Polarizing Question

[Finrock]

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.

AI2.0,

Couple of things. I will clearly demonstrate all the portions of your posts that have nothing to do with what I've stated, but they are either assumptions about me, baseless accusations about me, assumptions about my associations, attacks against me personally, talking about me instead of my message, etc. Also, please only speak for yourself. You do not represent anybody else except for your own thoughts. What you say does not apply to what others have said or what they have done. Going forward, please eliminate any personal content from your posts and I will be happy to continue to discuss with you.

So, you say you've only addressed the content of my posts. Let me demonstrate how this is not true. Those who are on your team will think your posts will be great and they will have no problems with it. Individuals, however, who are sincere, rational, and fair minded, will recognize the portions of your posts that do not adhere to the principles of intellectual integrity or the principles of critical thinking, which encompasses ideas such as intellectual humility, intellectual honesty, etc. Let it also be known that me factually pointing out instances where your posts do not address the content of what I've written does not constitute me attacking you personally. Only if I make accusations or assertions that I cannot factually support am I in error. Let me also say that at no point have I been offended. That is a false accusation you made about me. And, you should know that I consider the "personal" stuff that you've written and said to in this thread to be fairly benign, but extraneous nonetheless.

Starting with you first post to me in this thread:

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).

Now, on to this latest posts of yours:

You keep taking offense and refusing to actually answer questions put to you

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.

I really don't understand you...

For you to be reading in something else and dismissing the NEED for baptism by proxy is shocking.

BUT I HAVE OBSERVED YOU MISINTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES IN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING SECTION 137.

Discussing with you is so exasperating sometimes.

Okay, so now we got that out of the way...

Lastly, I've clearly stated my position multiple times already. Please go back and read what I've stated without any negative assumptions on your part and see if you get a different reading. When you are reading my posts, pretend in your mind that I am a general authority. Not so that you will agree with it, but so that you will respect me and my posts the same as you would respect them and see if you get a different reading.

In any case, my posts have been as clear, sincere, as I can write them and what I've said is exactly what I've meant, although you do need to allow for human error, please. Nonetheless, I will state my position once more: If you accept that children who die before the age of accountability never need to be baptized and those who die without the law never need to be baptized, then you accept what it is that I'm saying, which is that it is a scriptural fact that there are millions of individuals who will never need to be baptized by water, yet they will be saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. If you agree with that, then you also agree that baptism by water is not universally applicable to all people. That is the statement that brlenox said was not doctrine and not scriptural. I wanted to demonstrate that my statement is doctrinal and it is scriptural.

As far as the example of Alvin in the scriptures, in order for it to say what you want it to say, you have to go outside of the original text and pull in other ideas and assumptions. However, in my reading of Section 137 I am not trying to fit that scripture in to the typical Mormon paradigm, I am simply reading the words at face value and accepting them as they are written. Without pulling in any other sources, without adding any other ideas to it, without speculating about proxy baptisms, or making any other assumptions about the text, it plainly says what it says, which is Alvin was saved in the Celestial Kingdom of heaven even though he was not baptized for the remission of sins and so are all people who die on this earth who died before they had a change to hear the gospel but would have accepted it had they had the chance. What I just stated is what is exactly stated in the scripture. You are free to believe that scripture any way that you like, but I am not wrong for believing in that scripture exactly as it is written. It doesn't bother me that perhaps you don't like the plain and simple interpretation and you feel like you need to account for proxy baptisms in that scripture. I'm not personally bothered by that and I am happy to allow you to believe or not to believe the scriptures as they are written. For you to make any other assumptions, judgements, or accusations against me because I believe that scripture as written, is your problem, not mine. Finally, I've also stated that even though there are clear exceptions to water baptism in scripture, I can't find any exception to being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost in the scriptures.

If you want to have a discussion on proxy baptisms, we can do that. If you want to know my feelings about proxy baptisms and other subject matters, we can do that as well. Just be prepared to have a sincere discussion applying the principles of critical thinking and dropping any personal stuff from your posts. I'm happy to hear you out and to have you share your thoughts with me. We don't have to agree in order to understand one another.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Finrock,

One thing that can be predicted is whenever you say something like

plainly and simply says ... or .. Here is a scriptural fact

one can guarantee that you are way out into the Gospel of Finrock, rather then the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now I Don't think that I could add much to what AI2.0 and Brienox have said about your fanciful assertion

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.

You have decided the fact that if it didn't actually say that he would have to be baptized, then that confirms that he did not need to be baptized, no matter what all the other scriptures say. I think you are completely wrong, but I do understand where you are coming from, but even using your slicing and selective interpretation you have not clarified this even more ridiculous assertion

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.

So I will challenge you again WHERE in D&C 137 does it even imply that Alvin DID need to be baptized by fire and the holy ghost while not saying that he needed to be baptized by water?

I must admit, I don't understand how even you can extract this heresy from that scripture. And by the way, this is a bigger heresy, than saying that he didn't need to be baptized by water, because this becomes the foundation for all of this special getting of C&E made sure bypassing the clear simplicity of all of those other scriptures including the clear truth of John 3:5 comes from.

Regards,

George Clay

Once more, George, "Have ye inquired of the Lord? Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you."

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

It is somewhat comforting to know that you always go back to same familiar evasions and dodges. So I know that you will never actually answer the question. So I have decided write out what I believe to be an honest TheeMe response for 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.

Thee: I got a little carried away. Actually, you are right. D&C 137 actually doesn't say anything about being Baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, I was just so excited to see that this scripture showed Alvin as having gone to the Celestial Kingdom with his mother and Father without even being alive when the Gospel was restored, or having been baptized by proxy as you knee jerk, unthinking supporters of the brethren stupidly assert, that I just got a little carried away in my demonstration that it proves my point about both not needing to be baptized by water and only needing to be baptized by fire and Holy Ghost, that I kind of missed that little detail.

Me: actually Joseph, and Alvin's mother hadn't died at the time of this vision. It was not a vision of what was, but a vision of how things would be, and we know that it was a preliminary to Joseph Smith learning about the doctrine of Baptism for the dead.. This helped to give him the understanding and incentive to proceed with this newly re revealed doctrine.

Thee: OK, OK, maybe it wasn't a vision of how things were, but some future vision, but God said that Alvin would receive his celestial glory without being someone being baptized for him.

Me: No he didn't.

Thee: Yes he did, by not describing the fact that someone had been baptized for him, God is saying that nobody was so there. can't you read!

Me: Yea, I guess I can't, I suppose Alvin, Joseph's Mother and Father and God were all naked, because D&C 137 did not describe them as wearing any cloths either.

Thee: now you are just being mean, I didn't say that...

Me: So again where is there anything in D&C 137 about being baptized by Fire and the Holy Ghost

Thee: If you inquire of the Lord, and remember the things which the Lord hath said, like those of us who have been baptized by fire and the Holy ghost, like Amonhi, and I have you would see it. Even if it isn't actually written there.

Me: So it isn't actually written as you continually insist it is.

Thee: George you are just being a bully, and twisting my words, I'm not going to answer you any more.

There you go I just imagined what our conversation would be like if you were willing to be honest and clear, rather than retreating to your usual babel, when one points out that when you say something like

plainly and simply says ... or .. Here is a scriptural fact

one can guarantee that you are way out into the Gospel of Finrock, rather then the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regards,

George Clay

[diligently seeking]

George, it is tough to be selfaware which having a broken heart contrite spirit requires--when one wants to instead clearly let the dictates of man / church govern solely ones walk and talk. It is heart hurting for me that the church took away the lectures on faith from our Canon of scripture in 1921. Had it remained and the brethren further parsed / examined. and encouraged etc its content through out to years, you good sir, would not-- I wager--be having the back and forth in the spirit / approach that you are with Finrock.. There's documented Revelation received by Joseph Smith where the Lord vouchsafed its place in restored gospel Cannon along with Witnesses of the Quorum of the twelve and other disciples stating similar verification. It was a collaborative effort byJoseph and Sydney and fully edited by the Prophet Joseph. It is a distinctly beautiful-- as it points clearly and encourages emphatically to ones self-awareness with a growing relationship with Deity to the fullest extent In our mortal sojourn. Scriptures on their own, if we would unplug from some aspects of church narrative-- will lead one down the path to conversion which in turn makes self-awareness / this personal relationship with Deity more clear, also. I love Church. I worship Christ in church. I am not a drone of the message it conveys, though. . if we are not selfaware / converted-healed-plugged into and born of Jesus our walk and talk will reflect the bidding of man--- unless: 2nephi 28: 31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts *shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.*
32 Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

I've got to go. church starts in a couple of hours. I'm looking forward to worshiping Christ and being taught by the spirit. Yes George--I will be worshiping at a 3 hour service .

Receiving as Finrock ultimately encourages you to receive from prayer and personal experience comes from being selfaware / yoked first and foremost to Jesus--- all other channels Of information will fall in or fall out Of place to your Everlasting benefit as a result. But don't take my word for it-- let the goodness of God confirm...

[Mark]

George, it is tough to be selfaware which having a broken heart contrite spirit requires--when one wants to instead clearly let the dictates of man / church govern solely ones walk and talk. It is heart hurting for me that the church took away the lectures on faith from our Canon of scripture in 1921. Had it remained and the brethren further parsed / examined. and encouraged etc its content through out to years, you good sir, would not-- I wager--be having the back and forth in the spirit / approach that you are with Finrock.. There's documented Revelation received by Joseph Smith where the Lord vouchsafed its place in restored gospel Cannon along with Witnesses of the Quorum of the twelve and other disciples stating similar verification. It was a collaborative effort byJoseph and Sydney and fully edited by the Prophet Joseph. It is a distinctly beautiful-- as it points clearly and encourages emphatically to ones self-awareness with a growing relationship with Deity to the fullest extent In our mortal sojourn. Scriptures on their own, if we would unplug from some aspects of church narrative-- will lead one down the path to conversion which in turn makes self-awareness / this personal relationship with Deity more clear, also. I love Church. I worship Christ in church. I am not a drone of the message it conveys, though. . if we are not selfaware / converted-healed-plugged into and born of Jesus our walk and talk will reflect the bidding of man--- unless: 2nephi 28: 31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts *shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.*
32 Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

I've got to go. church starts in a couple of hours. I'm looking forward to worshiping Christ and being taught by the spirit. Yes George--I will be worshiping at a 3 hour service .

Receiving as Finrock ultimately encourages you to receive from prayer and personal experience comes from being selfaware / yoked first and foremost to Jesus--- all other channels Of information will fall in or fall out Of place to your Everlasting benefit as a result. But don't take my word for it-- let the goodness of God confirm...

Here we go again. The big bad church has "taken away" sacred doctrine to further exercise control over the sheeple. Having read your posts lately Jaredbees it sounds like you are going to be joining your brother in law soon as part of the resistance movement decrying the dictates of man that you think has invaded the church hierarchy. It is a slippery slope to start with the faultfinding. Just ask your in-laws..

[Finrock]

Finrock,

It is somewhat comforting to know that you always go back to same familiar evasions and dodges. So I know that you will never actually answer the question. So I have decided write out what I believe to be an honest TheeMe response for 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.

Thee: I got a little carried away. Actually, you are right. D&C 137 actually doesn't say anything about being Baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, I was just so excited to see that this scripture showed Alvin as having gone to the Celestial Kingdom with his mother and Father without even being alive when the Gospel was restored, or having been baptized by proxy as you knee jerk, unthinking supporters of the brethren stupidly assert, that I just got a little carried away in my demonstration that it proves my point about both not needing to be baptized by water and only needing to be baptized by fire and Holy Ghost, that I kind of missed that little detail.

Me: actually Joseph, and Alvin's mother hadn't died at the time of this vision. It was not a vision of what was, but a vision of how things would be, and we know that it was a preliminary to Joseph Smith learning about the doctrine of Baptism for the dead.. This helped to give him the understanding and incentive to proceed with this newly re revealed doctrine.

Thee: OK, OK, maybe it wasn't a vision of how things were, but some future vision, but God said that Alvin would receive his celestial glory without being someone being baptized for him.

Me: No he didn't.

Thee: Yes he did, by not describing the fact that someone had been baptized for him, God is saying that nobody was so there. can't you read!

Me: Yea, I guess I can't, I suppose Alvin, Joseph's Mother and Father and God were all naked, because D&C 137 did not describe them as wearing any cloths either.

Thee: now you are just being mean, I didn't say that...

Me: So again where is there anything in D&C 137 about being baptized by Fire and the Holy Ghost

Thee: If you inquire of the Lord, and remember the things which the Lord hath said, like those of us who have been baptized by fire and the Holy ghost, like Amonhi, and I have you would see it. Even if it isn't actually written there.

Me: So it isn't actually written as you continually insist it is.

Thee: George you are just being a bully, and twisting my words, I'm not going to answer you any more.

There you go I just imagined what our conversation would be like if you were willing to be honest and clear, rather than retreating to your usual babel, when one points out that when you say something like

plainly and simply says ... or .. Here is a scriptural fact

one can guarantee that you are way out into the Gospel of Finrock, rather then the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regards,

George Clay

Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 And again, blessed are all they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 And blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.
7 And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
8 And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
10 And blessed are all they who are persecuted for my name’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 And blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake;
12 For ye shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.
13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men.

-Finrock

[diligently seeking]

Mark, I love you man-- I wish we were Neighbors. I would benefit greatly me and mine from your association. Let's stay Yoked to Jesus and let everything else fall into place and not be afraid of such results. Respect and love, Jared

[Mark]

Mark, I love you man-- I wish we were Neighbors. I would benefit greatly me and mine from your association. Let's stay Yoked to Jesus and let everything else fall into place and not be afraid of such results. Respect and love, Jared

Tell me where you live and I'll start shopping for a home near you. I figure its the least I can do after all your trials with those crazy out of control in laws. ;)

[diligently seeking]

Took the electronics away from a couple of my wiley little- boys ages 8 and 6 much to their protest. Started reading Old Yeller to them. The book is always made better when you put a little accent into it. Lo and behold after reading for a piece and putting the book down-- my email electronic phone thing brought to my attention this here post of yours. Now Mark, you old sneaky more often than not fun-loving coon dog-- it is true we have not seen our in-laws for a spell. That does not take away the fact that they are good wonderful people. From what glimpses We Gather they are happy and healthy. I wish nothing but the best for them. Last night in fact they sent probably a couple thousand pictures they had of my little family--sent via email. That brought my family a lot of fun and increase love in our hearts to see all these pictures... Mark, you would fast appreciate and very much like my in-laws / the ones in queston) had you the opportunity to meet them... Let's judge not lest we be judged. What a world it would be if we affirmed people in their strengths rather than weakness. I'm far from perfect at that and need to repent for some of my ways in regards to accentuating the negative regarding people in my life. John 13: 35 and living the Beatitudes how would it be...? I hope you enjoy relaxing Sabbath day there in sunny California. All the best to you and yours, Jared

Ps my boys-- these poor electronic besieged kids loved them some Old Yeller...

[gclayjr]

Mark,

Notice how both JaredBees, and Finrock both try and claim to be TBM sheeple as a disclaimer before criticizing the church for straying from the true gospel, and slamming those of us who believe in this church and that it's current leaders are God's appointed as "Sheeple".

If they want to say that the church has fallen and no longer teaches God's word, then why not have the cojones to CLEARLY distance themselves from such a corrupt and fallen organization?

Regards,

George Clay

[Finrock]

Mark,

Notice how both JaredBees, and Finrock both try and claim to be TBM sheeple as a disclaimer before criticizing the church for straying from the true gospel, and slamming those of us who believe in this church and that it's current leaders are God's appointed as "Sheeple".

If they want to say that the church has fallen and no longer teaches God's word, then why not have the cojones to CLEARLY distance themselves from such a corrupt and fallen organization?

Regards,

George Clay

Please quote me where I've slammed anyone or called anyone a sheeple? Please quote me where I've stated the "Church has fallen" and "no longer teaches God's words".

-Finrock

[gclayjr]

Finrock,

Please quote me where I've slammed anyone or called anyone a sheeple? Please quote me where I've stated the "Church has fallen" and "no longer teaches God's words".

I must admit that I don't really know why you are so determined to keep throwing me "hanging Curve balls", but I guess if you are happy to throw them, I am happy to hit them out of the park.

First, I will admit, that JaradBees, and you do not use exactly the same verbiage, my point is that you say similar things. I suspect that anybody except you, and maybe JaradBees, would understand than when reading my comment. I'm sure that if I wanted to waste my time searching, I could find many instances where you word it pretty closely to the same, but perhaps not word for word the same, I think that the idea will be well represented by simply reposting the first comment you made on this thread. Note, for those who may not have read this earlier, that FInrock often likes to use 100 words when 1 will do, especially when he is trying to say something while retaining deniabllity that he actually said it.

Exactly, although, I would say that as "leaders" they have the responsibility to "lead". In a cult when things go wrong the cult leader always blames the followers. And, the brainwashed followers take the blame and don't ask questions. Also, in a cult, you can't question or blame the leaders even if they are the ones leading the people to do or to think certain actions. In a cult the leaders are always above reproach.

Luckily, we are not a cult. We can question and blame our leaders if the direction they provide us is deficient or incomplete somehow. In large measure the leaders of the Church have great power in directing the thoughts of LDS, for better or for worse. If you pay attention to how people think and how they react to what leaders say, quite often, although not always, people will accept an idea and believe it if it has been said by a leader, even if they rejected or didn't believe the exact same idea that was said by somebody else.

I think the apostles know the power that they have to direct our thoughts, etc. So, I don't fully accept the idea that if the members were ready, or good enough, or worthy enough, the leaders would teach about our calling and election or other so called "mysteries". I think another likelihood is that the subject matter is not important to them or it is not on their radar. I think the apostles teach the things that they feel are important. Of course we are trained to believe that whatever the apostles are teaching, it is by divine directive, but I think we've seen enough factual examples to the contrary to know that this isn't always the case. If we look at the types of experiences that are talked about today, the subjects that are taught today, and so forth and compare them with what was taught and talked about during the advent of the restoration or during Joseph Smith's time, we will see a marked difference. Many subject matters that are True Blue Mormon doctrines are neglected or no longer really taught or they have been relegated to an inferior status, when in the beginning of the Restoration these doctrines were what set us apart or which were the bread and butter, so to speak, of restoration doctrine. Meaning, subject matters such as having your calling and election made sure were not taught as "mysterious" fringe ideas of inferior quality or as less important, but they were the very essence and treated as the very essence of what the gospel is in large measure about. Because, at the end of the day, your calling and election has everything to do with salvation and being a disciple of Jesus Christ. The same can be said about the second comforter, etc.

So, is it possible that over time less and less people were receiving these blessings? Because less people were receiving it, then what choice did they have but to say that it isn't as important? If less and less apostles were seeing Christ, then doesn't it make sense that less and less apostles would be teaching this doctrine and expecting the lay members to be receiving those blessings when they, themselves, were not experiencing it?

If that is not the case, how else do you explain that doctrine that was once considered central and the very core of Mormonism, has now been relegated to "mystery", peripheral, or not as important?

Regards,

George Clay

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

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.

AI2.0,

Couple of things. I will clearly demonstrate all the portions of your posts that have nothing to do with what I've stated, but they are either assumptions about me, baseless accusations about me, assumptions about my associations, attacks against me personally, talking about me instead of my message, etc. Also, please only speak for yourself. You do not represent anybody else except for your own thoughts. What you say does not apply to what others have said or what they have done. Going forward, please eliminate any personal content from your posts and I will be happy to continue to discuss with you.

So, you say you've only addressed the content of my posts. Let me demonstrate how this is not true. Those who are on your team will think your posts will be great and they will have no problems with it. Individuals, however, who are sincere, rational, and fair minded, will recognize the portions of your posts that do not adhere to the principles of intellectual integrity or the principles of critical thinking, which encompasses ideas such as intellectual humility, intellectual honesty, etc. Let it also be known that me factually pointing out instances where your posts do not address the content of what I've written does not constitute me attacking you personally. Only if I make accusations or assertions that I cannot factually support am I in error. Let me also say that at no point have I been offended. That is a false accusation you made about me. And, you should know that I consider the "personal" stuff that you've written and said to in this thread to be fairly benign, but extraneous nonetheless.

Starting with you first post to me in this thread:

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).

Now, on to this latest posts of yours:

You keep taking offense and refusing to actually answer questions put to you

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.

I really don't understand you...

For you to be reading in something else and dismissing the NEED for baptism by proxy is shocking.

BUT I HAVE OBSERVED YOU MISINTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES IN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING SECTION 137.

Discussing with you is so exasperating sometimes.

Okay, so now we got that out of the way...

Lastly, I've clearly stated my position multiple times already. Please go back and read what I've stated without any negative assumptions on your part and see if you get a different reading. When you are reading my posts, pretend in your mind that I am a general authority. Not so that you will agree with it, but so that you will respect me and my posts the same as you would respect them and see if you get a different reading.

In any case, my posts have been as clear, sincere, as I can write them and what I've said is exactly what I've meant, although you do need to allow for human error, please. Nonetheless, I will state my position once more: If you accept that children who die before the age of accountability never need to be baptized and those who die without the law never need to be baptized, then you accept what it is that I'm saying, which is that it is a scriptural fact that there are millions of individuals who will never need to be baptized by water, yet they will be saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. If you agree with that, then you also agree that baptism by water is not universally applicable to all people. That is the statement that brlenox said was not doctrine and not scriptural. I wanted to demonstrate that my statement is doctrinal and it is scriptural.

As far as the example of Alvin in the scriptures, in order for it to say what you want it to say, you have to go outside of the original text and pull in other ideas and assumptions. However, in my reading of Section 137 I am not trying to fit that scripture in to the typical Mormon paradigm, I am simply reading the words at face value and accepting them as they are written. Without pulling in any other sources, without adding any other ideas to it, without speculating about proxy baptisms, or making any other assumptions about the text, it plainly says what it says, which is Alvin was saved in the Celestial Kingdom of heaven even though he was not baptized for the remission of sins and so are all people who die on this earth who died before they had a change to hear the gospel but would have accepted it had they had the chance. What I just stated is what is exactly stated in the scripture. You are free to believe that scripture any way that you like, but I am not wrong for believing in that scripture exactly as it is written. It doesn't bother me that perhaps you don't like the plain and simple interpretation and you feel like you need to account for proxy baptisms in that scripture. I'm not personally bothered by that and I am happy to allow you to believe or not to believe the scriptures as they are written. For you to make any other assumptions, judgements, or accusations against me because I believe that scripture as written, is your problem, not mine. Finally, I've also stated that even though there are clear exceptions to water baptism in scripture, I can't find any exception to being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost in the scriptures.

If you want to have a discussion on proxy baptisms, we can do that. If you want to know my feelings about proxy baptisms and other subject matters, we can do that as well. Just be prepared to have a sincere discussion applying the principles of critical thinking and dropping any personal stuff from your posts. I'm happy to hear you out and to have you share your thoughts with me. We don't have to agree in order to understand one another.

-Finrock

Having read your comments, it must be that I have misjudged your position and stand corrected. I must have been mistaken in not understanding what you were saying. Obviously, you must believe that Alvin Smith needed to be baptized by proxy, and the only ones who DON'T need baptism are the little children who have not reached accountability (which is why we don't do their work in the temple).

What really clinched it and ended the need for discussion or even a question over this was Brlenox's post on page three and the references provided by Stacy Oliver on the section 137. Thanks so much to Stacy for providing those--so helpful!! The references prove that Joseph Smith came to find the answer to how Alvin could be saved in the Celestial Kingdom, even without having been baptized in this life--Baptism for the dead and he and his family, when it was revealed, made sure that Alvin's temple ordinances were completed for him. So no need to argue over this.

Among members of the LDS faith, we all understand that the need for baptism was clearly set out in the Book of Mormon and in the New Testament by our Savior Jesus Christ, and we know that Joseph received revelation which taught him how all would have this opportunity to receive this essential ordinance because of the work for the dead which we now perform in our temples. We also understand why we, as a church, build so many temples. It is vital that the members have access to temples to do this work for those who died without the opportunity to be baptized and this allows them to accept or reject it. I believe MOST will accept it and be able to enter the Celestial kingdom, the same as if they'd been baptized while in life.

So, while I appreciate your offer, I don't think we need to continue a discussion on proxy baptisms--as you've said, you are as 'TBM' as the rest of us, so you understand their importance and why we spend so much of our time and resources to do this work for the dead.

[Finrock]

Finrock,

Please quote me where I've slammed anyone or called anyone a sheeple? Please quote me where I've stated the "Church has fallen" and "no longer teaches God's words".

I must admit that I don't really know why you are so determined to keep throwing me "hanging Curve balls", but I guess if you are happy to throw them, I am happy to hit them out of the park.

First, I will admit, that JaradBees, and you do not use exactly the same verbiage, my point is that you say similar things. I suspect that anybody except you, and maybe JaradBees, would understand than when reading my comment. I'm sure that if I wanted to waste my time searching, I could find many instances where you word it pretty closely to the same, but perhaps not word for word the same, I think that the idea will be well represented by simply reposting the first comment you made on this thread. Note, for those who may not have read this earlier, that FInrock often likes to use 100 words when 1 will do, especially when he is trying to say something while retaining deniabllity that he actually said it.

Exactly, although, I would say that as "leaders" they have the responsibility to "lead". In a cult when things go wrong the cult leader always blames the followers. And, the brainwashed followers take the blame and don't ask questions. Also, in a cult, you can't question or blame the leaders even if they are the ones leading the people to do or to think certain actions. In a cult the leaders are always above reproach.

Luckily, we are not a cult. We can question and blame our leaders if the direction they provide us is deficient or incomplete somehow. In large measure the leaders of the Church have great power in directing the thoughts of LDS, for better or for worse. If you pay attention to how people think and how they react to what leaders say, quite often, although not always, people will accept an idea and believe it if it has been said by a leader, even if they rejected or didn't believe the exact same idea that was said by somebody else.

I think the apostles know the power that they have to direct our thoughts, etc. So, I don't fully accept the idea that if the members were ready, or good enough, or worthy enough, the leaders would teach about our calling and election or other so called "mysteries". I think another likelihood is that the subject matter is not important to them or it is not on their radar. I think the apostles teach the things that they feel are important. Of course we are trained to believe that whatever the apostles are teaching, it is by divine directive, but I think we've seen enough factual examples to the contrary to know that this isn't always the case. If we look at the types of experiences that are talked about today, the subjects that are taught today, and so forth and compare them with what was taught and talked about during the advent of the restoration or during Joseph Smith's time, we will see a marked difference. Many subject matters that are True Blue Mormon doctrines are neglected or no longer really taught or they have been relegated to an inferior status, when in the beginning of the Restoration these doctrines were what set us apart or which were the bread and butter, so to speak, of restoration doctrine. Meaning, subject matters such as having your calling and election made sure were not taught as "mysterious" fringe ideas of inferior quality or as less important, but they were the very essence and treated as the very essence of what the gospel is in large measure about. Because, at the end of the day, your calling and election has everything to do with salvation and being a disciple of Jesus Christ. The same can be said about the second comforter, etc.

So, is it possible that over time less and less people were receiving these blessings? Because less people were receiving it, then what choice did they have but to say that it isn't as important? If less and less apostles were seeing Christ, then doesn't it make sense that less and less apostles would be teaching this doctrine and expecting the lay members to be receiving those blessings when they, themselves, were not experiencing it?

If that is not the case, how else do you explain that doctrine that was once considered central and the very core of Mormonism, has now been relegated to "mystery", peripheral, or not as important?

Regards,

George Clay

So, in other words, another baseless accusation and more personal attacks against me.

I still forgive you, George. I recognize you are only doing what has been done to you and you don't know anything better.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

This, like always, reflects on the inherent weakness of your positions. ...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.

Finrock, I wanted to add, before you responded to this post, that while I am sure you will keep your word stated above, it is not really the intent of all of this banter to defeat you as an opponent. And while these sources that I have provided pretty much end every aspect of your claims and you should be contrite, the real point from my perspective is will you really change your thinking as you state? And I mean much more than your thinking on this thread. You have taunted others that if they would pray the spirit would teach them, by inference as it has taught you. You have ignored scriptures and quotes that would have corrected your misperceptions early on if you hadn't been so adamant in your superior knowledge. You have made claims of calling and election and you have even found one or two who appear neophytes in the gospel who have been agreeable to your false claims.

Do you stop long enough to ask, "what spirit is it that taught me this was right and created such obstinance that I could not allow the true spirit to to teach me correct principles". "How can I claim calling and election when one of the gifts of such is that the scriptures will be opened to me" and clearly they were closed and have been on several occasions. "How can I risk teaching something so wrong on the doctrines of baptism that others might forgo doing temple work or perhaps carry your teachings to what has become the next step for the Calling and Elections type that they can find authority elsewhere and they can receive the ordinances through false sources." Alma when he considered his life of leading people astray and away from the true teachings of Christ, when he was repentant reviewed his past in horror and called himself a murderer for his efforts. Baptism is one such doctrine that if not done by authority one has nothing. Does that not concern you? I hope it does. As well I look forward to your thoughts on the information below.

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

First, there is no disagreement on the Children. I realize it is the only sure footing you have but it is not and has not ever been the issue for any of us that understand the doctrine.

Now to provide a resource, that I cannot take credit for, as Stacy Oliver provided me the resource. Perhaps to you it may appear a position of inherent weakness, but I am sure you must have realized that at some point someone was going to get around to looking it up and I have never felt that when one is correct it is a position of inherent weakness. If Joseph understood the revelation he received and which subsequently became D & C 137 as you do then I would expect his actions reflect that understanding. That he does not understand it as you do is most apparent in the following material. To that ends that we might dispel this entire discussion and place it in proper perspective Stacy, and I by association, present the following. This is material from a letter that Joseph Smith wrote to the members of the Quorum of the Twelve where he clearly references D & C 137 and ties it to the doctrine of baptism for the dead:

Finally on 15 August 1840, Joseph Smith preached the doctrine of baptism for the dead publicly for the first time in a sermon at the funeral of Seymour Brunson.

Four months later, he (Joseph Smith) mentioned this sermon in a letter to the members of the Quorum of the Twelve who were serving missions overseas. He wrote:

I presume the doctrine of "Baptism for the dead" has ere this reached your ears, and may have raised some inquiries in your mind respecting the same. I cannot in this letter give you all the information you may desire on the subject, but aside from my knowledge independant of the Bible, I would say, that this was certainly practised by the ancient Churches and St Paul endeavours to prove the doctrine of the ressurrection from the same, and says "else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead["] &c &c. I first mentioned the doctrine in public while preaching the funeral sermon of Bro Brunson, and have since then given general instructions to the Church on the subject. The saints have the priviledge of being baptised for those of their relatives who are dead, who they feel to believe would have embraced the gospel if they had been priviledged with hearing it, and who have received the gospel in the spirit through the instrumentality of those who may have been commissioned to preach to them while in prison.

Less than one month after first preaching this doctrine publicly, Joseph was called to the bed of his aged father, who was rapidly declining in health. Joseph's mother would later recall that during this bedside interview, Joseph "informed his father, that it was then the privilege of the saints to be baptized for the dead." She would also remember that her dying husband "was delighted to hear [this fact], and requested, that Joseph should be baptized for Alvin immediately; and, as he expected to live but a short time, desired that his children would stay with him as much as they could consistently."

Before long, the baptismal work for Alvin would be completed, meeting the scriptural requirement and finally making possible what Joseph had seen in vision in 1836--that Father Smith and his son Alvin that would be together in the celestial kingdom. https://cfhg.byu.edu/pdf/firesides/2001-11-09.pdf

Following is a second corroborating source from the Ensign. This one provides the reference to the fact that Hyrum Smith was baptized for the dead in behalf of his brother Alvin where it was recorded in the Nauvoo records.

The vision was clearly a picture of the future, for Joseph saw his parents in the celestial kingdom with their son. At the time of the vision, both parents still lived on earth—his father was standing in the same room after having given the Prophet a priesthood blessing, and the authority to perform vicarious work for the dead had yet to be restored.

That authority came two months later, when Elijah delivered to the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery the keys of temple work for the living and the dead. (See D&C 110:15–16.) Four years later, in 1840, Joseph taught his ailing father the newly revealed doctrine of baptism for the dead, and Father Smith asked that “Joseph should be baptized for Alvin immediately.” 75 That work was done by Hyrum, and appears first in the 1840 Nauvoo records. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/the- ... n?lang=eng)

As well, this resource represents a third resource from the Joseph Smith Papers project.

On the evening of his return, my husband commenced vomitting blood. I sent immediately for Joseph and Hyrum; who as soon as they came, gave him something to alleviate his distress. This was saturday night. The next morning Joseph came in and told his father, that he should not be troubled any more for the present with the Missourians: “and,” said he, “I can now stay with you as much as you wish.” After which he informed his father, that it was then the privilege of the saints to be baptized for the dead. These two facts Mr. Smith was delighted to hear, and requested that Joseph should be baptized for Alvin [Smith]immediately; and, as he expected to live but a short time, desired that his children would stay <with> him as much as they could consistantly. (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... y-1845/305 )

And finally a fourth resource from LDS.ORG which also confirms the material.

In January 1836, Joseph Smith saw a vision of the celestial kingdom in which he learned that those who did not receive the fulness of the gospel in this life but would have if given the chance, such as his brother Alvin, would not be denied the highest rewards in the life to come. With this vision, the Lord began to gradually reveal the doctrines and practices surrounding baptism for the dead to Joseph Smith and his successors over the course of several years.

Joseph’s vision affirmed God’s mercy, but it was not entirely clear whether the scriptural requirement of baptism would be waived for Alvin and others like him or whether it would be fulfilled in some other way. Some Latter-day Saints recognized this gap in their knowledge. Joseph Fielding, for example, “thought much on the subject of the redemption of those who died under the broken covenant” and speculated that “perhaps those who receive the priesthood in these last days would baptize them at the coming of the Savior.”

But at the funeral of Seymour Brunson on August 15, 1840, Joseph Smith taught the principle that men and women on earth could act for their deceased kin and fulfill the requirement of baptism on their behalf. The Saints joyfully embraced this opportunity and began almost immediately to be baptized for departed loved ones in rivers and streams near Nauvoo. (https://history.lds.org/article/doctrin ... d?lang=eng)

Thanks again to Stacy for his efforts.

[diligently seeking]

Mark,

Notice how both JaredBees, and Finrock both try and claim to be TBM sheeple as a disclaimer before criticizing the church for straying from the true gospel, and slamming those of us who believe in this church and that it's current leaders are God's appointed as "Sheeple".

If they want to say that the church has fallen and no longer teaches God's word, then why not have the cojones to CLEARLY distance themselves from such a corrupt and fallen organization?

Regards,

George Clay

George, I have no desire to wrangle with you. I do want to share this though. I think I mentioned somewhere maybe in this thread that potentially 1% of people in my ward know about scriptural qualifications for eternal life and the importance of hungering and thirsting for righteousness that direction. A gentleman in my ward who is seeking the face of Christ having had a few beautiful experiences leading him that direction asked me today what that book was in my hand. I asked him sincerely "had you never heard of the "lectures on faith?" He told me he had not. I was so very pleased to give him a brief rundown on the significance of This Book of scripture during the time we waited for the body of priesthood to assemble before we split off. I mentioned that this would further broaden his understanding to lay hold upon the blessings that he so desired to receive. He seemed very appreciative to learn this. Bruce R McConkie said this about the lectures on faith:

Jan. 4, 1972, Bruce R. McConkie had said:

"In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language - that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true."

It is difficult and even heartbreaking to me that this incredible book of scripture has been swept under the rug due to the lack of focus on it. Four decades ago this book and the salvational concepts found within weren't nearly as shelved as they are today. Why? After all-- If God is the same yesterday today and forever--why would his emphasis with differing approach to doctrine taught and encouraged diminish so much from past decades even up to our current state of membership? Also, what's more damning being lulled away into thinking all is well in Zion or the fear of people being aware / awake in the admonition of the Lord to seek for and obtain truths so readily taught by key figures in the restoration?

I'm not going to Banter over this with you --but did feel to leave these expressions for you for thought and prayer.

[gclayjr]

Brienox,

Wow!

QED ( for those not familiar with mathematics - quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "what was to be demonstrated", or, less formally, "thus it has been demonstrated")

The scalpel is superior to the sledgehammer!

Regards,

George Clay

[Mark]

Mark,

Notice how both JaredBees, and Finrock both try and claim to be TBM sheeple as a disclaimer before criticizing the church for straying from the true gospel, and slamming those of us who believe in this church and that it's current leaders are God's appointed as "Sheeple".

If they want to say that the church has fallen and no longer teaches God's word, then why not have the cojones to CLEARLY distance themselves from such a corrupt and fallen organization?

Regards,

George Clay

George, I have no desire to wrangle with you. I do want to share this though. I think I mentioned somewhere maybe in this thread that potentially 1% of people in my ward know about scriptural qualifications for eternal life and the importance of hungering and thirsting for righteousness that direction. A gentleman in my ward who is seeking the face of Christ having had a few beautiful experiences leading him that direction asked me today what that book was in my hand. I asked him sincerely "had you never heard of the "lectures on faith?" He told me he had not. I was so very pleased to give him a brief rundown on the significance of This Book of scripture during the time we waited for the body of priesthood to assemble before we split off. I mentioned that this would further broaden his understanding to lay hold upon the blessings that he so desired to receive. He seemed very appreciative to learn this. Bruce R McConkie said this about the lectures on faith:

Jan. 4, 1972, Bruce R. McConkie had said:

"In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language - that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true."

It is difficult and even heartbreaking to me that this incredible book of scripture has been swept under the rug due to the lack of focus on it. Four decades ago this book and the salvational concepts found within weren't nearly as shelved as they are today. Why? After all-- If God is the same yesterday today and forever--why would his emphasis with differing approach to doctrine taught and encouraged diminish so much from past decades even up to our current state of membership? Also, what's more damning being lulled away into thinking all is well in Zion or the fear of people being aware / awake in the admonition of the Lord to seek for and obtain truths so readily taught by key figures in the restoration?

I'm not going to Banter over this with you --but did feel to leave these expressions for you for thought and prayer.

JaredBees I was reading yesterday in SS a scripture in Section 101 verse 6 where the Lord explained why the Saints polluted their inheritances and were cast out and chastened. Look at what the Lord says here. There were "jarrings and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them".. Now I want you to go read a thread created years ago by Marc concerning the decanonization of LOF that I will point you to now.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30902

Tell me what kind of spirit you feel from many of the posts in that thread? Many of those people who participated on that thread are no longer members of the church but have separated themselves from the body of Saints. Why? Could it be that they lost confidence in the Leadership of the church to lead the Saints in an inspired way as Joseph warned the early Saints against doing again and again? You decide. I read also from section 105 verses 4 and 5 where the Lord tells the Saints that Unity is required of them and Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the Celestial Kingdom. Otherwise the Lord cannot receive Zion unto Himself.

Just look at what the critics of the Church are trying to do. They want the membership to become divided and start grumbling and moaning about why they are "being lied to" or "mislead" about this or that. It happens over and over again among the disgruntled exmo's on many discussion sites. Just look at your own in laws. Do they have confidense in the governing body of the church today? Do they accept these Brethren as Prophets Seers and Revelators? Do they think the church is Still being directed by the Lords hand? What good does second guessing the decisions made by early church leaders regarding the canonization of LOF going to do? Does it create more unity among the body?

[diligently seeking]

Mark,

Notice how both JaredBees, and Finrock both try and claim to be TBM sheeple as a disclaimer before criticizing the church for straying from the true gospel, and slamming those of us who believe in this church and that it's current leaders are God's appointed as "Sheeple".

If they want to say that the church has fallen and no longer teaches God's word, then why not have the cojones to CLEARLY distance themselves from such a corrupt and fallen organization?

Regards,

George Clay

George, I have no desire to wrangle with you. I do want to share this though. I think I mentioned somewhere maybe in this thread that potentially 1% of people in my ward know about scriptural qualifications for eternal life and the importance of hungering and thirsting for righteousness that direction. A gentleman in my ward who is seeking the face of Christ having had a few beautiful experiences leading him that direction asked me today what that book was in my hand. I asked him sincerely "had you never heard of the "lectures on faith?" He told me he had not. I was so very pleased to give him a brief rundown on the significance of This Book of scripture during the time we waited for the body of priesthood to assemble before we split off. I mentioned that this would further broaden his understanding to lay hold upon the blessings that he so desired to receive. He seemed very appreciative to learn this. Bruce R McConkie said this about the lectures on faith:

Jan. 4, 1972, Bruce R. McConkie had said:

"In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language - that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true."

It is difficult and even heartbreaking to me that this incredible book of scripture has been swept under the rug due to the lack of focus on it. Four decades ago this book and the salvational concepts found within weren't nearly as shelved as they are today. Why? After all-- If God is the same yesterday today and forever--why would his emphasis with differing approach to doctrine taught and encouraged diminish so much from past decades even up to our current state of membership? Also, what's more damning being lulled away into thinking all is well in Zion or the fear of people being aware / awake in the admonition of the Lord to seek for and obtain truths so readily taught by key figures in the restoration?

I'm not going to Banter over this with you --but did feel to leave these expressions for you for thought and prayer.

JaredBees I was reading yesterday in SS a scripture in Section 101 verse 6 where the Lord explained why the Saints polluted their inheritances and were cast out and chastened. Look at what the Lord says here. There were "jarrings and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them".. Now I want you to go read a thread created years ago by Marc concerning the decanonization of LOF that I will point you to now.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30902

Tell me what kind of spirit you feel from many of the posts in that thread? Many of those people who participated on that thread are no longer members of the church but have separated themselves from the body of Saints. Why? Could it be that they lost confidence in the Leadership of the church to lead the Saints in an inspired way as Joseph warned the early Saints against doing again and again? You decide. I read also from section 105 verses 4 and 5 where the Lord tells the Saints that Unity is required of them and Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the Celestial Kingdom. Otherwise the Lord cannot receive Zion unto Himself.

Just look at what the critics of the Church are trying to do. They want the membership to become divided and start grumbling and moaning about why they are "being lied to" or "mislead" about this or that. It happens over and over again among the disgruntled exmo's on many discussion sites. Just look at your own in laws. Do they have confidense in the governing body of the church today? Do they accept these Brethren as Prophets Seers and Revelators? Do they think the church is Still being directed by the Lords hand? What good does second guessing the decisions made by early church leaders regarding the canonization of LOF going to do? Does it create more unity among the body?

Thanks Mark, I believe I sense your sincere concern. And I appreciate it. At the end of the day let's do our best to be one with the Lord and have the strength and courage to receive his will for us individually and then to live it. Bless you and all of us to succeed in our efforts down that most important path...

[gclayjr]

Brienox,

Finrock wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:44 pm

This, like always, reflects on the inherent weakness of your positions. ...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.

Finrock, I wanted to add, before you responded to this post, that while I am sure you will keep your word stated above, it is not really the intent of all of this banter to defeat you as an opponent. And while these sources that I have provided pretty much end every aspect of your claims and you should be contrite, the real point from my perspective is will you really change your thinking as you state? And I mean much more than your thinking on this thread. You have taunted others that if they would pray the spirit would teach them, by inference as it has taught you. You have ignored scriptures and quotes that would have corrected your misperceptions early on if you hadn't been so adamant in your superior knowledge. You have made claims of calling and election and you have even found one or two who appear neophytes in the gospel who have been agreeable to your false claims.

It looks like silence (or possibly a non answer answer) is as close as your going to get to Finrock keeping his word! On this board, it is usually the best you get, but heck, even the sledgehammer has gotten that. I was hoping for him to be better to you.


Regards,

George Clay

[Silver Pie]

I recognize you are only doing what has been done to you and you don't know anything better.

-Finrock

In watching the back and forth, it occurred to me that people honestly don't recognize when they are side-stepping the subject at hand. They honestly don't see where they are not addressing the topic, where they are bringing into the discussion what they suppose to be the religious beliefs of the other person instead of addressing the topic, nor the fact that they are dissing what faction of religion or belief they think the other person is instead of addressing the topic. To them, it is the discussion. It is being impartial and staying on the topic at hand. It honestly and truly is not seen. I've seen it on threads here for years (and probably acted the part, as well), but it is only now, in this thread, that my eyes have finally been opened to see that it is honestly not seen.

[Silver Pie]

Finrock, most of chapter 8 in Moroni is addressing baptizing little children. It is pointed out that they are incapable of repenting (minds not developed enough to grasp the idea, nor to do it, I expect).

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.
24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:22 - 24)

I notice that those who don't need baptism are those not under condemnation. And. Not under the curse of a broken law. If they have not been taught the law (I am supposing this is talking about God's commandments, covenants, and so forth), then they are not condemned because they have not broken laws. Apparently, to break one of God's laws, you have to have them given to you first.

This is quite a thing you have brought up. It is something I would never have supposed. I had always thought this chapter was referring only to little children and the mentally incompetent (in whatever form that may manifest). I never, ever thought it might be talking about (for example) south sea islanders from the 1400s or some other random souls who had no record to tell them the dealings of God and who had no inkling of the true God, or who lived in such a state of apostasy that an authorized baptism was impossible (Alvin). I, like those parrying with you, thought that these souls needed to be baptized by proxy to cover their tails. Even Alvin had to be baptized by proxy, I supposed. I will have to ponder on what you said, and search deeper and further to discover the truth.

[gclayjr]

Silver Pie... all,

I'm not sure that there is clarity in this discussion as to what" those who have no law" means The D&C student manual clarifies this:

D&C 29:50. “He That Hath No Understanding”

Little children or individuals who do not understand the laws of God because of mental deficiencies will not be judged on the same basis as those who are able to understand them (see 2 Nephi 9:25–27; Moroni 8:22). President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers all deficient children with retarded capacity to understand, just the same as little children under the age of accountability. They are redeemed without baptism and will go to the celestial kingdom of God, there, we believe, to have their faculties or other deficiencies restored according to the Father’s mercy and justice.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:21.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... 1?lang=eng


It doesn't mean those who were just not taught.


Regards,

George Clay

[Finrock]

This, like always, reflects on the inherent weakness of your positions. ...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.

Finrock, I wanted to add, before you responded to this post, that while I am sure you will keep your word stated above, it is not really the intent of all of this banter to defeat you as an opponent. And while these sources that I have provided pretty much end every aspect of your claims and you should be contrite, the real point from my perspective is will you really change your thinking as you state? And I mean much more than your thinking on this thread. You have taunted others that if they would pray the spirit would teach them, by inference as it has taught you. You have ignored scriptures and quotes that would have corrected your misperceptions early on if you hadn't been so adamant in your superior knowledge. You have made claims of calling and election and you have even found one or two who appear neophytes in the gospel who have been agreeable to your false claims.

Do you stop long enough to ask, "what spirit is it that taught me this was right and created such obstinance that I could not allow the true spirit to to teach me correct principles". "How can I claim calling and election when one of the gifts of such is that the scriptures will be opened to me" and clearly they were closed and have been on several occasions. "How can I risk teaching something so wrong on the doctrines of baptism that others might forgo doing temple work or perhaps carry your teachings to what has become the next step for the Calling and Elections type that they can find authority elsewhere and they can receive the ordinances through false sources." Alma when he considered his life of leading people astray and away from the true teachings of Christ, when he was repentant reviewed his past in horror and called himself a murderer for his efforts. Baptism is one such doctrine that if not done by authority one has nothing. Does that not concern you? I hope it does. As well I look forward to your thoughts on the information below.

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

First, there is no disagreement on the Children. I realize it is the only sure footing you have but it is not and has not ever been the issue for any of us that understand the doctrine.

Brlenox,

Your extra-scriptural sources on the meaning of D&C 137 are appreciated and they are definitely worth considering. However, I disagree that it puts the issue to rest as far as what D&C 137 means. But, before I continue any further, the nonsense needs to stop. I'll clarify below.

Although you've attempted to define my position and you've brought in all sorts of assumptions in your posts to me, fortunately, you don't get to define what my position is. As a reminder, let me go back to the beginning of this back and forth between you and I and let me remind you what is being discussed and what position was being asserted by me. Let me also note that what has resulted since I asked you two questions, has been these lengthy posts of yours where you ultimately evaded answering my clarifying questions and which lead to a series of personal attacks against me, a continued attempt to discredit me as an individual, arguments of irrelevance, straw men arguments, and a boat load of assumptions about me.

So, in case you forgot, I asked you who are the Lord's servants and how can we identify them? After several posts of yours, I provided my understanding of what you are saying in so many words and ultimately I asked you to clarify and to confirm whether I understood your position or not correctly. You never answered. While you were responding to my two questions identified above, you decided to attack me personally in subtle and not so subtle ways and for whatever reason you felt obligated to attempt to discredit me, bring in all sorts of assumptions, and irrelevant data, and you made an assertion that I was teaching things that were outside of doctrine and scripture. Specifically, here is the position that you said was "doctrine outside of scripture":

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.

This is my position and the only position I have attempted to demonstrate as being factually true. I have, in fact, demonstrated that this position is scripturally sound, regardless of your feelings of D&C 137. If you only agree that children who die before the age of accountability will never be baptized by water, not even by proxy, and they will be saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven, which you have stated that we ALL are in agreement on, then you agree with what I stated above. Further, even if D&C 137 doesn't apply, Moroni 8 demonstrates that it isn't just little children who don't need to be baptized but those without the law as well.

Given only what I have asserted as my position, and nothing else (no assumptions, no personal opinions about me, etc.) please answer question 1:

Question 1: Do you agree that it is a scriptural truth that there are likely millions of individuals who are and millions of individuals 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, not even by proxy?

Finally, before I continue to discourse with you, please answer my clarifying questions which is what we were initially discussing and which you've so far evaded and please drop all attempts to attack me personally in any way. If you are unable to do that, then this will not be a discussion, but a disputation, a debate, an argument, etc. and I will not engage in that.

Going back to my original questions, from 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.

Question 2: Is my summary of your words what you believe? Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock

EDIT: For the sake of thoroughness, let me also add that I made the observation that even though there are exceptions to being baptized by water found in the scriptures, I have yet to find an exception in the scriptures for being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost.

[Silver Pie]

George, I think you're right. There hasn't been clarity. I also agree with the paragraph you quoted. What made me think that Finrock might have noticed something else is this part: "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 . . . " Moroni 8:22. It says "also," which seems to mean "in addition to the children and in addition to those who are not mentally competent." It is obvious that children and those without understanding because of mental limitations are exempt in Moroni 8, but I don't know if "also" means "another group" or something else.

Silver Pie... all,

I'm not sure that there is clarity in this discussion as to what" those who have no law" means The D&C student manual clarifies this:

D&C 29:50. “He That Hath No Understanding”

Little children or individuals who do not understand the laws of God because of mental deficiencies will not be judged on the same basis as those who are able to understand them (see 2 Nephi 9:25–27; Moroni 8:22). President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers all deficient children with retarded capacity to understand, just the same as little children under the age of accountability. They are redeemed without baptism and will go to the celestial kingdom of God, there, we believe, to have their faculties or other deficiencies restored according to the Father’s mercy and justice.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:21.)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... 1?lang=eng


It doesn't mean those who were just not taught.


Regards,

George Clay