The bare minimum.

[Vanguard]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the reply. I really like your last paragraph. I could not disagree with that. Having said that, I can only add that to my current knowledge, I don't think denominations, sects, or groups from earth or any of their specific practices will continue in the heavenlies. I see no Biblical evidence of that, nor can my mind fathom that. I think Christ is the way, truth, the life and that no man will literally come before the Father but by Him (through His judgment). I don't see Him having denominational preferences. I say that acknowledging that I believe there will be many who never heard, who He will judge positively, and show them the "way" to His Father. In my own brand of provisional certitude I don't think any individual or group expression of Christianity will be the way, the truth, or the life. Methinks we all might have some surprises in heaven; what I wonder is if we will have regrets when we learn those things? So many questions! Take care!

I agree there will most certainly be surprises. ; ) I also agree with everything you said though I'm not sure why you said it? Do you think I might believe 'Mormonism' will be the favored denomination after this life? I do not. I don't believe there will be a favored denomination. I do believe, however, there are things he wants us to do and one of those things is to effect his ordinances under the priesthood power he bestowed in the restoration. Much as I'm sure you believe baptism is essential (or maybe you don't?), I believe it is necessary to effect this ordinance with His priesthood authority. The Mormon priesthood? No. His priesthood that the LDS faith has been tasked with holding - there is a difference.  

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for this. I believe John's and New Testament baptisms were baptisms of a different kind. They were simply different. I believe baptisms for the remission of sins and baptisms to testify of an apriori faith and commitment to Christ as a testimony of the same, are baptisms of a different kind. I have never received John's baptism as probably neither have you. I have never received water baptism for the remission of sins, but have received water baptism to witness as a testimony of my commitment and fidelity to Christ. These are three different baptisms. There is also a fourth in the Christian church - baptism for receipt of the Holy Spirit as practiced by Pentecostal groups. My LDS friends believe they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism and via confirmation by the laying on of hands by elders. I believe I received the gift of the Holy Spirit at the point in time (aorist) my salvation was made complete by my repentance, turning from sin, and acknowledging the atonement of Christ. That happened at a point of time. The finishing of my faith in sanctification happens over the rest of my life and probably into the eternities. There are still others who receive the gift of the Holy Spirit by the very act of baptism itself. Some see baptism as entry into membership in a specific church, group, sect, or denomination. Other see no connection in that regard to membership in a specific denomination. Others don't baptize with water at all. There are those who believe being baptized makes us a Christian. Others believe baptism is in no way salvific.

So can all these folks be right? Can all their baptisms and receipt of the Holy Spirit be pleasing to Christ? I think so. I am not certain. But someday in the next life we will find out, won't we? In the mean time as the old Christian hymn goes, "But until then my heart will go on singing, until then with joy I'll carry on. Until that day my eyes behold the City, until the day God calls me home"  I will strive to be faithful and will maintain my provisional certainty about all these many issues and questions. I do not know the degree to which Christ prefers this or that . . . I do believe He is deeply hurt when we as believers in Him fight and bicker amongst ourselves about things we cannot possibly be sure of in this life. Best.

Interestingly for me, what you just described (all of the different beliefs in baptism and the unknowns around it) shows me how important it is to have a living prophet and why the Bible isn't enough scripture.  Someone like Peter who can explain/teach/clarify Christ's teachings.  Because all of those different beliefs in baptism (and all of the other various beliefs about other Christian aspects) just feels too confusing.  I'm glad you can find something in the confusion but it isn't for me.

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

Interestingly for me, what you just described (all of the different beliefs in baptism and the unknowns around it) shows me how important it is to have a living prophet and why the Bible isn't enough scripture.  Someone like Peter who can explain/teach/clarify Christ's teachings.  Because all of those different beliefs in baptism (and all of the other various beliefs about other Christian aspects) just feels too confusing.  I'm glad you can find something in the confusion but it isn't for me.

I agree. Good thing we have the papacy 😉😁

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Wow! You said not all Christians are his covenant people. Could you explain what makes someone a real covenant Christian compared to an ordinary lackadaisical Christian?

I provided a link that explains it.  Click on "Abrahamic covenant".

27 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

I gotta laugh again at what you just said. For one, I never said I know better than the prophets. But I will say the prophets are wrong often. Do you not agree? They're just men, they make mistakes. Unless you believe excluding blacks from the temple was actually part of God's plan? What about in 2015 when they decided to exclude children of same sex couples from getting baptized, did you agree with that? You should be grateful the prophets of our church are man enough to admit mistakes. 

I agree that prophets make mistakes occasionally.  But to suggest that the prophets have led the entire church off the rails and that they have "lost sight of the purpose of existence on earth"???  Yeah, that is kind of like saying that you know better than them how to direct the church in a more purposeful way. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:35 AM, Stargazer said:

Repeating for emphasis? 🙂

I really have no idea how that happened. I didn’t reload, copy, or do anything differently than usual. Must be such a great comment that it bears repeating many times.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

He used to also command blacks couldn't enter the temple. 

No, he didn’t.  We can track how the ban came about, we have what was actually said now, when Brigham first announced it and it was not in church.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That describes my oldest son who is on the autism spectrum and has dealt with serious social anxiety. I didn’t understand any of that and just he was being rebellious and didn’t want to go to church. When he was about 15, he somehow agreed to give a talk in sacrament meeting. He got increasingly stressed as it drew closer, so I helped him write it and practice it. That Sunday he gave us all kinds of reasons why he couldn’t go to church. I of course thought this would a chance for him to get over what I saw as shyness. He actually gave the talk but then went straight home and stayed in his room. I still feel terrible that we pretty much made him go through with it. He has forgiven us. 

Lots of people don’t understand there is a qualitative difference between severe social anxiety and the social anxiety most people experience at some time in their life, not just one of degree.  And it is not something that goes away if you grit your teeth and will yourself through it.  Everyone I know who has it has told me that gritting it out (which they tend to be very good at) makes it worse because the hyper awareness of the situation and the post performance drop (because we are performing when we socialize, acting as how we think others want to see us act or how we think we should act rather than how we want to) just confirms your expectations of disaster and your physical reactions occur whether or not it was a ‘success’, so forcing someone to go through with it just makes it worse…and adds another failure to our tally.  Desensitization can help, but through small, incremental changes.

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Her passages do not refute the point I'm making. We're all God's children. But for some reason 99.9% or so are banned from entering the house of the lord. Why? 

We're a very young restored religion. And we're facing a lot of growing pains right now. Loudmouth mormon accused me of being a teenager because of my beliefs. I find that funny because I personally think I see the bigger picture and understand what our religion actually has to offer.     

     When my kids were young I built them a tree fort and the first thing they did was post a card board sign on the door that read, KEEP OUT! They felt empowered and a sense of authority because they were the gatekeepers of the mighty tree fort. It was a beautiful tree fort, and many of the neighborhood kids desperately wanted to climb the ladder so they could enter the mighty fort. But my kids were very selective about who entered. Because my kids were young, they often based entry into the fort on someone's looks or popularity. Excluding the kids that might actually be a better friend than the ones they allowed to play in the fort. This saddened me.

  The temple is no different compared to how my children handled entry into their tree fort. Dont forget, just a few years ago we wouldn't allow certain people in the temple because of what they look like. Right now we exclude most of Heavenly Father's righteous children because we're scared we might lose or mishandle the authority we've been entrusted with. I think that comes from being persecuted for so so  many years. We need to stop looking at other religions as less than. 

Are Christians God's covenant people? If so, are you able to define a Christian?

 

Of course! Are we not all missionaries? Are we not here to convert as many people as possible to the Gospel? We should be using the temples to promote the gospel. Why do you want to deny entry to the people who would benefit the most?

 

This made me laugh. You do realize why the church was restored? We're a "in the last days" religion. Everything we believe in is based on an apostasy. Do you not believe that? Are you telling me you don't think we're heading for an apostasy? 

 

Why would you ask this question?

 

Why would you ask this question? Is it because I believe God wants more than .1% of his children to enjoy the blessings of the temple? .1%, are you OK with that percentage? 

Why haven't you addressed what I said about the temple is for ourselves and for the dead? If you don't mind my reminder. I really like that you want to include more in the temple though. 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Interestingly for me, what you just described (all of the different beliefs in baptism and the unknowns around it) shows me how important it is to have a living prophet and why the Bible isn't enough scripture.  Someone like Peter who can explain/teach/clarify Christ's teachings.  Because all of those different beliefs in baptism (and all of the other various beliefs about other Christian aspects) just feels too confusing.  I'm glad you can find something in the confusion but it isn't for me.

I don't see the diversity of opinions and beliefs as confusing. . . I see them as liberating - freeing. I don't have to claim that I have thee TRUTH. I can be content in having my truth. Best to you.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree. Good thing we have the papacy 😉😁

So do I choose to believe the LDS way or the Catholic way? Pope vs president and prophet. No thank you. I will happily and contentedly wait until that day God calls me home!

[Jerry Atric]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No, he didn’t.  We can track how the ban came about, we have what was actually said now, when Brigham first announced it and it was not in church

You're blaming the priesthood ban on Brigham young? I've been a member all my life and have never heard that. If that's true, that would mean Heavenly Father allowed a bogus priesthood ban to stay in place for 130 years. Does that make sense to you? 

But none of that matters actually because everything is perfectly explained in Official Declaration 2. Let's look at what it says, keeping in mind you believe it's Brighams fault.  In the second paragraph of the declaration,  we learn that Spencer Kimball received a revelation from God and from that time forward, all worth male members of the church, regardless of skin color, were eligible to receive the priesthood and its blessings. Nothing was said about Brigham making a terrible mistake. Let's keep going. Further in we learn that the brethren desired to extend privileges and blessings to all worthy members regardless of skin color. They were aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the church who had preceded them in saying that at some point, all worthy members regardless of skin color will one day benefit from blessings of the priesthood. And here's the most important part of all, because if this is true then your Brigham Young theory isn't true. Here's what's said "from whom the priesthood has been withheld (blacks), we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by Revelation has confirmed that the long promise day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple." You see, nothing about Brigham Young screwing up and essentially cursing black people for 130 years. There's a reason the revelation reads "the long promised day has come". 

If it was Brigams fault all along, why was there a need for a revelation from God? And if it was Brighams fault,  why didn't God reveal that in the revelation?  

[Jerry Atric]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why haven't you addressed what I said about the temple is for ourselves and for the dead? If you don't mind my reminder. I really like that you want to include more in the temple though. 

Sorry,  I thought I did. I'll go back and read through that thread.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

If that's true, that would mean Heavenly Father allowed a bogus priesthood ban to stay in place for 130 years. Does that make sense to you? 

Yes.  I don’t believe prophets are infallible or the Church is perfect.  Makes a lot more sense than God, who is perfect, instituting a ban after making it clear in scripture all are alike unto to him.
 

He allowed people to actually keep slaves in the Old Testament too and for a time with the Restored Church, which sounds much worse to me.

Why was revelation needed to restore the Church?  Entrenched false traditions of men.  The tradition of the curse of Cain got brought into the new church and while Brigham could respect black men with the priesthood (called one black elder the best man in the camp in fact), he couldn’t handle marriage between black men and white women.

I suggest you read Religion of a Different Color by Paul Reeve for an excellent background, one of those who contributed to the Gospel Topic Essay on the Ban, though not one who had final say on what was kept in and what was edited out.  But we have learned even more with the translation of the Pittman shorthand of Brigham’s speech.  It was discovered the man doing the transcribing and interpretation changed some of the words to make it sound more prophetish.  I am spacing on whether or not Brigham had a chance to approve it or not.  I will go dig up the article for you and try and find a timeline of the actual development of the ban and why they were still asking in the 1880’s what they whether or not they should ordain or allow to go to the temple, which would be strange if there was an actual revelation instituting the ban.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

You're blaming the priesthood ban on Brigham young? I've been a member all my life and have never heard that. If that's true, that would mean Heavenly Father allowed a bogus priesthood ban to stay in place for 130 years. Does that make sense to you? 

But none of that matters actually because everything is perfectly explained in Official Declaration 2. Let's look at what it says, keeping in mind you believe it's Brighams fault.  In the second paragraph of the declaration,  we learn that Spencer Kimball received a revelation from God and from that time forward, all worth male members of the church, regardless of skin color, were eligible to receive the priesthood and its blessings. Nothing was said about Brigham making a terrible mistake. Let's keep going. Further in we learn that the brethren desired to extend privileges and blessings to all worthy members regardless of skin color. They were aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the church who had preceded them in saying that at some point, all worthy members regardless of skin color will one day benefit from blessings of the priesthood. And here's the most important part of all, because if this is true then your Brigham Young theory isn't true. Here's what's said "from whom the priesthood has been withheld (blacks), we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by Revelation has confirmed that the long promise day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple." You see, nothing about Brigham Young screwing up and essentially cursing black people for 130 years. There's a reason the revelation reads "the long promised day has come". 

If it was Brigams fault all along, why was there a need for a revelation from God? And if it was Brighams fault,  why didn't God reveal that in the revelation?  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Calm]

A timeline of the development of the ban:

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/blacks-and-priesthood-temple-ban-timeline/
 

Quote

William McCary, a recent black convert baptized by Orson Hyde meets with the Twelve to ask them for protection from racist saints. Though born a slave in Mississippi McCary’s appearance was such that he sometimes passed as an “Indian.” McCary had an enigmatic but, for some, an attractive personality. He was both a gifted musician and storyteller and often performed for the saints as a source of their entertainment. Many Church members, however, were uneasy and even critical of McCary for marrying a white wife, Lucy Stanton. According to McCary, some would say smugly, as they passed by, “there go the old nigger & his white wife.” McCary asked the Twelve to examine him carefully to see if he were black or Indian. In either case, McCary entreated them, “All I ask is, will you protect me—I’ve come here & given myself out to be your servant.” 

Brigham Young responded, “Its nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh.” He then added for emphasis, “We have one of the best Elder an African in Lowell [Massachusetts],” referring to Q. Walker Lewis. 

McCary went on to say, “If I am a darky, I want to serve God.” To which Brigham Young said, “Amen.”

A bit later in the conversation McCary said, “I want you to intercede for me. I am not a priest, or a leader of the people, but a common brother—because I am a little shade darker.” To which Brigham Young replied, “We don’t care about the color.” McCary then asked, “Do I hear that from all?” To which all replied “Aye.” (Spelling, capitalization, and punctuation standardized; “Meeting Minutes of the Twelve, March 26, 1847,” in Richard E. Turley Jr., ed., Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, DVD. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2002, 1:18)

Quote

October. After returning to Winter Quarters, Nebraska from his first journey to the Rocky Mountains earlier that summer, Brigham Young met often in council with other Church leaders there on various subjects. William Appleby—author of the June letter (above) which questioned Walker Lewis’s ordination and his son’s interracial marriage—was present at at least one of these councils where he again brought up these issues. The minutes of this council report that Appleby said: “Wm. Smith ordained a black man [an] Elder at Lowell [Massachusets] & [his son] has married a white girl & they have a child”—Enoch Lewis and his white wife Mary Webster had had their first child together earlier that April 1847. 

According to the meeting minutes, President Young responded, “If they were far away from the Gentiles they [would] all [have] to be killed—when they mingle it is death to all.” This hyperbolic statement of Brigham Young’s reflects his deep belief that interracial marriage and bearing mixed-race children was a crime against nature and could ultimately lead to humanity’s demise.

Yet it is clear from his next words in the record that he wrestled to also fully include those in mixed-race marriages in the Church. He continued, “If a black man & a white woman come to you & demand baptism, can you deny them?” And then added, “The law is their seed shall not be amalgamated.” That is, they can be allowed into the Church but they should not have children. This was so because, he said, “Mulattoes [are] like mules, they can’t have children.” This statement reflects the widespread belief common in that day that mixed-race children were defective in some key ways. 

Historian Edward Long, for example, had written that mulattoes were “of the mule-kind, and not capable of producing” (source). Prominent biologist of the day, Josiah Nott, had also declared confidently that “the mulatto [is] no more [a negro] … than a mule is a horse” (source). Nott also warned in 1843 that because of the infertility of their offspring,  intermarriage between blacks and whites would lead to the “probable extermination of the two races” (source). 

Brigham’s statement above about mulattoes clearly displays how deeply he had incorporated such erroneous assumptions into his own personal beliefs. Yet, in his next statement in these meeting minutes he said of such mulatto children that “if they will be eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake they may have a place in the Temple”—showing that at this time Brigham Young’s inclinations were toward racial inclusion in the temple

Quote

The environment in which the early events of the Restoration took place was filled with racial division and strife. When the Church was organized in 1830, many people of African descent were still enslaved in different parts of the United States. Even in the parts of the United States where slavery was not allowed, most churches were segregated by race. From the beginning of the Church, membership was never determined based on race or ethnicity; all were invited to receive baptism and make covenants with God. During Joseph Smith’s ministry, several men of Black African ancestry received the priesthood, including Elijah Abel and Q. Walker Lewis.¹ Near the end of his lifetime, in 1844, Joseph Smith ran for president of the United States. As a presidential candidate, he proposed “to abolish slavery by the year 1850.”²

When Brigham Young became the President of the Church, he expressed complex views on race. At a public meeting held in 1845, President Young taught that “the Spirits of the Chil[dren] of men are pure & holy without transgress[io]n or any curse upon them—& the differences you see around you [are] on acc[oun]t of the circumstances that surround them.”³ In a meeting held in March 1847 with William McCrary, a Black member of the Church, President Young taught, “Of one blood God made all flesh.” He told McCrary, “We don’t care about the color.”⁴ In the same meeting, President Young referred to Q. Walker Lewis, a Black man who was ordained to the priesthood, as “one of the best Elders, an African.”⁵

In 1852, President Young announced the new priesthood policy. During the same address, he taught that “the time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.”⁶ In the years following the announcement of the policy, many Church members in various positions have offered explanations for why the policy was put in place. It is wise for those who study the history of this policy to use caution when using any of these explanations. An official essay published by the Church teaches, “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”⁷

 

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/sections/commentary-on-od-2/?Verse-1

[Nofear]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I can't fathom in my final interview before Christ on judgment day, Him asking me where, when, and how I was baptized as a criterion for eternal life with Him forever. Take care.

I very much differ from your perspective. I see Christ asking me if I am willing to obey his laws, his ways, his government. If am unwilling to abide the conditions of citizenship in his kingdom/society than I don't expect citizenship in said kingdom. In the world, we have tacit "acceptance" of a government's laws by just being born or living in that country. Christ's way is none so arbitrary. Instead we have baptism, a "signature" to the statement, "Yes, I accept Christ's laws and all the responsibilities associated with being a citizen of his kingdom/society. That signature isn't with pen and paper, but a formal declaration in front of one having authority -- baptism by immersion. No exceptions*.

 

 

* No exceptions, after age 8. And even those pre-8 individuals I suspect will have some formal mechanism in place, but it doesn't pertain to mortality.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I very much differ from your perspective. I see Christ asking me if I am willing to obey his laws, his ways, his government. If am unwilling to abide the conditions of citizenship in his kingdom/society than I don't expect citizenship in said kingdom. In the world, we have tacit "acceptance" of a government's laws by just being born or living in that country. Christ's way is none so arbitrary. Instead we have baptism, a "signature" to the statement, "Yes, I accept Christ's laws and all the responsibilities associated with being a citizen of his kingdom/society. That signature isn't with pen and paper, but a formal declaration in front of one having authority -- baptism by immersion. No exceptions*.

 

 

* No exceptions, after age 8. And even those pre-8 individuals I suspect will have some formal mechanism in place, but it doesn't pertain to mortality.

Very curious. When and where did Christ lay down this law, or for that matter any other law? -- "a formal declaration in front of one having authority -- baptism by immersion. No exceptions." Baptism is "a signature." Please tell me more. Christ did the signing and sealing himself via his atonement. It is His signature that counts for eternity, is it not? BTW, I don't mind you differing from my perspective; lots of folks do. I hope you don't mind my asking you questions about the difference. Take care. 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Jerry's quotes:
"What saddens me is far too often we exclude the "sinners" that need the temple the most."
"The only person who can keep you out of the temple is you, not a bishop nor a stake president."
"We're all God's children. But for some reason 99.9% or so are banned from entering the house of the lord. Why?"

Honestly, @Jerry Atric, at this point, it's like you're arguing with yourself.  

 

 "I really doubt a potential convert has walked into a mormon ward building and been impressed with the itchy burlap on the walls. You're not thinking big enough."

Heh.  Through my decades, I've gathered several dozen positive reactions from nonmembers who look at the basketball courts in our churches with gratitude, and sometimes envy.  
- "I wish my church did something to use the building during the week."
- "That's so cool that you have a safe and positive space for your youth to exercise and do sports."
- "Wait, this place is called a 'culture hall'?  You use it for weddings, social activities, sports, and you use it on Sundays too?  This is how you use your tithing funds!  It's almost like your church cares about it's people.  Our pastor drives a car more expensive than my house, and our nursery makes us bring our own snacks."

Someone isn't thinking big enough here.  

Edited August 25, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Nofear]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Very curious. When and where did Christ lay down this law, or for that matter any other law? -- "a formal declaration in front of one having authority -- baptism by immersion. No exceptions." Baptism is "a signature." Please tell me more. Christ did the signing and sealing himself via his atonement. It is His signature that counts for eternity, is it not? BTW, I don't mind you differing from my perspective; lots of folks do. I hope you don't mind my asking you questions about the difference. Take care.

Christ did indeed perform the Atonement for every single one of us. We must choose to accept it and make it a part of our life. I suspect there isn't any variance of substance twixt us on that front.

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, baptism is a covenant. In that covenant we promise to take upon ourselves Christ's name and to keep his commandments. In return we can be citizens of his Kingdom. We authorize/authenticate/certify that covenant by baptism by immersion by one having authority. John 3:3,5.

What law did Christ give? We sometimes call them commandments. Chief among those laws is the law to love one another. "I give you a new law. That law is, "Love each other." As I have loved you, so you also love each other." John 13:34 (WE edition).

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Christ did indeed perform the Atonement for every single one of us. We must choose to accept it and make it a part of our life. I suspect there isn't any variance of substance twixt us on that front.

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, baptism is a covenant. In that covenant we promise to take upon ourselves Christ's name and to keep his commandments. In return we can be citizens of his Kingdom. We authorize/authenticate/certify that covenant by baptism by immersion by one having authority. John 3:3,5.

What law did Christ give? We sometimes call them commandments. Chief among those laws is the law to love one another. "I give you a new law. That law is, "Love each other." As I have loved you, so you also love each other." John 13:34 (WE edition).

From this non-Latter-day Saint's perspective, baptism is a covenant. I completely agree. We agree, by the very act of baptism to be a witness to Christ and use His name. That covenant is a requisite for baptism. We also covenant to keep his commandments and be faithful to Him in our lives from that point forward. We authorize/authenticate/certify those covenants and witness to the same by baptism by immersion by one having authority! No difference there. Christ's commandment for us to love one another is certainly emphasized in every church I have ever attended: LDS and non-LDS.

I sense a protest may becoming about who has authority . . . we won't settle that debate until the other side. So, no point in haggling over it. Christ clearly said In Matthew 28 that all authority was given unto Him. No debate there. in Verses 18 and 19 He authorizes his followers to Go . . . make disciples . . . and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nothing to debate there. The disciples did as Christ directed and the gospel soon spread to the entire area. We know that followers who weren't in the original disciple group baptized. So it is today. Authority to baptize today is given by those in leadership in a specific church, group, sect, denomination, etc. Some are specific that only those so authorized within their own church may baptize, others do not specify this.

So it is with Mennonites and with the Latter-day Saints. Only members, and only certain members of the church may baptize, correct? Those who are authorized. As a non-member and one without authorization from the LDS leadership, I may not baptize in an LDS ward, temple, etc. In the same way one authorized in the LDS community may not baptize in a Baptist or Mennonite church, correct? Both your and my authority stop at the doors of the other's church (metaphorically speaking). I have baptized folks in several churches aligned with several groups, and one church not aligned with any group bigger than itself, but never without the authority of those elders who were chosen to lead the church. Same with you.

Christ said remarkably little in the gospels about baptism. As far as we know, He the one with all authority never baptized anyone. It is a shame that baptism has become a dividing mechanism among Christians. I believe that must cause the Savior much pain. Much that we do in our finite attempts to follow His directions fall short of hitting the mark.  Enough said. Thanks for dialoguing with me. I enjoy it. My best.

[Jerry Atric]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Jerry's quotes:
"What saddens me is far too often we exclude the "sinners" that need the temple the most.""What saddens me is far too often we exclude the "sinners" that need the temple the most."
"The only person who can keep you out of the temple is you, not a bishop nor a stake president."
"We're all God's children. But for some reason 99.9% or so are banned from entering the house of the lord. Why?"

Honestly, @Jerry Atric, at this point, it's like you're arguing with yourself.  

 

 "I really doubt a potential convert has walked into a mormon ward building and been impressed with the itchy burlap on the walls. You're not thinking big enough."

Heh.  Through my decades, I've gathered several dozen positive reactions from nonmembers who look at the basketball courts in our churches with gratitude, and sometimes envy.  
- "I wish my church did something to use the building during the week."
- "That's so cool that you have a safe and positive space for your youth to exercise and do sports."
- "Wait, this place is called a 'culture hall'?  You use it for weddings, social activities, sports, and you use it on Sundays too?  This is how you use your tithing funds!  It's almost like your church cares about it's people.  Our pastor drives a car more expensive than my house, and our nursery makes us bring our own snacks."

Someone isn't thinking big enough here.  

Thanks for posting some of my best work!

Let's review.  

"What saddens me is far too often we exclude the "sinners" that need the temple the most."

This one is great. Because I really do think we should allow more people to enjoy the beauty found inside the temple. As a non-Catholic I can enjoy the beauty found inside catholic cathedrals. I'm not a member of the community of Christ, but I can tour their temple. Many religions allow nonmembers to enter their holiest buildings. Question, Loudmouth. Are you opposed to letting nonmembers enjoy what mormonism has to offer? What about opening the temple one day a week for visitors? 

 

"The only person who can keep you out of the temple is you, not a bishop nor a stake president."

Loudmouth, would you not agree that you're the only person that can keep you out of the temple? 

 

"We're all God's children. But for some reason 99.9% or so are banned from entering the house of the lord. Why?"

Billions of our brothers and sisters walk the earth with us today, but we only allow what, maybe 2 or 3 million to enter the temple? We'll send 50,000 young men and women all around the world to knock doors to convert people,  but for some reason we don't use the temple as a tool for conversion. Loudmouth, what would be a negative in letting our nonmormon brothers and sisters enjoy the beauty found inside our temples? Just to observe and enjoy the spirit. 

 

 

 

- "Wait, this place is called a 'culture hall'?  You use it for weddings, social activities, sports, and you use it on Sundays too?  This is how you use your tithing funds!  It's almost like your church cares about it's people.  Our pastor drives a car more expensive than my house, and our nursery makes us bring our own snacks."

Most of the Christian churches where I live have a gymnasium/basketball court. Really not that big of a deal, Loudmouth.. The catholic church down the road has a soccer field. Some churches have swimming pools. Some churches have a humongous playground. 

 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

What about opening the temple one day a week for visitors? 

As an open house kind of thing or for tourists to gawk at the worshippers or to seek a place to worship themselves?

[Jerry Atric]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

As an open house kind of thing or for tourists to gawk at the worshippers or to seek a place to worship themselves?

As an open house. Let's say every Monday we open the temples so people can walk certain parts of the temple. Eat at the cafeteria. If they want to pray they can. If they want to just hang out they can just hang out. You see anything wrong with that idea?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jerry Atric said:

As an open house. Let's say every Monday we open the temples so people can walk certain parts of the temple. Eat at the cafeteria. If they want to pray they can. If they want to just hang out they can just hang out. You see anything wrong with that idea?

Why would someone who isn’t a member want to go into the temple? 

[Jerry Atric]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would someone who isn’t a member want to go into the temple? 

Why would anyone join a religion because a 18 year old kid knocked on their front door? That's not a joke. I'm serious. You don't believe the spirit can work in mysterious ways? Temples are beautiful inside. 

You ever been inside a catholic cathedral? I have and I was absolutely amazed at the beauty.