Polarizing Question

[brlenox]

FInrock,

There are 3 problems with your interpretation

1) you assume that the vision is in Earth time rather than a vision of what will be

Interesting coincidence. I was just reading D&C section 137, in my normal reading cycle and look at what I saw:

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

When did Joseph Smith's mother die?

Kind of makes my point huh!


Regards,

George Clay

Brilliant observation. It is amazing how sometimes the answer is so easy and it is staring you in the face - still I wonder if someone will try to talk circles around the obvious.

[Finrock]

Excluding the comments on baptism and the personal swipe at me, what you wrote, basically boils down to this:

Don't question the authority of the Church, to do so is devilish and comes of evil.

The servants of the Lord are those who are in positions of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Those who are in positions of authority in the Church cannot lead us astray.

No?

-Finrock

Finrock your final three lines make me wonder if you are not just talking to yourself as you are hearing things I'm not saying. However, I can tell you are pitching for me to be more clear in what my attitudes are towards the brethren. So using your observations as genesis points I will clarify them to your satisfaction. However first to respond to your first statement.

I'm sorry you took it as a personal swipe as I was simply trying to illustrate how far from truth one can get when they put themselves outside of the mediating hand of Apostles and prophets. Your take on baptism was first in opposition to the scriptures which I illustrated. However, as one that often is willing to interpret scripture I recognize that there is an inherent challenge that we can overlay our errant tangents onto understanding and mess up the process. What I always do and recommend is that before one goes of with possibly mistaken interpretations they call up all of the scriptures that speak to the subject and then the writings of apostles and prophets to validate that the perspective is correct. When I match then I have confirmed tht the spirit guided my process as generally I come to my understandings before I understand what has been taught by others. Had you been more circumspect you would have compared your perspectives with the teachings of the apostles and prophets. From Joseph Smith through Thomas S. Monson, anyone of them would have provided material for you to compare against to validate your perceptions and perhaps then perceive your error.

Now to your other statements.

Don't question the authority of the Church, to do so is devilish and comes of evil.

I used D & C 1 for specific cause. It is because it defines who, I reiterate WHO leads the organization we call the church. It clearly indicates that Christ chooses these men who will have a responsibility to speak for him. As well it defines the authority that you have mixed up as the authority of the church and I provided this specific verse in my response. However, here it is again to refresh your memory:

D & C 1:6

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments,

So when you say "church" you have overlain the verbiage that you think validates your privilege of doubting men who hold positions in the church but ignoring my true statements of what I am pointing out is that Christ validates that it is his authority and he has authorized his servants. Now if we remove your slight of hand, and properly consider D & C 1 from the perspective I presented it, then it is wrong to question Christ in his choices and that is what you are doing according to D & C 1. People often make the mistake as you have done. It is always okay to ask questions in the church but it is entirely inappropriate to question Christ's capacity to fulfill his words in directing his church. And if you read my story that I provided you with ears to hear you will note that I provided nothing about questioning the church. I pointed out that when one of Christ's servants speaks, such as Joseph Smith in the story, Satan will often "rise up" as Joseph puts it and inquire in a most defensible, logical and reasonable way. However, Joseph points out and recognizes that this is a tactic of the Devil to create doubt in the Leadership (not the church). Read the story again and try to separate your agenda out and read it for what it says. It is a brilliant principle that it highly profitable:

…The next day, Sunday, meeting assembled in the Temple on a loose floor which had been arranged for carpenters' benches etc., the house was partly filled, the people being seated on work benches and other things. President Joseph Smith, [Jr.,] during the meeting, arose to speak upon an order he had given to Oliver Cowdery to seek out a book for a Church Record; for such must be kept; this had been complied with, a good book had been selected and it pleased President Smith.

The book was not paid for, but was to be returned to Painesville if it did not suit; and the Prophet said he would be glad to have the Saints donate the amount, about $12.50, and make the purchase, and keep the book; it being of good paper and thoroughly well bound. A man arose near the middle of the house and said he wanted the leaves counted to see if it would not be better to buy the paper by the ream, the difference being that we might put it in a newspaper, or something of the kind. Brother Joseph spoke out and said the devil could not raise his head there, but he would know him. I note this to show the little means with which the Church was obliged to commence the history of a people destined to become great. Truman O. Angell, 1810-1887 Autobiography (1810-1856) in "His Journal," Our Pioneer Heritage 10 (1967):195-213.

To summarize had you been the deciding vote in the days of Christ when he chose his apostles you most likely would have been the one to question Judas because he had some personality traits that might be questionable. And because you were so busy second guessing Christ in his choices, all would be lost, the atonement would never have taken place but you would be vindicated because you caught the bad guy.

I do not know why each and every person is called to the apostleship or to be the prophet or a member of the first presidency. However, I do know that Christ has a purpose specific for each and every one and they meet his approval as he knows the master plan and I do not. Therefore I sustain the Lord in who he places in positions as his servants. To fail to sustain the Lord is to fail the Moroni 7 test and though you hope to avoid the pinch by ignoring the implications of D & C 1 and calling it the church as if it is autonomous from Christ leadership you truly cannot do so. Failing Moroni 7 you create doubt in the Lords ability to lead his church and that is the epitome of the definition of evil.

The servants of the Lord are those who are in positions of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Yes. All the way from the very top to at least those who carry his gospel to the world are included in the list of authorized servants of the Lord. As well all of those who touch all of the process related to the list of authorized servants are included by inference. For the sake of this conversation as it relates to D & C 1 those in positions of authority will be those chosen by his servants and voted on by the membership in sustainment. All will see the order and know who is a servant and in what way they are called to serve.

Those who are in positions of authority in the Church cannot lead us astray.

And here again, you and others who spawn this argument rise up in the middle of the room after Christ has spoken how he is the head and will guide his church and you want to suggest we count the leaves of paper as that seems such a sensible point to make or to remove the analogy for clarity, we are back to those who insert doubt in Christ by highlighting and emphasizing that imperfect men are going to occupy the positions of authority in the church. Whatever mistakes may be made and whatever errors may occur are paltry and insignificant to the Lords power to stabilize his own Ark. So, yes, I trust the Lord that if any err beyond the mark he will see to either mine and others education through the Holy Ghost and we shall know of it. If they exceed greater tolerance levels he will remove them and none but the deceived who trust not the leaders of the church as a body of men will be deceived.

I think that covers the essence of your questions. If not let me know and I will try again.

As a reminder, the questions that were asked of you were: Who are the Lord's servants and how does one identify who the Lord's servants are? Before you can speak to my argument, I have to actually make one. So, at the moment, the only thing you have before you are questions and then your assumptions.

So, I'll translate your post once more and then ask a simple question...again.

This is essentially what you said in your post above:

No, you poor, feeble minded fool, that is not what I said, I said,

The servants of the Lord are those who are in positions of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Don't question the authority of the Church (which in your opinion means questioning Christ), to do so is devilish and comes of evil.

Those who are in positions of authority in the Church cannot lead us astray.

As far as I can tell, you've provided the same answer as before to my initial questions. So, you provided a lot more data than what my questions required. In any case, what I surmise, after all the things you have posted, is that you believe: The Lord's servants are whoever is in a position of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and by being in a position of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we can know who the Lord's servants are.

Is that what you believe? Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

FInrock,

There are 3 problems with your interpretation

1) you assume that the vision is in Earth time rather than a vision of what will be

Interesting coincidence. I was just reading D&C section 137, in my normal reading cycle and look at what I saw:

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

When did Joseph Smith's mother die?

Kind of makes my point huh!


Regards,

George Clay

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

Joseph didn't marvel as to why he saw his mother there or his father there. He marveled that he saw Alvin there since Alvin had not been baptized for the remission of sins. The context and question Joseph has is, "How can one be saved in the celestial kingdom without having been baptized for the remission of sins?"

The question of Earth time or "what shall be" is not relevant.

The answer the Lord gives to Joseph's question is not, "Alvin will be baptized one day by proxy or after the resurrection" or anything of the sort. Instead, the answer is:

All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

On its surface, without molesting the text, and its most natural and plain reading is exactly what it says it is. The Lord will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. Period.

The claim was that I was teaching something outside of doctrine and scripture. The answer to that claim is, no I'm not. Deal with the scriptures as you wish, ignore them, change them, make them in to myth, or whatever it is that you wish to do, but I'm teaching only what has been said in scripture. Not to mention that the idea that children who die before the age of accountability do not need to be baptized by itself proves and validates my words. And, so does Moroni 8, prove and validate my words. You are free to interpret these scriptures how you wish and to add whatever additional thoughts, assumptions, and criteria that you wish add. I won't debate you.

Here is a scriptural fact: Not everyone who is born on this earth, by the testament of the scriptures, will need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God, not even by proxy. Water baptism is not a universal necessity. But, if you will note, being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is, as is attested to in D&C 137 and other scriptures.

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

Here is a scriptural fact: Not everyone who is born on this earth, by the testament of the scriptures, will need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God, not even by proxy

Yes, but as I have noted before, you seem to be unable to detect when you are extracting little slices of real scripture, and when you are inserting the gospel according to Finrock, and not correlating the gospel of Finrock with other scripture/information that provides the clarity,that you have chosen to ignore.

The fact of the matter is that this was a vision of the future, with his not yet dead mother included in the vision. It stated, like many visions, what was going to happen, not how it was going to happen. This was reassuring to Joseph Smith, because at that time Joseph didn't know that there was any mechanism for those who died without the true gospel to be saved. This was because he was familiar with

John 3:5

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

which if you selectively slice and dice would say that NOBODY can enter unless baptized by water. Nothing here says that a man can even be saved by proxy baptism, which, by the way, is the prevailing Christian belief. Nothing in here indicates that Alvin would be saved WITHOUT proxy baptism, which was what you were implying by citing this vision.

Generally John 3:5 is true scripture, and only by proxy baptism can this be true, and give the opportunity to those, like Alvin, who never had the opportunity in this life. Now the church has clarified this a bit, by saying that children who die before reaching the age of accountability, and those who are not capable of knowing right and wrong do not need to be vicariously baptized. OK, those servants that Christ appointed to lead his church, who you dismiss, until someone points this dismissal out to you and you get your panties in a twist and start whining that in reality you are a TBM, have clarified even more those special cases in which a proxy baptism is not necessary. So now that they have opened the window, by pointing out this special case, you conclude that you can insert the gospel according to Finrock, since the window has been opened a crack, and you blow it open with the Gospel according to Finrock, so seamlessly that I'm not even sure you see it

Here is a scriptural fact: Not everyone who is born on this earth, by the testament of the scriptures, will need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God, not even by proxy. Water baptism is not a universal necessity. But, if you will note, being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is, as is attested to in D&C 137 and other scriptures.

You have just inserted the gospel according to Finrock as if it were scripture. By the way, where in D&C 137, does it say anything about being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, let alone that being required and baptism by water not required ??

Now, what I am not sure of, and maybe everyone else who have beat their heads in trying to have an honest discourse with you is that I don't know if you really don't realize when you slip from Holy scripture to Finrock Scripture, and are saying what you truly think, or if you do this as a dodge, to sell the idea that you and your hero Amonhi are selling that one doesn't need to be baptized, but can simply seek getting one's C&E made sure by following Amonhi's easy steps to salvation outside of the ridiculous ideas that one might get from silly scriptures like John 3:5, without having the added insights of Amonhi,... and maybe Finrock!

Regards,

George Clay

[brlenox]

Finrock,

Here is a scriptural fact: Not everyone who is born on this earth, by the testament of the scriptures, will need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God, not even by proxy

Yes, but as I have noted before, you seem to be unable to detect when you are extracting little slices of real scripture, and when you are inserting the gospel according to Finrock, and not correlating the gospel of Finrock with other scripture/information that provides the clarity,that you have chosen to ignore.

The fact of the matter is that this was a vision of the future, with his not yet dead mother included in the vision. It stated, like many visions, what was going to happen, not how it was going to happen. This was reassuring to Joseph Smith, because at that time Joseph didn't know that there was any mechanism for those who died without the true gospel to be saved. This was because he was familiar with

John 3:5

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

which if you selectively slice and dice would say that NOBODY can enter unless baptized by water. Nothing here says that a man can even be saved by proxy baptism, which, by the way, is the prevailing Christian belief. Nothing in here indicates that Alvin would be saved WITHOUT proxy baptism, which was what you were implying by citing this vision.

Generally John 3:5 is true scripture, and only by proxy baptism can this be true, and give the opportunity to those, like Alvin, who never had the opportunity in this life. Now the church has clarified this a bit, by saying that children who die before reaching the age of accountability, and those who are not capable of knowing right and wrong do not need to be vicariously baptized. OK, those servants that Christ appointed to lead his church, who you dismiss, until someone points this dismissal out to you and you get your panties in a twist and start whining that in reality you are a TBM, have clarified even more those special cases in which a proxy baptism is not necessary. So now that they have opened the window, by pointing out this special case, you conclude that you can insert the gospel according to Finrock, since the window has been opened a crack, and you blow it open with the Gospel according to Finrock, so seamlessly that I'm not even sure you see it

Here is a scriptural fact: Not everyone who is born on this earth, by the testament of the scriptures, will need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God, not even by proxy. Water baptism is not a universal necessity. But, if you will note, being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is, as is attested to in D&C 137 and other scriptures.

You have just inserted the gospel according to Finrock as if it were scripture. By the way, where in D&C 137, does it say anything about being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, let alone that being required and baptism by water not required ??

Now, what I am not sure of, and maybe everyone else who have beat their heads in trying to have an honest discourse with you is that I don't know if you really don't realize when you slip from Holy scripture to Finrock Scripture, and are saying what you truly think, or if you do this as a dodge, to sell the idea that you and your hero Amonhi are selling that one doesn't need to be baptized, but can simply seek getting one's C&E made sure by following Amonhi's easy steps to salvation outside of the ridiculous ideas that one might get from silly scriptures like John 3:5, without having the added insights of Amonhi,... and maybe Finrock!

Regards,

George Clay

Why George, what do you know...I see you are proficient with the scalpel as well as the sledge hammer. Well stated!

[True]

The tone of these posts are terrible. Although I wish Finrock agreed with me relative to Christ heading this church, I have always understood things as Finrock stated as far as millions being saved in the celestial kingdom without baptism. That is what the scriptures say. Pretty sure it's not heresy.

Moroni 8
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing--
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

[Finrock]

By the way, where in D&C 137, does it say anything about being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost??

If you are sincerely seeking knowledge and want to know, ask God, who will reveal all things to you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

The tone of these posts are terrible. Although I wish Finrock agreed with me relative to Christ heading this church, I have always understood things as Finrock stated as far as millions being saved in the celestial kingdom without baptism. That is what the scriptures say. Pretty sure it's not heresy.

Moroni 8
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing--
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

True - nobody is disagreeing with this perspective. If it was all that Finrock said everybody would be holding hands and singing kumbayah, chewing gum and doing handsprings. Well, me - not so much on the handsprings more like face plants - but I would give it my best shot...

Anyway let us review exactly what FINROCK said and exactly where the issue is with his claims. Please observe the following from his earlier post on this thread and I will highlight the part that is clearly not a proper scriptural interpretation in BLUE:

Now, regarding what I said here:

Just as a matter of fact, not as a means to prove one point or another point, but as a matter of fact, if the scriptures are to be believed and they represent a true record, there are likely millions of individuals who are and millions who will be saved in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized by water or actually receiving any of the physical, outward ordinances as we currently understand them. They will receive them not even by proxy.

brlenox, you asserted, that with my statement above I have self affirmed "...doctrine outside of scripture..."

Your assertion is false. I have only summarized what has been spoken in scripture. Please consider the following proof:

1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Question: How was Alvin there in the Celestial Kingdom without having been baptized for the remission of sins?

Answer: "All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;"

Further, "all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven"

From this scripture we know the following facts: All who have died without knowledge of this gospel but would have received it, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God, without having been baptized for the remission of sins. All who shall die in the future without the knowledge of this gospel, but who would have received it will all their hearts, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom, without being baptized for the remission of sins. Finally, all children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven, without being baptized for the remission of sins.

Lastly, consider this scripture from Moroni 8:

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing

From this scripture we learn again that all little children are alive in Christ and don't need to be baptized AND we learn that there is another set of individuals who do not need to be baptized for the remission of sins in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God. Who is this other group? All those that are without the law are not condemned and cannot repent and to such individuals baptism availeth nothing.

Deal with these scriptures as you wish, but clearly what I said is not "...doctrine outside scripture..."

-Finrock

Now, these are FINROCKS words he is stating that Alvin will never need to receive baptism for the remission of sins. Plain and simple these are his words and as we are pointing out those words are false doctrine. Then he states that anyone future of Alvin who dies will also not require or receive baptism and they too will receive the Celestial Kingdom without baptism. The errant interpretation is found when he inserts his own personal expectation in the form of these words: "without having been baptized for the remission of sins." and he relates that to Alvin and other future individuals who match the criteria of being like Alvin, having died without receiving the gospel when they would have given an opportunity. The text in section 137 never sustains that conclusion either directly or by inference and it is preposterous on its face when the church is so adamant about how temple work provides for just this situation.

Additionally, He claims this in spite of the clarity of these verses:

2 Nephi 31:5-12

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

In one of his last post he wants to walk away from his blue words, but you know how blue words are - you just can't get rid of them, they follow you around like a lost puppy. They honk like geese if you try to ignore that you said them...unless one honestly owns up to the fact that they said them and they were mistaken and made an error. Then the blue words become white and delightsome words again and on a white background they vanish from view and nobody observes them anymore. However, instead of that FINROCK continues to try to sustain them as correct by ignoring the implications of the verses and observations that everyone submits for his consideration.

Now you may wonder why this is even an issue. I speak only for myself. If someone is going to make the claim that they have made their calling and election sure we should all being willing to try that claim against the knowledge of what we can expect when someone actually receives that blessing. As it relates to this conversation here is what I expect:

"The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses. Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses. .

“Now what is this other Comforter. It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even he will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the First Born."

"The highest manifestation of love on man's part is seen in his devotion to God (Deut. 6:4-9); the next, in his attitude toward his fellow men. (Matt. 22:34-40.) But love of God is found only among those who love their fellow men. 'If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.' (1 John 4:20-21.)(Teachings, pp. 149-151.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. 741.)

The underlined portions apply in my expectations of these thing as I anticipate that if the Lord has taught anyone that claims calling and election they would know basic gospel principles of the necessity of vicarious baptism for those in Alvins state. It is not a stretch, it covers the base perfectly, all who die without a knowledge of the gospel who would have accepted it would be able to have this work done in their behalf - so why in the world overlook the obvious?

If FINROCK would discuss and dialogue with integrity, instead of trying to scoot out from under his statements as if he did not make them, if he would manifest something other than defensive posturing we would all go along merrily on our way. If in his scooting out from under his statements he didn't take the tact of trying to make any who disagree with him out as the idiots who should never point out his grievous doctrinal errors But his denials are preposterous in an environment that maintains a record of your statements.

Keeping in mind that, to my recollection I have never engaged Finrock in discussion before this thread. I have read his material, often found it in error on key issues and never felt the need to provide clarity. In this thread, he came out of the blue and wanted to pin me down on my full and unequivocal sustainment of the brethren and their stations as the chosen of the Lord to Guide his people. While, I cannot say that I have ever read him come out and flat reject the apostles and prophets as many of the self-proclaimed called and elected do, nonetheless, that he chose that issue to come after me on seemed to fall under the heading of a personal agenda and he seemed to imply that my unerring support was not to a standard that he sustains.

These posts on this thread between he and I would not exist, as I would have gone on passing over his material in a desire to avoid being confrontive. I really don't care if people believe different than I do. However when they represent themselves as Called and Elected in a public forum then they have raised themselves to a place where so many gullible types, who have no clue what to look for in such claims, just fall all over them and begin to turn away from the church in an unrighteous pursuit of a blessings that requires much knowledge and understanding. His comments and implications are what I have come to expect from those who have such a superior perception of their status before God. They tend to use the same arguments and overlook the same corrective material from scripture and or the brethren. I am all for receiving our calling and election, it is a worthy objective. However, another indicator of a true calling and election and it's receipt is that it will be carefully guarded and treated with the reverence it should be. Observe just a few quotes by the brethren concerning such things:

John A. Widtsoe: “Divine manifestations for individual comfort may be received by every worthy member of the Church. . . . Such manifestations most commonly guide the recipients to the solution of personal problems; though, frequently, they also open the mind to a clearer comprehension of the Lord’s vast plan of salvation. They are cherished possessions, and should be so valued by those who receive them. In their very nature, they are sacred and should be so treated. If a person who has received such a manifestation by dream, vision, or otherwise, feels impressed to relate it beyond his immediate family circle, he should present it to his bishop, but not beyond. The bishop, then, may decide upon its further use, if any, or may submit it to those of higher authority for action. The gift was a personal one, not for the Church as a whole; and the recipient is under obligation, in harmony with the established order, not to broadcast it over the Church” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 98-99).

Joseph Smith: “Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves” (History of the Church, 2:309).

And there are several more. Anyway, I have nothing against the FINMAN, he charged after me and I simply have rebutted his observations with corrective scriptures and quotes that are the works of prophets and not my opinions. He debates with them and not me and I simply hope to provide some clarity for future considerations.

Anyway, 'nough said, perhaps this brings to light the issues that I find compelling.

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

gclayjr wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:46 pm
By the way, where in D&C 137, does it say anything about being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost??

If you are sincerely seeking knowledge and want to know, ask God, who will reveal all things to you by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I am kind of reluctant to post this after Brienox's much more profound discourse, but you did "throw down the gauntlet".

My statement was written to give you a chance to clarify your assertion

Water baptism is not a universal necessity. But, if you will note, being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is, as is attested to in D&C 137 and other scriptures.

You see this false assertion of yours is key to this whole C&E made sure heresy. You see, as even moderate readers of scripture like me know, John 3:5 says that everybody needs to be baptized by water and by the spirit, in order to be saved. We have been instructed that, those who are incapable of sinning, either through youth and innocence, or through mental incapacity, have no need to be baptized (by water), and then YOU insert..but it does not say, that they must be baptized by fire and the holy ghost...which then gives you the opening for this heresy of some people being able to be SPECIAL and bypass the need for this whole baptism by water thing.

Let me rephrase this logical incoherence of yours

When somebody is baptized by " by fire and the Holy Ghost", is this permanent, or just a temporary passing event?

If so, when do Children get baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost? I'm not talking about some children in special circumstances, such as meeting Jesus, when he visits people after his death, but ALL children!

So when a child dies today, when and how did he get baptized by " by fire and the Holy Ghost"?

Or to bring it back to your false assertion of scripture attesting to something it doesn't WHERE in D&C 137 does it "attest" that Alvin was baptized by
" by fire and the Holy Ghost, but not baptized in proxy by water???

Regards,

George Clay

[True]

I still don't get it. Why would Joseph need the explanation about why Alvin was there without baptism if he needed it? That is the question Joseph asks: Why is he here without baptism? Answer: Because he would have received it with all his heart. Then the Lord talks about others who were and would be like Alvin and he DOES comment on the state of their works and desires of their heart (baptized by fire). And as if to make it even more clear, he tells you that little children also will be saved in the celestial kingdom. He is putting both of these groups in the same category.

We do temple work for everyone bc we can't tell if they would have accepted it with all their hearts. If God can save children and the "heathen" without baptism why is it such a stretch to believe what the scriptures say here?

[gclayjr]

True,

I still don't get it. Why would Joseph need the explanation about why Alvin was there without baptism if he needed it? That is the question Joseph asks: Why is he here without baptism? Answer: Because he would have received it with all his heart. Then the Lord talks about others who were and would be like Alvin and he DOES comment on the state of their works and desires of their heart (baptized by fire). And as if to make it even more clear, he tells you that little children also will be saved in the celestial kingdom. He is putting both of these groups in the same category.

We do temple work for everyone bc we can't tell if they would have accepted it with all their hearts. If God can save children and the "heathen" without baptism why is it such a stretch to believe what the scriptures say here?

The way you word your question, I am not sure I understand exactly your confusion. This vision was given and reported, because Joseph Smith was concerned about the fate of his brother. Just like revelations referring to the last days, like in the Book of Revelation, or the birth Of Christ as seen by Nephi, God knows what the future will bring, and sometimes shows it to prophets via visions. Actually, we don't know what all was shown to Joseph Smith, we only know that which he wrote about it. He was concerned about the possibility of his dead brother receiving the gospel and being saved, and the vision showed him a future where it happened. It was not an instruction manual on how this was to occur.

Now to take the other side of your assertion. If you somehow believe that Alvin,. and anybody else who dies without without knowing the gospel, who would have accepted it had they known it, do not need baptism, because they would be saved like the little children. Then for whom would there be any need for vicarious baptism at all?

According to you, If they would have accepted it, then they don't need it, and if they won't accept it, then it has no value.

Regards,

George Clay

[True]

What do the words in this scripture mean then? I didn't assert that they would be saved if they would have accepted it, that is what the Lord says. As we know, MOST people would and do not accept it here. That is who we do work for. Also, it is the Lord that adds the line about little children. Why do you think he does that right there?

[gclayjr]

True,

What do the words in this scripture mean then? I didn't assert that they would be saved if they would have accepted it, that is what the Lord says. As we know, MOST people would and do not accept it here. That is who we do work for. Also, it is the Lord that adds the line about little children. Why do you think he does that right there?

The fact of the matter is that most don't even get the opportunity, just like Alvin, to hear about it let alone accept it. Even with the great missionary work going on today, most people do NOT get the opportunity to be taught the true gospel. So are they to be denied salvation and entrance into the Celestial Kingdom because they never had the opportunity to hear, learn and accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ?

Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

I know that even though this is nominally an "LDS" board, there are so many who put no stock in what modern prophets and apostles say, still I did come across a speech by Elder Boyde K. Packer, that addresses this so well, and decided to reference it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/11/the- ... g=eng&_r=1

He even points out that the Siren song that so attracts people like Finrock, to ideas like Amonhi's, is actually a very old Phenomenon

“For there is none other name under heaven given … whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) And next, there is an essential ordinance—baptism—standing as a gate through which every soul must pass to obtain eternal life.

The Lord was neither hesitant nor was He apologetic in proclaiming exclusive authority over those processes, all of them in total, by which we may return to the presence of our Heavenly Father. This ideal was clear in the minds of His apostles also, and their preaching provided for one way, and one way only, for men to save themselves.

Over the centuries men saw that many, indeed most, never found that way. This became very hard to explain. Perhaps they thought it to be generous to admit that there are other ways. So they tempered or tampered with the doctrine.

This rigid emphasis on “one Lord and one baptism,” was thought to be too restrictive, and too exclusive, even though the Lord Himself had described it as being narrow, for, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life.” (Matt. 7:14.)

He says for whom we do baptisms for the dead

We have been authorized to perform baptisms vicariously so that when they hear the gospel preached and desire to accept it, that essential ordinance will have been performed. They need not ask for any exemption from that essential ordinance. Indeed, the Lord Himself was not exempted from it.

Every person who either sinned, or could have sinned including Jesus Christ needs to be baptized, for the remission of sins. Are there any who actually cannot sin? Well yes. The only ones who have ever lived on tis earth who cannot sin, are those who either never lived long enough to be able to sin, or who were mentally incompetent, and are unable to understand enough to sin. Otherwise, all haves sinned except Jesus Christ who CHOSE not to sin.

And that includes Joseph Smith's brother Alvin. You pretend that you are the ones just simply interpreting the scriptures, when in fact you are slicing and ignoring most scriptures that clearly state that all need to be baptized, so as to create a foundation for a very ancient and horrible heresy!

Regards,

George Clay

[True]

Moroni 8
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing--
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

The people who have no law are neither children nor mentally incompetent yet this scripture states it is solemn mockery before God to baptize them.

[True]

D&C 137
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.
10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.


If your a live person and you accept the gospel you have to be baptized. I'm not trying to say anyone has any dispensation to say so and so does not have to be baptized. You HAVE to be baptized and we baptize all our dead who reach the age of accountability. But the Lord gets to let in who he wants to let in and he has made some exception to the baptism rule. I think we should let him have his exceptions.

[AI2.0]

The tone of these posts are terrible. Although I wish Finrock agreed with me relative to Christ heading this church, I have always understood things as Finrock stated as far as millions being saved in the celestial kingdom without baptism. That is what the scriptures say. Pretty sure it's not heresy.

Moroni 8
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing--
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

I think the problem is Finrock isn't referring to what you are referring to, from my reading of his posts, it looks like he is claiming that someone like Alvin (who was not under the age of accountability and did not die without law) didn't need to be baptised, in the flesh or by proxy--which is simply not true by the scriptures we LDS teach or by our doctrine. That's the problem, he's not referring to the situation that you are referring to, which we all agree with, as it is clear in scripture. It is also clear that baptism by immersion, by one having authority, either in the flesh or by proxy, IS a requirement to enter the Celestial kingdom for all others.

Finrock is making a claim that a different kind of baptism is required--which sounds suspiciously like something Amonhi/church of the first born types or Denver Snuffer followers, might allude to. They've added requirements in which everyone must be baptised by fire and the Holy ghost (and I don't think they mean the gift of the Holy Ghost which is given through confirmation--the laying on of hands).

And I think the tone of the posts comes from feeling utterly exasperated; I can sympathize with Brlenox and George--I also have found myself trying to 'chop a log with a corn dodger'--which is how I feel when I foolishly get in a discussion with certain members of the forum. /:)

[AI2.0]

Here is a scriptural fact: Not everyone who is born on this earth, by the testament of the scriptures, will need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God, not even by proxy. Water baptism is not a universal necessity. But, if you will note, being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, is, as is attested to in D&C 137 and other scriptures.

-Finrock

I'm going on the assumption that you are not talking about little children or those who die without law, but you are claiming that others also don't need baptism or proxy baptism, such as Alvin Smith. If I'm wrong and this is not what you are saying, please clarify. If I am right, then this is my response:

I don't know if you care, but your claims are false by our LDS teachings. Are you aware of that? What I'm saying is that you are advocating for a belief that is not in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday saints. Baptism IS absolutely essential, it's one of the first principles in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is the Doctrine of Christ, which we preach and believe. All must be baptised (with the exceptions listed above) either in the flesh or by proxy, by one having authority and in the proper manner. They also need to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, as part of this ordinance. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. This is a basic tenet of our faith, it's so basic that if a person rejects it, I don't know what else they reject of our basic tenets.... Jesus Christ, the only way is through him, an essential part IS baptism--water baptism.

Now, you can believe whatever you want, but expect to get pushback from the rest of us, as most of us are believers in the doctrines as taught by the church and the scriptures. If you were to make this claim in an LDS sunday school class, you'd get a talking to about teaching false doctrine.

[Finrock]

The tone of these posts are terrible. Although I wish Finrock agreed with me relative to Christ heading this church, I have always understood things as Finrock stated as far as millions being saved in the celestial kingdom without baptism. That is what the scriptures say. Pretty sure it's not heresy.

Moroni 8
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing--
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

I think the problem is Finrock isn't referring to what you are referring to, from my reading of his posts, it looks like he is claiming that someone like Alvin (who was not under the age of accountability and did not die without law) didn't need to be baptised, in the flesh or by proxy--which is simply not true by the scriptures we LDS teach or by our doctrine. That's the problem, he's not referring to the situation that you are referring to, which we all agree with, as it is clear in scripture. It is also clear that baptism by immersion, by one having authority, either in the flesh or by proxy, IS a requirement to enter the Celestial kingdom for all others.

Finrock is making a claim that a different kind of baptism is required--which sounds suspiciously like something Amonhi/church of the first born types or Denver Snuffer followers, might allude to. They've added requirements in which everyone must be baptised by fire and the Holy ghost (and I don't think they mean the gift of the Holy Ghost which is given through confirmation--the laying on of hands).

And I think the tone of the posts comes from feeling utterly exasperated; I can sympathize with Brlenox and George--I also have found myself trying to 'chop a log with a corn dodger'--which is how I feel when I foolishly get in a discussion with certain members of the forum. /:)

I want to point out that in the discussion so far, neither you, brlenox, or George have limited your discussion to addressing the content of my posts, but have in all posts where you are addressing me, made assumptions about me, attacked my character, or made personal swipes at me in one form or another. Sometimes subtle, other times not so subtle. This, like always, reflects on the inherent weakness of your positions. I challenge all of you to have a sincere discussion where we adhere to the principles of critical thinking and intellectual integrity and to make no attempts to speak about my character, me personally, or in any way attack me or address me as a person. Me, myself, and I are irrelevant to the points and the contents of my posts. It doesn't matter what you think of me. It doesn't matter who you think I associate with. It doesn't matter who I am, what I am, etc. All that matters is the substance and the content of my posts. So, please just limit your comments to the content. It is the honorable and moral thing to do. Plus, if you can demonstrate that my words are untrue or somehow false or that I am mistaken by simply addressing the substance and the content of my posts, then I will accept it, repent, and will happily change my thinking AND you will have done something great and something uncommon. You will have truly defeated your "opponent". Right now, with all the personal stuff tossed in there, it just makes your point and your position appear weak and desperate.

So, rather than try to guess at my "agenda" or discredit me personally, lets just deal with that content, accept it as it is written, and see what that could mean. It seems rather clear to me that some things which are generally understood to be true regarding baptism, are not true, and these teachings fit in to the category of false tradition.

In any case, I challenge everyone who continues to participate in this discussion to do so sincerely, with pure intent, and to focus solely and only on the substance and content of another persons post. Please do not introduce or bring in to the discussions any accusations, personal swipes, personal attacks, judgments, or anything of a personal nature. Please address the content and/or the substance of each post, only. Please back up any assertions and such with factual data. If you can't leave the personal remarks behind, then please do not participate.

Now, as far as what I'm speaking to, I'm speaking to only exactly what the scriptures that I've provided as proof for my words say. The scriptures plainly speak of categories of individuals who have not and will not be baptized by water, ever, in any way shape or form. It is only by adding to or taking away from the scriptures in question that one can make them say or read otherwise. But, in their simplest and purest reading, this is what they say. I don't have any other agenda other than to point out this scriptural fact. For anyone at this point to say or make a claim otherwise about what I'm saying or what I'm trying to do, will be bearing false witness against me.

D&C 137 plainly and simply says that Alvin was saved in the celestial kingdom without having been baptized for the remission of sins and it plainly and simply states that all people who have died or will die without having knowledge of the gospel but who would have accepted it had they been exposed to it, will be heirs of the celestial kingdom without being baptized for the remission of sins. This is what is plainly and obviously stated in D&C 137. For anyone to bring anything else in to the mix is a molestation of that scripture. Further, Moroni 8 plainly and simply states that children and those who are born without the law need not be baptized. Anyone who brings anything else in to the mix is molesting and altering the scriptures in question.

I'm sorry that this doesn't fit any paradigms or preconceived notions that one might have, but that is what the scriptures plainly and simply say. I didn't make it up and I'm not just teaching my own doctrine. I'm reading the scriptures and this is what they stated. So, if we are to accept the scriptures as written, we must accept that there are groups of individuals who do not need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the celestial kingdom and by extension we can conclude that being baptized by water is not universally needed for all individuals in order to be saved in the celestial kingdom of God.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

And, I wanted to add, that although we can find exceptions in the scriptures to being baptized by water, I have yet to find an exception to being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost. If there is such an exception found, I would be interested in having it pointed out to me.

-Finrock

[True]

I'm still scratching my head bc the scriptures are very plain and clear.

[brlenox]

D&C 137
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.
10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.


If your a live person and you accept the gospel you have to be baptized. I'm not trying to say anyone has any dispensation to say so and so does not have to be baptized. You HAVE to be baptized and we baptize all our dead who reach the age of accountability. But the Lord gets to let in who he wants to let in and he has made some exception to the baptism rule. I think we should let him have his exceptions.

IF you read the chapter heading for 137 you will note that they consider this section a reference to the temple ordinances. If you advance one more chapter to 138 you find the following:

D & C 138: 53-55

53 The Prophet Joseph Smith, and my father, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work,

54 Including the building of the temples and the performance of ordinances therein for the redemption of the dead, were also in the spirit world.

55 I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.

More verses:

D & C 124:

29 For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—

30 For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me.

31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;

34 For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory.

35 And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.


See if these help point you in the correct direction.

[brlenox]

I still don't get it. Why would Joseph need the explanation about why Alvin was there without baptism if he needed it? That is the question Joseph asks: Why is he here without baptism? Answer: Because he would have received it with all his heart. Then the Lord talks about others who were and would be like Alvin and he DOES comment on the state of their works and desires of their heart (baptized by fire). And as if to make it even more clear, he tells you that little children also will be saved in the celestial kingdom. He is putting both of these groups in the same category.

We do temple work for everyone bc we can't tell if they would have accepted it with all their hearts. If God can save children and the "heathen" without baptism why is it such a stretch to believe what the scriptures say here?

Where does God save the Heathen to?

And does anyone need baptism to get to that kingdom?

[True]

i don't know what you're looking for. I still believe it and I don't think it disagrees with the prophets. I promise I am not slow on the uptake like it may appear bc I am nice. I appreciate you being gentle on me though. Thank you.

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

The tone of these posts are terrible. Although I wish Finrock agreed with me relative to Christ heading this church, I have always understood things as Finrock stated as far as millions being saved in the celestial kingdom without baptism. That is what the scriptures say. Pretty sure it's not heresy.

Moroni 8
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing--
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

I think the problem is Finrock isn't referring to what you are referring to, from my reading of his posts, it looks like he is claiming that someone like Alvin (who was not under the age of accountability and did not die without law) didn't need to be baptised, in the flesh or by proxy--which is simply not true by the scriptures we LDS teach or by our doctrine. That's the problem, he's not referring to the situation that you are referring to, which we all agree with, as it is clear in scripture. It is also clear that baptism by immersion, by one having authority, either in the flesh or by proxy, IS a requirement to enter the Celestial kingdom for all others.

Finrock is making a claim that a different kind of baptism is required--which sounds suspiciously like something Amonhi/church of the first born types or Denver Snuffer followers, might allude to. They've added requirements in which everyone must be baptised by fire and the Holy ghost (and I don't think they mean the gift of the Holy Ghost which is given through confirmation--the laying on of hands).

And I think the tone of the posts comes from feeling utterly exasperated; I can sympathize with Brlenox and George--I also have found myself trying to 'chop a log with a corn dodger'--which is how I feel when I foolishly get in a discussion with certain members of the forum. /:)

I want to point out that in the discussion so far, neither you, brlenox, or George have limited your discussion to addressing the content of my posts, I am addressing your posts, I'm addressing what you've said in them. You keep taking offense and refusing to actually answer questions put to you.but have in all posts where you are addressing me, made assumptions about me,I've asked you to clarify, you have not done so. attacked my character, or made personal swipes at me in one form or another. I have not attacked your character or taken swipes at you, I'm trying to get you to state clearly what you are suggesting, but you keep going back to things like little children being exempt, when we aren't talking about that---we all agree on that!Sometimes subtle, other times not so subtle. This, like always, reflects on the inherent weakness of your positions. I challenge all of you to have a sincere discussion where we adhere to the principles of critical thinking and intellectual integrity and to make no attempts to speak about my character, me personally, or in any way attack me or address me as a person. Me, myself, and I are irrelevant to the points and the contents of my posts. It doesn't matter what you think of me. It doesn't matter who you think I associate with. It doesn't matter who I am, what I am, etc. All that matters is the substance and the content of my posts. So, please just limit your comments to the content. It is the honorable and moral thing to do. Plus, if you can demonstrate that my words are untrue or somehow false or that I am mistaken by simply addressing the substance and the content of my posts, then I will accept it, repent, and will happily change my thinking AND you will have done something great and something uncommon. You will have truly defeated your "opponent". Right now, with all the personal stuff tossed in there, it just makes your point and your position appear weak and desperate.Why does it always seem to come down to this? I try to pin you down, get you to clarify and you fill up your posts with complaints about your treatment and zero explanations or clarifications of what you've said.

So, rather than try to guess at my "agenda" or discredit me personally, lets just deal with that content, accept it as it is written, and see what that could mean. It seems rather clear to me that some things which are generally understood to be true regarding baptism, are not true, and these teachings fit in to the category of false tradition. I really don't understand you...are you suggesting that our belief in the need for proxy temple work is a 'false tradition'? Do you believe that all the temple work we do for the dead is not necessary? Are you saying that God will just allow people into the Celestial Kingdom, if he chooses to do so? I'm not talking about little children or those who died without Law (they aren't just being 'let in', they are covered by Christ's atonement), I'm talking about those who have reached the age of accountability and were able to sin, because they knew that what they were doing was wrong and so they MUST be saved through the Doctrine of Christ and Baptism is one of the required steps.

In any case, I challenge everyone who continues to participate in this discussion to do so sincerely, with pure intent, and to focus solely and only on the substance and content of another persons post. Please do not introduce or bring in to the discussions any accusations, personal swipes, personal attacks, judgments, or anything of a personal nature. Please address the content and/or the substance of each post, only. Please back up any assertions and such with factual data. If you can't leave the personal remarks behind, then please do not participate.

Now, as far as what I'm speaking to, I'm speaking to only exactly what the scriptures that I've provided as proof for my words say. The scriptures plainly speak of categories of individuals who have not and will not be baptized by water, ever, in any way shape or form. It is only by adding to or taking away from the scriptures in question that one can make them say or read otherwise. But, in their simplest and purest reading, this is what they say. I don't have any other agenda other than to point out this scriptural fact. For anyone at this point to say or make a claim otherwise about what I'm saying or what I'm trying to do, will be bearing false witness against me.

D&C 137 plainly and simply says that Alvin was saved in the celestial kingdom without having been baptized for the remission of sins and it plainly and simply states that all people who have died or will die without having knowledge of the gospel but who would have accepted it had they been exposed to it, will be heirs of the celestial kingdom without being baptized for the remission of sins. This is what is plainly and obviously stated in D&C 137It does not state that baptism was not required and any LDS person who knows our doctrine knows that to read this as you are doing is wrong. In 1836, Joseph had not learned about the doctrine of baptism for the dead yet, but the Lord certainly knew about it and planned for it. Joseph would come to understand HOW this was to be done. Those who understand our doctrine read section 137 and understand that because of the temple ordinances, which would be revealed in a few years, Alvin and all others who would have received the gospel in the flesh, if they'd been given the chance, would be able to accept ordinances performed on their behalf and THAT is how they would be heirs of the Celestial Kingdom.. For anyone to bring anything else in to the mix is a molestation of that scripture. For you to be reading in something else and dismissing the NEED for baptism by proxy is shocking. As an LDS member you KNOW that we are taught that baptism is essential for salvation in the Celestial kingdom for all who are under the LAW. THAT is why we have temples. That is why we do all that genealogy work--it's not just busy work! Further, Moroni 8 plainly and simply states that children and those who are born without the law need not be baptized. Anyone who brings anything else in to the mix is molesting and altering the scriptures in question.NONE OF US ARE ARGUING ABOUT THIS ASPECT OF SALVATION. WE ALL AGREE THAT LITTLE CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO DIED WITHOUT THE LAW DO NOT NEED BAPTISM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONDEMNED BY THE LAW. THE ATONEMENT COVERS THEM AND NO ONE IS DISAGREEING ON THIS SUBJECT. I'VE SEEN NO EXAMPLES OF US ALTERING OR MOLESTING SCRIPTURES, BUT I HAVE OBSERVED YOU MISINTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES IN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING SECTION 137.

I'm sorry that this doesn't fit any paradigms or preconceived notions that one might have, but that is what the scriptures plainly and simply say. I didn't make it up and I'm not just teaching my own doctrine. I'm reading the scriptures and this is what they stated. So, if we are to accept the scriptures as written, we must accept that there are groups of individuals who do not need to be baptized by water in order to be saved in the celestial kingdom and by extension we can conclude that being baptized by water is not universally needed for all individuals in order to be saved in the celestial kingdom of God.

-Finrock

Discussing with you is so exasperating sometimes. I'm going to try to pin you down on this once more. Do you believe that Alvin Smith needed to have a baptism performed in the temple in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom? YES or NO. Please answer clearly so I can understand if I am misunderstanding your position.