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.  

Morality can too exist.  That is my point.  

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.  

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.  

Of course, perhaps about as silly as believing Mormonism.   

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

Why would you force that upon me?  

Nature doesn't have consciousness at all.  

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.  

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

.  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.  

We are getting too splintered in thought here, making it difficult to reply to everything.  So let me simplify the problem I am having understanding your perspective. Maybe you can clarify where I am going wrong. 

1) Nature is amoral

2) We are nature 

3) We are moral (Do you see the problem already?  No irrationality there at all!).

4) We are moral, but we are not morally culpable because we are nature, and nature is amoral - which makes us inculpable (it just keeps going down hill from here). 

4) We/nature should (as if acts of nature are value based) promote a natural morality.  But if not, whatever happens was bound to happen anyway, so suggesting that we "should" act a certain way is kind of silly.  Plus you're not really culpable for what you should or should not do anyway.  So don't really worry about it.  But still...

5) The well-being of humans (above all other nature) is moral because nature made it so.  But don't get confused because nature is really amoral and doesn't really give a dang.

6) We can choose to be moral beings.  But don't get confused here either because "choosing as in reality?" Ha, ha, you silly confused human, it's all determined. "We only think we are the ones choosing".  "Those firing synapses in our brain are just firing away without our control or say so." Nature, you dimwit, is in control.  But in no way is nature moral, even though we are nature and are moral, and should be moral according to nature...which is amoral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

We are getting too splintered in thought here, making it difficult to reply to everything.  So let me simplify the problem I am having understanding your perspective. 

1) Nature is amoral

Its not that nature is amoral.  Nature, I suppose depending how you define it, lacks a consciousness.  So nature doesn't have a capacity to lack morality.  

Quote

2) We are nature 

A part of, I figure.  Are you defining nature as humanity?  

Quote

3) We are moral (Do you see the problem already).

uh...we can be.  

Quote

4) We are moral, but we are not morally culpable because we are nature, and nature is amoral - which makes us inculpable (it just keeps going down hill from here). 

buh...huh?   

Quote

4) We/nature should (as if acts of nature are value based) promote a natural morality.  But if not, whatever happens was bound to happen anyway, so suggesting that we "should" act a certain way is kind of silly.    

I don't think I said something about we should act a certain way is kind of silly.  I'm also not sure why you are defining nature as humans?  

Quote

5) The well-being of humans (above all other nature) is moral because nature made it so.  But don't get confused because nature is really amoral and doesn't really give a damn.

Crtainly your use of nature throws me off too.  Not sure what you mean by that.  

Quote

6) We can choose to be moral beings.  But don't get confused here either because "choosing as in reality?" Ha, ha, you silly confused human, it's all determined. "We only think we are the ones choosing".  "Those firing synapses in our brain are just firing away without our control or say so." Nature, you dimwit, is in control.  But in no way is nature moral, even though we are nature and are moral, and should be moral according to nature...which is amoral.

Not sure what you mean by nature.  Either I confused it along the way or your did.  Sorry about that.  

Edited August 25, 2020 by stemelbow

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I see the first two practices righteous, they are prayer behaviours, are they not?

The rosary is primarily made up of Hail Mary's. I guess I'm assuming that praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary using the Hail Mary prayer would be unacceptable to LDS. There is also a recitation of the Apostle's Creed and some Our Father's.

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

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

I honestly think no. 

Cool!   First, we had Schrodinger's Cat, and now we have OGHoosier's Bat!

[Amulek]

38 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

An interesting answer because it’s obvious that under the right circumstances believers can be officially baptized, and have it count, without also having to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This was the standard practice during the Lord’s entire earthly ministry, and it didn’t change until after his resurrection. So baptism can officially count as an ordinance without simultaneously being confirmed.

I was going to write more, but I'll just Cliff's Note's it like this: different dispensation - different requirements. 

It's clearly a requirement now, which is all that matters. 

 

Quote

So this brings us back to Tacenda’s original question. Do you believe excommunicated members shouldn’t have to be rebaptized if they come back into full fellowship but that they should only need to be reconfirmed?

Excommunicated members need to be rebaptized.

At a minimum, this is necessary for them to be readmitted as a member of the Church (which they had previously been excommunicated from). 

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The rosary is primarily made up of Hail Mary's. I guess I'm assuming that praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary using the Hail Mary prayer would be unacceptable to LDS. There is also a recitation of the Apostle's Creed and some Our Father's.

For LDS sure it would not be seen as appropriate.  Some might see it as unacceptable or eleven sinful rather than just a misunderstanding of doctrine (which is how I would likely see it). I and many I know would likely view it as a comfort from their past where the prayer would be heard by the Father whomever is named . I see it as righteous behaviour for a believer (Catholic and any others who are taught it).

I think an acceptable adaptation once a member version for LDS might be reciting scripture or the Lord’s Prayer. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

Forget the nature stuff then if you are not following.

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think I said something about we should act a certain way is kind of silly.

Will you please clarify this comment?  I can't tell if I want to respond to it or not without clarification of what you are saying. 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

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.

You mean, like this guy?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think I said something about we should act a certain way is kind of silly. 

I am going to assume that you are saying that is silly to imply that humans "should act a certain way" given determinism.

I agree. 

Which is why I am terribly confused as to how morality fits into your line of thinking, where there are no "should's".

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I was going to write more, but I'll just Cliff's Note's it like this: different dispensation - different requirements. 

It's clearly a requirement now, which is all that matters. 

 

Excommunicated members need to be rebaptized.

At a minimum, this is necessary for them to be readmitted as a member of the Church (which they had previously been excommunicated from). 

 

Apropos to Tacenda’s question, I believe your answer would have been a bit clearer if you’d said the latter (confirmation) is not valid without the former (baptism). After all, Tacenda was inquiring about the validity of the idea some apparently hold that only reconfirmation, not rebaptism, should be required when excommunicated members seek to return to full fellowship In the Church. This strange idea appears to negate the important role baptism plays in enabling returning former members to again become official members of the Church.

Edited August 25, 2020 by teddyaware

[Islander]

15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm saying that when one accepts LDS baptism, they are also rejecting other paths which can be righteous. There are millions of people in the world who have committed to follow Jesus but not through LDS baptism.

You moved the goal post ever so slightly. You mentioned that "some one in Tokio may be following a Shinto path", and my answer was directed at that position. 

As far as LDS exclusive claims, they are the result of revelation in the latter days. Ever since the early Church, the Apostles fought (and wrote quite extensively) concerning heresies and false doctrine that began to infiltrate even at that time. This began to take place during the same generation of Christ and while there were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the ministry and works of Jesus. Paul continually warned about it. Even John encountered brazen opposition to his authority as an Apostle in some congregations (see below). The Restoration is God's work in this age to set His doctrine and authority upon the earth once more. Those that worship Jesus in truth and in love may be saved (only God knows such things) but lack the further light and truth that now has been restored to His servants. Why deny the grace and mercy of God available more abundantly thru the ordinances of the Restored Gospel?

There will always be opposition to the true Gospel. Then and now.

"I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.

For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church".

3 John 1:8-10

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am going to assume that you are saying that is silly to imply that humans "should act a certain way" given determinism.

I agree. 

Which is why I am terribly confused as to how morality fits into your line of thinking, where there are no "should's".

Heres what you said apparently summarizing my position:

) We/nature should (as if acts of nature are value based) promote a natural morality.  But if not, whatever happens was bound to happen anyway, so suggesting that we "should" act a certain way is kind of silly

I'm not saying that it's silly to think we should act a certain way.  Not sure where you're getting all the nature talk, or the equating humans and nature.  

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying that it's silly to think we should act a certain way.  

Given determinism, yes, it is silly.   If a person acts contrary to how they "should" act, was the person right or wrong for acting the way they did?  

If you answer that the person was right for acting the way they did, then you were wrong to think they should have acted differently.

If you answer that the person was wrong for acting the way they did, then you are not a determinist (or at least you don't understand the philosophy).  A person can't act differently than they do, and therefore can't be wrong in how they act.  There is no such thing as misbehavior in determinism.  It is an oxymoron. 

"Should" implies obligation or correctness of action.  In determinism the correctness of action is what has been determined and actually happens, there can be no other "should".  Whatever happens is exactly correct and as it "should" be, otherwise determinism is a false philosophy, and free-will is implied.

Edited August 25, 2020 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I think an acceptable adaptation once a member version for LDS might be reciting scripture or the Lord’s Prayer. 

Sure, but that's an adaptation. My point is that something that is good and righteous in my life is not acceptable in an LDS life. So if I were to convert, I couldn't bring "the good" I already have and let the LDS church add to it. "The good" I can bring with me has to already match up with the LDS church's good. Again, Hinkley's statement sounds nice, but it doesn't really mean what it sounds like. What really happens is that a convert keeps what good matches the LDS good, discards the rest, and then the LDS church adds to the convert. Maybe like this:

LDS church has: A C E G I

Non-LDS has: A B C D

Non-LDS converts, bring his good. The only good allowable, however, are: A C (B and D have to be jettisoned, because they don't match).

LDS church adds on, so now convert has: A C E G I, etc.

Now, obviously from the LDS church point-of-view, what the non-LDS person thought was good really wasn't, like the rosary, so it's not really a good that the convert is bringing. But that's exactly my point. Hinkley's statement is misleading.

Ok, this is a bit of a tangent from the thread, ha  

[Calm]

I agree specific behaviours do not fit on every path, but the original post I was  responding to was about paths of righteousness, which seems to be to be focused more on the purpose of a behaviour in order to get to a destination defined as righteousness for that individual than the behaviour itself.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sure, but that's an adaptation. My point is that something that is good and righteous in my life is not acceptable in an LDS life. So if I were to convert, I couldn't bring "the good" I already have and let the LDS church add to it. "The good" I can bring with me has to already match up with the LDS church's good. Again, Hinkley's statement sounds nice, but it doesn't really mean what it sounds like. What really happens is that a convert keeps what good matches the LDS good, discards the rest, and then the LDS church adds to the convert. Maybe like this:

LDS church has: A C E G I

Non-LDS has: A B C D

Non-LDS converts, bring his good. The only good allowable, however, are: A C (B and D have to be jettisoned, because they don't match).

LDS church adds on, so now convert has: A C E G I, etc.

Now, obviously from the LDS church point-of-view, what the non-LDS person thought was good really wasn't, like the rosary, so it's not really a good that the convert is bringing. But that's exactly my point. Hinkley's statement is misleading.

Ok, this is a bit of a tangent from the thread, ha  

I don't think the church would have a problem with someone of another faith, or specifically a Catholic, and becoming a member and still having a ritual like the ones you mentioned. What can the church do? I'm sure members do all kinds of things that are far worse than the beautiful ritual you've mentioned. Or am I missing something? 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Given determinism, yes, it is silly.   If a person acts contrary to how they "should" act, was the person right or wrong for acting the way they did?  

If you answer that the person was right for acting the way they did, then you were wrong to think they should have acted differently.

If you answer that the person was wrong for acting the way they did, then you are not a determinist (or at least you don't understand the philosophy).  A person can't act differently than they do, and therefore can't be wrong in how they act.  There is no such thing as misbehavior in determinism.  It is an oxymoron. 

"Should" implies obligation or correctness of action.  In determinism the correctness of action is what has been determined and actually happens, there can be no other "should".  Whatever happens is exactly correct and as it "should" be, otherwise determinism is a false philosophy, and free-will is implied.

I got your point ,pogi and I find it missing the point as explained.  One thing is certain, as i see it, in all of this, if free will is an illusion it does not necessitate complete, as in say sans randomness, determinism is true.  I certainly got caught up in the rabbit trail, even if I do prefer determinism.  I think I've made a case even if it largely seemed ignored.  I appreciate your effort and wish you well.  

[MiserereNobis]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think the church would have a problem with someone of another faith, or specifically a Catholic, and becoming a member and still having a ritual like the ones you mentioned. What can the church do? I'm sure members do all kinds of things that are far worse than the beautiful ritual you've mentioned. Or am I missing something? 

I'm not entirely sure. That's a question for the LDS to answer. My guess is no. From what I understand, praying the rosary wouldn't be acceptable. Lighting a candle and praying to a Catholic Saint probably not, either. There are other practices, too, I'm sure.

I don't mean this at all as a criticism of the LDS faith overall. I'm specifically referring to the idea, espoused by Hinkley and others on this thread, that the LDS church welcomes good and righteousness from wherever it comes. My criticism is that the phrase sounds different than the application. It sounds inclusionary, but the practice of the LDS faith isn't so inclusionary. And I'm ok with that. I would think it strange for a Catholic to think the Book of Mormon was divine scripture, for example. We can be exclusionary  

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But as we discussed we may not achieve complete objectivity, but it is what we are in pursuit of, if you will. 

Nope

400 years ago Hume differentiated moral discussions from discussions about what "IS" ie: science.

I don't know of anyone who even purports to have refuted this distinction- in fact in contemporary philosophy it is stronger than ever.  Please just don't ignore it- this is central to your position.  Ignoring it hurts your credibility imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Totally different-  obviously physical health is a subject for science and therefore extremely objective

It doesn't even work as an analogy 

 

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope

400 years ago Hume differentiated moral discussions from discussions about what "IS" ie: science.

I don't know of anyone who even purports to have refuted this distinction- in fact in contemporary philosophy it is stronger than ever.  Please just don't ignore it- this is central to your position.  Ignoring it hurts your credibility imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

I haven't.  And yes addressing it directly happened years ago by Sam Harris.  I think overall hes done a good job of it.  

Heres a decent explanation from both sides:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLJGabZ6siFHoC6Nh/sam-harris-and-the-is-ought-gap

I entered the discussion by pointing out free will is an illusion.  It matters not if morality can be objectively verifiable on that proposition anyway.  Heres another nice discussion.  I might relisted myself:

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally different-  obviously physical health is a subject for science and therefore extremely objective

It doesn't even work as an analogy 

 

Why would you get stuck thinking physical health is axiomatically a subject for science but morality is not?  At some point in every field of science we throw in an assumption and no one blinks an eye.  Someone attempts the same with morality and everyone gets stuck, afraid to proceed.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not entirely sure. That's a question for the LDS to answer. My guess is no. From what I understand, praying the rosary wouldn't be acceptable. Lighting a candle and praying to a Catholic Saint probably not, either. There are other practices, too, I'm sure.

I don't mean this at all as a criticism of the LDS faith overall. I'm specifically referring to the idea, espoused by Hinkley and others on this thread, that the LDS church welcomes good and righteousness from wherever it comes. My criticism is that the phrase sounds different than the application. It sounds inclusionary, but the practice of the LDS faith isn't so inclusionary. And I'm ok with that. I would think it strange for a Catholic to think the Book of Mormon was divine scripture, for example. We can be exclusionary  

I think there would be counseling of what is correct doctrine for us for praying and a good leader would explore why the person felt the need to continue to pray to someone else besides the Father, but unless the convert was publicly teaching others it was okay, I don't think anything would be done.

I agree that in terms of specific behaviours and beliefs, the quote can give the wrong impression.  I think it would be taught that prayer to the Father in a meditative way would achieve the same purpose.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Islander said:

You moved the goal post ever so slightly. You mentioned that "some one in Tokio may be following a Shinto path", and my answer was directed at that position. 

As far as LDS exclusive claims, they are the result of revelation in the latter days. Ever since the early Church, the Apostles fought (and wrote quite extensively) concerning heresies and false doctrine that began to infiltrate even at that time. This began to take place during the same generation of Christ and while there were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the ministry and works of Jesus. Paul continually warned about it. Even John encountered brazen opposition to his authority as an Apostle in some congregations (see below). The Restoration is God's work in this age to set His doctrine and authority upon the earth once more. Those that worship Jesus in truth and in love may be saved (only God knows such things) but lack the further light and truth that now has been restored to His servants. Why deny the grace and mercy of God available more abundantly thru the ordinances of the Restored Gospel?

There will always be opposition to the true Gospel. Then and now.

"I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.

For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church".

3 John 1:8-10

No I didn't move it. Shinto was only one example in that reply. I am not talking about only non-Christian paths, but all paths other than LDS baptism which can be good.