Which Revelations Provide My LDS Friends with Certainty that Baptisms are the Means by which Sins are Forgiven?

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

If you want to be confirmed in the Catholic Church, and you were baptized by some other group (or maybe even an atheist), they will accept your baptism as long as it was done with the trinitarian formulation.

And understanding. We say almost the same thing and yet are not accepted (and reasonably so imo):

Quote

 I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Quote

Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Added:  oops, didn’t read past the line, thought it was a new subtopic

Edited November 9 by Calm

[Leaf474]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

And understanding. We say almost the same thing and yet are not accepted (and reasonably so imo):

Added:  oops, didn’t read past the line, thought it was a new subtopic

It's all good, and I hear what you're saying!

[MiserereNobis]

We also perform conditional baptisms for those whose original baptisms may or may not have been valid. They don't get "rebaptized" (you can only be baptized once). Instead, the words are: "If you are not baptized, <name>, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

We also perform conditional baptisms for those whose original baptisms may or may not have been valid. They don't get "rebaptized" (you can only be baptized once). Instead, the words are: "If you are not baptized, <name>, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Didn't know! Good strategy for guys like Navidad.  There's no assumption that anyone's baptism was invalid.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

No, they don't, and maybe I should have clarified 😀

 

If you want to be confirmed in the Catholic Church, and you were baptized by some other group (or maybe even an atheist), they will accept your baptism as long as it was done with the trinitarian formulation.

 

The person doing the baptizing isn't critical, the trinitarian part is.

 

My guess is that's why they won't accept an LDS baptism - it's the Trinity issue.

_______________

Edit: And now having read the actual document in your link, instead of just talking off the top of my head 😄, I see this quote

"There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity."

 

That appears to me to be the issue. The words are the same, but the meaning attached to those words is so different that it doesn't really amount to a trinitarian formulation. That's my take away from the article, thanks for posting it!

I've heard of other denominations not accepting our baptism and so took a look.  Found a few more:

• United Methodist Church (https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-does-the-united-methodist-church-accept-the-baptism-of-other-denominations) - "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, though they use the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" when they baptize, mean such different things by this that we both agree that what they offer is not what we consider Christian baptism."
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (https://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/Do_Lutherans_rebaptize_former_Mormons_who_are_joining_the_congregation.pdf) - "Because the Mormon understanding of the Word of God is not the same as the Christian understanding, it is correct to say that Christian Baptism has not taken place. A former Mormon joining an ELCA congregation may be offered Christian Baptism (not rebaptism)."
• Presbyterian Church (USA) (https://www.presbyterianmission.org/wp-content/uploads/presbyterians_and_mormons.pdf) - "However, baptism by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not recognized." (page 26)

The reasons for all of those is that we don't believe in the correct trinity.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Didn't know!

I’m sending a strongly worded letter to the Catholic school of your childhood to let them know they failed in your ecclesiastical formation! 😉😂

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, webbles said:

The reasons for all of those is that we don't believe in the correct trinity.

That’s the main reason for Catholicism, but there are a couple more.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I’m sending a strongly worded letter to the Catholic school of your childhood to let them know they failed in your ecclesiastical formation! 😉😂

Yeah, they never even got into Aquinas at all!.  I mean how can you teach a kid about his First Communion without getting into transubstantiation and Aquinas?? 🥺

I mean they are SEVEN years old for Pete's sake, and should be able to read it in Latin by that age!!

😉😉

 

[Leaf474]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

I've heard of other denominations not accepting our baptism and so took a look.  Found a few more:

• United Methodist Church (https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-does-the-united-methodist-church-accept-the-baptism-of-other-denominations) - "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, though they use the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" when they baptize, mean such different things by this that we both agree that what they offer is not what we consider Christian baptism."
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (https://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/Do_Lutherans_rebaptize_former_Mormons_who_are_joining_the_congregation.pdf) - "Because the Mormon understanding of the Word of God is not the same as the Christian understanding, it is correct to say that Christian Baptism has not taken place. A former Mormon joining an ELCA congregation may be offered Christian Baptism (not rebaptism)."
• Presbyterian Church (USA) (https://www.presbyterianmission.org/wp-content/uploads/presbyterians_and_mormons.pdf) - "However, baptism by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not recognized." (page 26)

 

10 hours ago, webbles said:

The reasons for all of those is that we don't believe in the correct trinity.

Yes, same words, different meaning.

 

Do the Saints agree that it's a different meaning? Or the meaning is close enough, the issue with other baptisms is lack of priesthood authority?

[webbles]

43 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

 

Yes, same words, different meaning.

 

Do the Saints agree that it's a different meaning? Or the meaning is close enough, the issue with other baptisms is lack of priesthood authority?

For us, I don't think we care about the words or the meaning as much.  In the Book of Mormon, Alma the Elder uses a completely different set of words when he baptizes people (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/18?lang=eng&id=p12-p13#p12).  We do enforce a specific wording now-a-days but that is only relevant to this dispensation, not to all dispensations.  I would say it is mostly the lack of priesthood authority.

As for the opinion that the meaning is different, I can see that.  We don't accept the trinity doctrine.  The words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit have different meaning to us.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

As for the opinion that the meaning is different, I can see that.  We don't accept the trinity doctrine.  The words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit have different meaning to us.

But if we thought they had the authority as well, don’t think meaning would mean much…only if God approved (and giving them authority would mean approval).

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

But if we thought they had the authority as well, don’t think meaning would mean much…only if God approved (and giving them authority would mean approval).

One of the things I have pondered is why we need a Godhead at all.

Jehovah/Christ through divine investiture, for all practical purposes, IS both Father and Son, whose intelligence ( (" Light of Christ" )permeates every pebble of all his creations in two-way connection with all beings and all matter/spirit.  It is like, I think, a sort of "super zoom", if we want a human analogy.  He can "be" anywhere and everywhere at once, from his desk in the CK as it were, and if he desires.

So why does the paradigm demand another person/ function which seems redundant, called the "Holy Ghost"?

It is said that he can "dwell" in your heart," while fulfilling the same functions as the light of Christ.

And do we need two spirits - our own AND the HG "dwelling in our hearts"?

Jehovah cannot do all of these functions "Himself"?

I am becoming more Monotheistic every day. There IS someONE out there- that I know that through experience 

The "three with one purpose" sure beats the "substance/essence/" argument but why do we need it at all?

Ideas?

Edited November 11 by mfbukowski
Major clarifications

[mfbukowski]

On 11/9/2023 at 7:18 PM, MiserereNobis said:

That’s the main reason for Catholicism, but there are a couple more.

Are you saying that the Trinity is the "main reason for Catholicism"?

I guess I missed a post or two.

I thought it might be the Eucharist, since I THINK (?) that the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is now unique to Catholics and not to the rest of "Christianity".

I also know some see Catholicism as the ONLY "true Christianity".

Edited November 11 by mfbukowski
Major clarification, misplaced modifier

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Are you saying that the Trinity is the "main reason for Catholicism"?

I guess I missed a post or two.

I thought it might be the Eucharist, since I THINK (?) that the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is now unique to Catholics and not to the rest of "Christianity".

I also know some see Catholicism as the ONLY "true Christianity".

I meant it in regards to the reasons why Catholicism does not accept LDS baptism as valid. 

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I meant it in regards to the reasons why Catholicism does not accept LDS baptism as valid. 

Ok thanks, gotcha. 🤔

[CV75]

On 11/11/2023 at 1:00 PM, mfbukowski said:

One of the things I have pondered is why we need a Godhead at all.

Jehovah/Christ through divine investiture, for all practical purposes, IS both Father and Son, whose intelligence ( (" Light of Christ" )permeates every pebble of all his creations in two-way connection with all beings and all matter/spirit.  It is like, I think, a sort of "super zoom", if we want a human analogy.  He can "be" anywhere and everywhere at once, from his desk in the CK as it were, and if he desires.

So why does the paradigm demand another person/ function which seems redundant, called the "Holy Ghost"?

It is said that he can "dwell" in your heart," while fulfilling the same functions as the light of Christ.

And do we need two spirits - our own AND the HG "dwelling in our hearts"?

Jehovah cannot do all of these functions "Himself"?

I am becoming more Monotheistic every day. There IS someONE out there- that I know that through experience 

The "three with one purpose" sure beats the "substance/essence/" argument but why do we need it at all?

Ideas?

I think the Godhead expresses the eternal principle that no one (even God) is exalted alone, and that the three estates (Exaltation [Father], Pre-Mortal [Holy Ghost] and the Bridge between them [Son]) are at once comprehended and reconciled by God for those living in any and each of the other estates. There may well be more Participants and estates than these contained within the Godhead, and God may actually be better defined as a Familial Entity and not an Individual, but this teaching makes the essential points that we are exalted as families through Jesus Christ, that exaltation entails ongoing life with the Father and the Firstborn, and that the Holy Ghost can witness of and join Them, so we can too, either in this telestial estate or the spirit-world estate to follow.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the Godhead expresses the eternal principle that no one (even God) is exalted alone, and that the three estates (Exaltation [Father], Pre-Mortal [Holy Ghost] and the Bridge between them [Son]) are at once comprehended and reconciled by God for those living in any and each of the other estates. There may well be more Participants and estates than these contained within the Godhead, and God may actually be better defined as a Familial Entity and not an Individual, but this teaching makes the essential points that we are exalted as families through Jesus Christ, that exaltation entails ongoing life with the Father and the Firstborn, and that the Holy Ghost can witness of and join Them, so we can too, either in this telestial estate or the spirit-world estate to follow.

Yes, certainly that could be right, and there is a ton of evidence for that in a Social Trinity paradigm, but my direct experience is that I am "talking to" one being, so for me,your description becomes a kind of metanarrative that adds complexity without any functionality.

Yes, I can see it as a family as well, and have no problem accepting that if the Lord told me "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!"

But so far it seems like an explanation looking for a purpose.

But it IS a great point, but what bothers me is that it FEELS like my "conversations" with God are with one being.

I think direct experience is very important for knowing what is "real", because for me, experience IS what we call "real".

Again, is red real? Of course! I do not see pure light " as it is"- I only see colors.

[Leaf474]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, certainly that could be right, and there is a ton of evidence for that in a Social Trinity paradigm, but my direct experience is that I am "talking to" one being, so for me,your description becomes a kind of metanarrative that adds complexity without any functionality.

Yes, I can see it as a family as well, and have no problem accepting that if the Lord told me "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!"

But so far it seems like an explanation looking for a purpose.

But it IS a great point, but what bothers me is that it FEELS like my "conversations" with God are with one being.

I think direct experience is very important for knowing what is "real", because for me, experience IS what we call "real".

 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Again, is red real? Of course! I do not see pure light " as it is"- I only see colors.

In the link below, you endorse the idea that descriptions can be true or false, yes?

 

If so, if you describe red as green, is your description true or false?

 

Following that out, what is the true description of the Godhead?

 

 

 

Big picture, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how it relates specifically to LDS-ism. It seems like it would fit better, or at least just as well, with Hinduism or Buddhism?

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

 

In the link below, you endorse the idea that descriptions can be true or false, yes?

 

If so, if you describe red as green, is your description true or false?

 

Following that out, what is the true description of the Godhead?

 

 

 

Big picture, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how it relates specifically to LDS-ism. It seems like it would fit better, or at least just as well, with Hinduism or Buddhism?

 

This is a huge question which deserves a huge answer. If you and/or others show any interest I would start a new thread, showing how a contemporary secular philosophy called NeoPragmatism  could be a great gift to ALL religions, but religious folks tend to run away from it when they realize that it requires the idea that truth may be relative, because:

1. The ambiguity of language does not EVER give us the possibility of making a connection between the truth or falsity of "your red" and "my green", and no way to connect the words of your concept EXACTLY to my concept or some "reality" outside of us, to determine if YOUR color description "corresponds" to MY description, OR "what is true" of that color for all mankind.

But color description are only an easy way to understand that ALL the world I AM CAPABLE OF KNOWING is subjective.

We can only know what WE -each of us- CAN know, and then even if we do our best to DESCRIBE what we know, it may not be the same things others "know" about the subject of discussion when they hear your words.

Of course the world is "out there" - it is psychotic to think it is not, (see logical fallacy called "appeal to the stone) BUT our PERCEPTIONS  and our DESCRIPTIONS OF THOSE PERCEPTIONS will differ.

So the only possible answer to the question "what is truth", is that we can only KNOW what WE KNOW as "true", whatever that means.

This is called the "mind/body" problem 

So we compromise for the sake of communication and do not even try to describe the color we CALL "red", it is JUST WHAT WE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCE and we CALL that "red".

Same for "God", and "love" and many other words.

So what we KNOW is what WE "know/ experience and what you know and experience is what YOU know and experience, and never the two shall meet!

So for all practical purposes we call "truth" what we BOTH experience and describe similarly as "real"

So what Buddhists call Nirvana perhaps we call "heaven ".

What we call " the still small voice" others may call "a hunch" or " my gut" or "spirit" or "revelation."

Even atheists report knowing right from wrong as a feeling inside them.

So that's the deal.

When we describe "red" what we experience may or may not be what others call red, but for practical purposes we can agree that "the stop light is RED" is "TRUE".

SO truth is relative, but what we experience is what we call " true".

Religious experience is as true as a stop light. 

A word to look up is the word "quale" for more. 

https://www.studocu.com/in/document/university-of-delhi/philosophy-of-mind/epiphenomenal-qualia-by-frank-jackson/10336296

 

Edited November 13 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a huge question which deserves a huge answer. If you and/or others show any interest I would start a new thread, showing how a contemporary secular philosophy called NeoPragmatism  could be a great gift to ALL religions, but religious folks tend to run away from it when they realize that it requires the idea that truth may be relative, because:

1. The ambiguity of language does not EVER give us the possibility of making a connection between the truth or falsity of "your red" and "my green", and no way to connect the words of your concept EXACTLY to my concept or some "reality" outside of us, to determine if YOUR color description "corresponds" to MY description, OR "what is true" of that color for all mankind.

But color description are only an easy way to understand that ALL the world I AM CAPABLE OF KNOWING is subjective.

We can only know what WE -each of us- CAN know, and then even if we do our best to DESCRIBE what we know, it may not be the same things others "know" about the subject of discussion when they hear your words.

Of course the world is "out there" - it is psychotic to think it is not, (see logical fallacy called "appeal to the stone) BUT our PERCEPTIONS  and our DESCRIPTIONS OF THOSE PERCEPTIONS will differ.

So the only possible answer to the question "what is truth", is that we can only KNOW what WE KNOW as "true", whatever that means.

This is called the "mind/body" problem 

So we compromise for the sake of communication and do not even try to describe the color we CALL "red", it is JUST WHAT WE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCE and we CALL that "red".

Same for "God", and "love" and many other words.

So what we KNOW is what WE "know/ experience and what you know and experience is what YOU know and experience, and never the two shall meet!

So for all practical purposes we call "truth" what we BOTH experience and describe similarly as "real"

So what Buddhists call Nirvana perhaps we call "heaven ".

What we call " the still small voice" others may call "a hunch" or " my gut" or "spirit" or "revelation."

Even atheists report knowing right from wrong as a feeling inside them.

So that's the deal.

When we describe "red" what we experience may or may not be what others call red, but for practical purposes we can agree that "the stop light is RED" is "TRUE".

SO truth is relative, but what we experience is what we call " true".

Religious experience is as true as a stop light. 

A word to look up is the word "quale" for more. 

https://www.studocu.com/in/document/university-of-delhi/philosophy-of-mind/epiphenomenal-qualia-by-frank-jackson/10336296

 

It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you want to start a new thread and how much time you want to spend on it. I'll definitely take a look at it, but I can't guarantee how much interest I would have until I see how it unfolds. It looks like you've given kind of a summary here, but a question I would want to know right off is: how do I know that I'm not dreaming? I can experience "red", but do I necessarily have to regard "red" as real?

 

Also, if you say it "could be a great gift to ALL religions", it sounds like it's not specific to LDS teaching. Would a thread on the subject fit the guidelines of the forum? I'm asking because you know more about where your line of thinking would end up than I do at this point, of course 🙂

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you want to start a new thread and how much time you want to spend on it. I'll definitely take a look at it, but I can't guarantee how much interest I would have until I see how it unfolds. It looks like you've given kind of a summary here, but a question I would want to know right off is: how do I know that I'm not dreaming? I can experience "red", but do I necessarily have to regard "red" as real?

 

Also, if you say it "could be a great gift to ALL religions", it sounds like it's not specific to LDS teaching. Would a thread on the subject fit the guidelines of the forum? I'm asking because you know more about where your line of thinking would end up than I do at this point, of course 🙂

Can you actually not perceive the difference between being awake and asleep?  Perhaps you should go to the nearest emergency room...🤪

Seriously as you know, we all know the difference there due to EXPERIENCE or have some sort of psychosis.  But here in LA sadly we see that on the streets daily, folks who might as well be living on Mars, for all they know.  It is a serious problem, but a medical one, not a philosophical one.

What I see is a different perspective on LDS beliefs which is compatible with secularism.  I just read an article about how China is cracking down on all religions because they are false illusions and deny the truth of communism, and the eventual triumph and world wide peace that will come after the triumph of Communism.

It sounded like a Fundamentalist tirade about the Millennium to me!

They are making Communism into a RELIGION to replace religion.  

Both fulfill similar human needs- the hope for meaning in life. 

Anyway, I think I am as "LDS" IN BELIEF and the FUNCTIONS  of what it provides as anyone

I am a TBM- true blue Mormon-in my mind, I just can see a different perspective than most, looking at beliefs AND the psychological benefits they provide.

"Read the best books" is part of our beliefs, and I do, and I see philosophical connotations, that's all.

My point, in as few words as I can, is that seeing red as "real" is the same as seeing God and the still small voice as "real"

We are created/evolved to see red AND the still small voice as "real".

They are just different language contexts for saying the same thing, two different perspectives of the same phenomena.

There is now even talk about a God gene- an actual gene or set of Gene's within us which allows us to contemplate our meaning in life.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/

Edited November 14 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can you actually not perceive the difference between being awake and asleep?

I can tell the difference between being asleep and awake in that I perceive a difference while I am awake. But this does not deal with the possibility that what I perceive to be awake is actually a further dream state.

 

I'm sure you've heard of the story of the man who goes to sleep and dreams that he is a butterfly. Or perhaps it's the story of the butterfly who goes to sleep and dreams that he is a man.

 

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps you should go to the nearest emergency room...

Seriously as you know, we all know the difference there due to EXPERIENCE or have some sort of psychosis.  But here in LA sadly we see that on the streets daily, folks who might as well be living on Mars, for all they know.  It is a serious problem, but a medical one, not a philosophical one.

What I see is a different perspective on LDS beliefs which is compatible with secularism.  I just read an article about how China is cracking down on all religions because they are false illusions and deny the truth of communism, and the eventual triumph and world wide peace that will come after the triumph of Communism.

It sounded like a Fundamentalist tirade about the Millennium to me!

They are making Communism into a RELIGION to replace religion.  

Both fulfill similar human needs- the hope for meaning in life.

 

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Anyway, I think I am as "LDS" IN BELIEF and the FUNCTIONS  of what it provides as anyone

The question is: the philosophy that you wish to present, is it specific to LDS teaching? Or is it something general that would apply equally well to all religions. Or, possibly, may apply even better to Eastern religions.

 

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am a TBM- true blue Mormon-in my mind, I just can see a different perspective than most, looking at beliefs AND the psychological benefits they provide.

"Read the best books" is part of our beliefs, and I do, and I see philosophical connotations, that's all.

My point, in as few words as I can, is that seeing red as "real" is the same as seeing God and the still small voice as "real"

We are created/evolved to see red AND the still small voice as "real".

They are just different language contexts for saying the same thing, two different perspectives of the same phenomena.

There is now even talk about a God gene- an actual gene or set of Gene's within us which allows us to contemplate our meaning in life.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/

 

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Can you actually not perceive the difference between being awake and asleep?  Perhaps you should go to the nearest emergency room...🤪

Seriously as you know, we all know the difference there due to EXPERIENCE or have some sort of psychosis.  But here in LA sadly we see that on the streets daily, folks who might as well be living on Mars, for all they know.  It is a serious problem, but a medical one, not a philosophical one.

What I see is a different perspective on LDS beliefs which is compatible with secularism.  I just read an article about how China is cracking down on all religions because they are false illusions and deny the truth of communism, and the eventual triumph and world wide peace that will come after the triumph of Communism.

It sounded like a Fundamentalist tirade about the Millennium to me!

They are making Communism into a RELIGION to replace religion.  

Both fulfill similar human needs- the hope for meaning in life. 

Anyway, I think I am as "LDS" IN BELIEF and the FUNCTIONS  of what it provides as anyone

I am a TBM- true blue Mormon-in my mind, I just can see a different perspective than most, looking at beliefs AND the psychological benefits they provide.

"Read the best books" is part of our beliefs, and I do, and I see philosophical connotations, that's all.

My point, in as few words as I can, is that seeing red as "real" is the same as seeing God and the still small voice as "real"

We are created/evolved to see red AND the still small voice as "real".

They are just different language contexts for saying the same thing, two different perspectives of the same phenomena.

There is now even talk about a God gene- an actual gene or set of Gene's within us which allows us to contemplate our meaning in life.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262126/

Regarding the still small voice, what leads you to believe that it tells everyone largely the same thing?