Polarizing Question

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock,
So, imagine during the time in ancient history when the "law" of Moses was in full force and imagine all the people who were born without ever knowing about the "law" of Moses and who died without ever knowing about it. Although the Israelites were required to live the "law" of Moses because they were born under the law, all those who had no law were not condemned by the law.
So they won't be judged by the law of Moses. But they still will need to be baptized!

Regards,

George Clay

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

gclayjr wrote: June 5th, 2017, 6:14 pm Now the issue that is being bantered around here is who else? This is where Alvin's story comes into play. Alvin was a good honest elder brother of Joseph Smith who died before Joseph Smith was able to restore the gospel. The bizarre thing about this is that Joseph Smith was concerned about his elder brother Alvin, and was shown the vision in section 137, which was the beginning of the restoration of the doctrine of baptism for the dead. However, Finrock, and others read this to mean that Alvin, did not need a proxy baptism, God somehow exempted him, and of course all others like him. Why was Alvin "exempted" because he never got the chance to receive the gospel, and be baptized,. So Finrock and others like him are determined to try and interpret D&C 137 as saying 2 things that it doesn't say

1) Alvin was never baptized ... even by proxy, but did received Celestial salvation

2) That Alvin did receive the baptism by fire of the Holy Ghost, and that is why he received Celestial glory.

The problem is that D&C 137 doesn't say either one. I challenge you to read it. It is short, look for it. It says neither thing that Finrock asserts that it does.
George,

I don't need D&C 137 to say anything in order for my position that I have asserted to be true, which is this:
Finrock wrote:Just as a matter of fact, not as a means to prove one point or another point, but as a matter of fact, if the scriptures are to be believed and they represent a true record, there are likely millions of individuals who are and millions who will be saved in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized by water or actually receiving any of the physical, outward ordinances as we currently understand them. They will receive them not even by proxy.
Brlenox stated that what I said above was not scriptural and it has been my objective to demonstrate that what I stated is in fact true. Even if D&C 137 doesn't say what I claim it says, my assertion and my position that I am defending is scripturally true. I have successfully demonstrated that what I stated above is true.

Every other issue or assertion that has been brought up and which has been raised as something ought against me, has been those manufactured by you and brlenox.

George, if you were interested in a sincere discussion as opposed to attacking me personally, because that is demonstratively your objective, then there are many things we could discuss and share. I still invite you to pray and to ask God for the answer you seek. It will be more effective coming from Him than from me. Also, it will require you to put aside any pretense and to be sincere in your inquiry. Sincere seekers of truth will not be turned down.

-Finrock

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by brlenox »

Finrock wrote: June 5th, 2017, 4:11 pm 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":
Finrock wrote: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.
1This 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, 2 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.

Please note anything I have highlighted in BLUE

Number 1 in BLUE. I can except this conditionally. Do you refute and deny that you stated the following BLUE highlights in association with your parsed observation above on this thread:
Finrock wrote: June 1st, 2017, 1:53 pm
brlenox, you asserted, that with my statement above I have self affirmed "...doctrine outside of scripture..."

Your assertion is false. I have only summarized what has been spoken in scripture. Please consider the following proof:
D&C 137 wrote:1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
Question: How was Alvin there in the Celestial Kingdom without having been baptized for the remission of sins?

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

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

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

Lastly, consider this scripture from Moroni 8:
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing
From this scripture we learn again that all little children are alive in Christ and don't need to be baptized 3 AND we learn that there is another set of individuals who do not need to be baptized for the remission of sins in order to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God. Who is this other group? All those that are without the law are not condemned and cannot repent and to such individuals baptism availeth nothing.

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

-Finrock
2 and 3 above I have not ever commented on in this thread. I have completely left that observation out of this discussion though it is patently false as well.

As long as you are willing to stand by your "facts" I agree that these are the only comments in discussion in this thread and to which you have committed yourself to uphold. Or to deny by acknowledgement of misunderstanding.

Question number 2. This is the closest rewrite you have had thus far. For the sake of ongoing dialogue I will answer YES though I reserve the right to correct any false interpretation that may occur.
Last edited by brlenox on June 6th, 2017, 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock,

You see there is a problem. I guess if someone says that someone else is lying and deceptive, is it an insult. Even if it is true, I guess it is still insulting, but in order to ascertain the validity of the arguments one makes, it is necessary to determine if they are making honest clear arguments or whether they are either outright lying, or using slippery language to imply something without actually saying it. If someone is doing so, I think it must be exposed, even if the person being exposed squeals about how insulting and mean it is.

Now you have said
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.
A lot of time and effort has been made by many put into careful research and refutation of what you said, as one might expect from honest people in an honest dialog. You do not have the courtesy to put the same amount.. or even less time into building a case for why your assertion was right. You don't even have the honesty to admit that you were wrong! unless that is what this is
(Even if D&C 137 doesn't say what I claim it says, my assertion and my position that I am defending is scripturally true. I have successfully demonstrated that what I stated above is true.)



after all of this effort honorable people have put into treating your remarks as if they are your honest statements,

You just slip and slide and then say
George,

I don't need D&C 137 to say anything in order for my position that I have asserted to be true, which is this:

Finrock wrote
:Just as a matter of fact, not as a means to prove one point or another point, but as a matter of fact, if the scriptures are to be believed and they represent a true record, there are likely millions of individuals who are and millions who will be saved in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized by water or actually receiving any of the physical, outward ordinances as we currently understand them. They will receive them not even by proxy.
Brlenox stated that what I said above was not scriptural and it has been my objective to demonstrate that what I stated is in fact true. Even if D&C 137 doesn't say what I claim it says, my assertion and my position that I am defending is scripturally true. I have successfully demonstrated that what I stated above is true.

Every other issue or assertion that has been brought up and which has been raised as something ought against me, has been those manufactured by you and brlenox.
1) And so you don't stop lying. How can we be lying when we are quoting you? Anybody who wants to read this thread can see where you posted it

2) As far as slippery, you are not even honest when it comes to this
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
This is deceptive too. Because NOBODY, including Brienox, has disputed that there are likely millions of CHILDREN or MENTALLY handicapped people who will be saved in the highest degree of glory without any of the physical outward ordinances... but again that isn't really your point...is it!

Don't worry. At this time I am not really expecting any kind of a dialog from you. I am just trying to keep the record straight in regards to the lies and deceptions you are saying on this thread so that others who are reading this long mess won't be confused.

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by brlenox »

Silver Pie wrote: June 5th, 2017, 6:31 pm
gclayjr wrote: June 5th, 2017, 6:14 pmHowever, Finrock, and pothers read this to mean that Alvin, didnot need a proxy baptism, God somehow exempted him, and of course all others like him.
See, and that's what it seems to say if you look at it a certain way. But, if that is the case, how does it fit in with Nephi saying this?
Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world. And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 31:4 - 5)
As well as that scripture in the NT that mentions being baptized for the dead (as well as the baptisms for the dead initiated by JS)?

If someone lives on this earth without any law given to them by God and cannot be baptized by proxy because no one knows they existed, then I suppose God-in his mercy-will be willing to forego baptism if he knows that that person would have embraced the truth had they known it. But I do think we need to be careful, because it seems to be a human trait to think, "I'm exempt from this or that law of God."

I can give you a clue and quotes later if you wish. I just need to wrap up tonight. However, take a moment and research the highest kingdom those without the law can achieve. I did not even touch this subject yet preferring to address the more egregious issue. However, as it has been presented by FINROCK, it is false doctrine. I would rather to wait until we resolve the other issue first and perhaps then we can come back to this one.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Jonesy »

And just to set up the research above:
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (TPJS):

There is one God, one Father, one Jesus, one hope of our calling, one baptism.1 * * * Many talk of baptism not being essential to salvation; but this kind of teaching would lay the foundation of their damnation.2 I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me, if they can.
Or
Words of Joseph Smith:

John says I Baptise you with water But when Jesus Christ Comes He shall adminster the baptism of fire & the Holy Ghost,57 John said his baptism was good for nothing without the Baptism of Jesus Christ, Many talk of any baptism not being essential to salvation but this would lay the foundation of their damnation, There has also been remarks made concerning all men being redeemed from Hell, But I say that any man who commits the unpardonable sin must dwell in hell worlds without end.58
Joseph Smith said:
TPJS

...the law is given through me to the Church”
That's why it is important that this law administered through the church goes to all the world, of which church holds exclusive authority to do so that not even angels can baptize as long as there remains on earth those with these keys:
TPJS:

As it is well known that various opinions govern a large portion of the sectarian world as to this important ordinance of the gospel, it may not be amiss to introduce the commissions and commands of Jesus Himself on the subject.—He said to the Twelve, or rather eleven8 at the time: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:9 Thus it is recorded by Matthew. In Mark we have these important words: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.
Which brings us to this point:
Sixteenth—“If the Mormon doctrine is true, what has become of all those who died since the days of the Apostles?”
All those who have not had an opportunity of hearing the Gospel,2 and being administered unto by an inspired man3 in the flesh, must have it hereafter, before they can be finally judged.”
And the magnitude and greatness of this work?:
18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other--and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.(D&C:128)

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by AI2.0 »

Finrock wrote: June 5th, 2017, 6:51 pm
gclayjr wrote: June 5th, 2017, 6:14 pm Now the issue that is being bantered around here is who else? This is where Alvin's story comes into play. Alvin was a good honest elder brother of Joseph Smith who died before Joseph Smith was able to restore the gospel. The bizarre thing about this is that Joseph Smith was concerned about his elder brother Alvin, and was shown the vision in section 137, which was the beginning of the restoration of the doctrine of baptism for the dead. However, Finrock, and others read this to mean that Alvin, did not need a proxy baptism, God somehow exempted him, and of course all others like him. Why was Alvin "exempted" because he never got the chance to receive the gospel, and be baptized,. So Finrock and others like him are determined to try and interpret D&C 137 as saying 2 things that it doesn't say

1) Alvin was never baptized ... even by proxy, but did received Celestial salvation

2) That Alvin did receive the baptism by fire of the Holy Ghost, and that is why he received Celestial glory.

The problem is that D&C 137 doesn't say either one. I challenge you to read it. It is short, look for it. It says neither thing that Finrock asserts that it does.
George,

I don't need D&C 137 to say anything in order for my position that I have asserted to be true, which is this:
Finrock wrote:Just as a matter of fact, not as a means to prove one point or another point, but as a matter of fact, if the scriptures are to be believed and they represent a true record, there are likely millions of individuals who are and millions who will be saved in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized by water or actually receiving any of the physical, outward ordinances as we currently understand them. They will receive them not even by proxy.
Brlenox stated that what I said above was not scriptural and it has been my objective to demonstrate that what I stated is in fact true. Even if D&C 137 doesn't say what I claim it says, my assertion and my position that I am defending is scripturally true. I have successfully demonstrated that what I stated above is true.

Every other issue or assertion that has been brought up and which has been raised as something ought against me, has been those manufactured by you and brlenox.

George, if you were interested in a sincere discussion as opposed to attacking me personally, because that is demonstratively your objective, then there are many things we could discuss and share. I still invite you to pray and to ask God for the answer you seek. It will be more effective coming from Him than from me. Also, it will require you to put aside any pretense and to be sincere in your inquiry. Sincere seekers of truth will not be turned down.

-Finrock

Just to be clear. I realize you want to discount what you call 'extra scriptural' writings, but you do of course, understand that facts are facts and they shouldn't be ignored, simply because they aren't in the scriptural writings. When one is presented with historical facts, it OUGHT to have some impact on their views, if those facts refute something they believed, it seems they would want to know this. You never answered my question; one post made me think you were acknowledging that baptism was necessary, but then subsequent posts left me confused, so I'm not sure of your position. You still seem to be interpreting D&C137 to mean that Alvin did not need baptism--in the flesh or by proxy. IF you do think that, then you ought to be apprised that his family did not agree with this belief. When the doctrine of Baptism for the dead was revealed to Joseph Smith Jr, the Smith family made certain that Alvin Smith was baptized by proxy, twice. Once in 1840 and again in 1841. Here is a reference which provides proof of this:
Alvin’s death occurred six years before the restoration of the priesthood and seven years before the organization of the Church. His unbaptized condition may have weighed upon the Prophet’s mind, and the 1836 revelation of Alvin in celestial glory must have been received with great joy by the whole family. When Elijah restored the sealing powers on 3 April 1836, three months after the vision, the way was finally open for Alvin to be baptized.

On 10 August 1840, the Prophet made the first public mention of the doctrine of baptism for the dead at the funeral of Seymour Brunson. (History of the Church, 4:179, 231.)

Joseph Smith, Sr., died the next month. On his deathbed he earnestly requested that Alvin be baptized vicariously, and some of his last words were, “I see Alvin.” 6 In accordance with his father’s request, Hyrum Smith was baptized for Alvin by proxy in 1840 and again in 1841 in Nauvoo. 7


7. “Nauvoo Baptisms for the Dead,” Book A, Church Genealogical Society Archives, pp. 145, 149.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/alvi ... d?lang=eng

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

AI2.O, Brlenox, and George:

Do you all agree with this conclusion as it is written, that I have made?

Finrock's Conclusion:
Finrock wrote: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.
Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by AI2.0 »

Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm AI2.O, Brlenox, and George:

Do you all agree with this conclusion as it is written, that I have made?

Finrock's Conclusion:
Finrock wrote: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.
Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock
That's not possible as a yes or no is not sufficient for your conclusion, because it depends on who you are referring to and since you've been so cagey, and refused to answer my question, I'm really not sure of your position at this point.

But, I'll still answer your question.

The answer would be 'yes' if you are referring to little children who die before the age of accountability. However, if you are claiming that those who 'would have accepted the gospel, had they heard it in life' such as Alvin Smith can enter the Celestial kingdom without proxy baptism, then I would answer 'no' as this is LDS doctrine. All who lived on earth who have sinned who desire to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom will need to avail themselves of the Atonement and that means baptism is a requirement. All who are willing to accept it will have this blessing--none will fall through the cracks or be forgotten, as was mentioned, we'll have the Millenium to make sure all receive this ordinance who desire it.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

AI2.0 wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:15 pm
Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm AI2.O, Brlenox, and George:

Do you all agree with this conclusion as it is written, that I have made?

Finrock's Conclusion:
Finrock wrote: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.
Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock
That's not possible as a yes or no is not sufficient for your conclusion, because it depends on who you are referring to and since you've been so cagey, and refused to answer my question, I'm really not sure of your position at this point.

But, I'll still answer your question.

The answer would be 'yes' if you are referring to little children who die before the age of accountability. However, if you are claiming that those who 'would have accepted the gospel, had they heard it in life' such as Alvin Smith can enter the Celestial kingdom without proxy baptism, then I would answer 'no' as this is LDS doctrine. All who lived on earth who have sinned who desire to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom will need to avail themselves of the Atonement and that means baptism is a requirement. All who are willing to accept it will have this blessing--none will fall through the cracks or be forgotten, as was mentioned, we'll have the Millenium to make sure all receive this ordinance who desire it.
We are only dealing with what that statement says. Nothing more nothing less. So, to be clear, you agree with that statement, as written?

-Finrock

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock,

You are like a pit bull with a bone. We have answered that question over and over, just like you asked it Yes.

Si ,Oui

Whatever

But since this is a dodge for you, instead of an honest question, you get upset when we continue and identify those millions as People who died as Children and those who were mentally incompetent.

So what childish game are you trying to make when you want us to simply answer with the one word, and stop. So that YOU can insert your answer for who those millions were?

5 year olds can think better than that!

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by AI2.0 »

Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:27 pm
AI2.0 wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:15 pm
Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm AI2.O, Brlenox, and George:

Do you all agree with this conclusion as it is written, that I have made?

Finrock's Conclusion:
Finrock wrote: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.
Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock
That's not possible as a yes or no is not sufficient for your conclusion, because it depends on who you are referring to and since you've been so cagey, and refused to answer my question, I'm really not sure of your position at this point.

But, I'll still answer your question.

The answer would be 'yes' if you are referring to little children who die before the age of accountability. However, if you are claiming that those who 'would have accepted the gospel, had they heard it in life' such as Alvin Smith can enter the Celestial kingdom without proxy baptism, then I would answer 'no' as this is LDS doctrine. All who lived on earth who have sinned who desire to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom will need to avail themselves of the Atonement and that means baptism is a requirement. All who are willing to accept it will have this blessing--none will fall through the cracks or be forgotten, as was mentioned, we'll have the Millenium to make sure all receive this ordinance who desire it.
We are only dealing with what that statement says. Nothing more nothing less. So, to be clear, you agree with that statement, as written?

-Finrock
No we're NOT only dealing with that statement, because I went back and searched where you initially made it. I finally found it in context , it is from a thread in outer darkness and was in support of some of Amonhi's false teachings. Here it is;
Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 3:29 pm
Finrock wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 3:06 pm
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.

-Finrock
I don't know about the proxy part, but it seems that the case is being made that the Church doesn't matter. And while many more will be saved, that is God's judgment. What we have to actively preach is what God has revealed to us as member's of His Church, not any other doctrine.
Just to be clear, I am talking about what God has revealed to us.

Children who die before the age of accountability will not be baptized in any way. You can't even baptize them by proxy, even if you tried. The Church doesn't allow for it in its temple work system.

Also, the scriptures are clear that there are countless others who will never need to be baptized or receive any of the physical ordinances that we are familiar with, yet they are saved in the Celestial Kingdom, in the highest degree. See D&C 137 and Moroni 8:22.

-Finrock

In your post, you attempt to use D&C 137 to support your conclusion, therefore it's clear you relate more to Amonhi's heretical views than the LDS church's. So, my answer to you is 'no'. What you and Amonhi are claiming is false.


Here's the thread if anyone is interested;

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=45582&p=786078#p786078

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by brlenox »

Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:27 pm
AI2.0 wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:15 pm
Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm AI2.O, Brlenox, and George:

Do you all agree with this conclusion as it is written, that I have made?

Finrock's Conclusion:
Finrock wrote: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.
Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock
That's not possible as a yes or no is not sufficient for your conclusion, because it depends on who you are referring to and since you've been so cagey, and refused to answer my question, I'm really not sure of your position at this point.

But, I'll still answer your question.

The answer would be 'yes' if you are referring to little children who die before the age of accountability. However, if you are claiming that those who 'would have accepted the gospel, had they heard it in life' such as Alvin Smith can enter the Celestial kingdom without proxy baptism, then I would answer 'no' as this is LDS doctrine. All who lived on earth who have sinned who desire to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom will need to avail themselves of the Atonement and that means baptism is a requirement. All who are willing to accept it will have this blessing--none will fall through the cracks or be forgotten, as was mentioned, we'll have the Millenium to make sure all receive this ordinance who desire it.
We are only dealing with what that statement says. Nothing more nothing less. So, to be clear, you agree with that statement, as written?

-Finrock
Buzzzzzzzz. Wait, Wait is it the end of the game? Oh Noooo! I've lost the championship...Finrock, head hung low, heads towards the locker room.

Never mind Finrock. As far as I am concerned there is no need to continue this game of lack of integrity. All we are offering you is a chance to own up to your statements. We all know you have missed the boat on this one. It has become painfully obvious that you lack the fortitude to be mature and take responsibility. It does not change anything at this point other than maybe I would be able to grant a moment of raised respect which is natural when people handle these types of things with dignity.

I am reminded of something you once said about Elder Cook. I think it more applies to you:
Finrock wrote: October 4th, 2016, 6:00 am The stories were used to validate gospel principles. He was lying. How can a person have the Spirit when they are lying in order to make themselves look better and to sell books? He was also engaging in other activities that were unbecoming of his calling. You don't command the powers of heaven through the principles of unrighteousness. You can't teach God's word with the intellect. If he didn't have the Spirit then what he was saying was not from God.

It's actually disingenuous of you to minimize this and pretend it's not a big deal. Further it is only one example. There are many more. Trust the Spirit, get the Spirit as your guide.

We are not bound to believe everything that comes out of another man's mouth, only that which is spoken by the Spirit and received by the Spirit.

-Finrock
Then I am reminded of this comment as well:
Finrock wrote: September 24th, 2016, 4:29 pm I will happily engage with you if you agree to employ the principles of intellectual integrity. This means we don't purposefully utilize fallacious reasoning such as straw men, ad hominem attacks, or other such things. And, if we do it accidentally, we repent immediately once it becomes known to us. Intellectual integrity means that you won't ignore facts, ideas, or information that contradicts or challenges your point of view. When you are obviously mistaken, you should admit it. The point here isn't to argue and contend with one another, but to learn from one another, to have a spirit filled conversation. This can only happen if we treat one another with kindness, fairness, and allow freedom to reign.

Finally, I would like to suggest another future topic for your rebuttal in this quote here:
Finrock wrote: July 29th, 2016, 8:17 am At Church, I have been ordained an Elder and am a second councilor in the EQ presidency. By God, I've been ordained a High Priest and have the High Priesthood. The Church doesn't know this and doesn't acknowledge it, but, I don't care about that. I happily serve as an Elder in the Church and have no desires to be recognized by the Church and I don't care if the Church disapproves, approves, whatever, because I know God approves.
You are your own judge and I concur with your evaluations above as they apply to you.

This is very sad to see such a mess. Your spirit voice has taught you amiss in so many things.

As Joseph once stated: “nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God."

You are not what you claim and the tragedy is you cannot see what has become painfully obvious. Good day my friend, hoping your lot improves with the acquisition of correct understanding.
Last edited by brlenox on June 6th, 2017, 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by AI2.0 »

Finrock wrote: June 2nd, 2017, 1:50 pm
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
Joseph didn't marvel as to why he saw his mother there or his father there. He marveled that he saw Alvin there since Alvin had not been baptized for the remission of sins. The context and question Joseph has is, "How can one be saved in the celestial kingdom without having been baptized for the remission of sins?"

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

The answer the Lord gives to Joseph's question is not, "Alvin will be baptized one day by proxy or after the resurrection" or anything of the sort. Instead, the answer is:
All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

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

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

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

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

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

-Finrock

In that same thread in outer darkness, reading Amonhi's pontifications, it seems you're being influenced by Amonhi. Amonhi dismisses the need for water baptism and insists that Baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost is the only thing necessary. But this isn't in harmony with LDS doctrine.

From a post by Amonhi on that thread in outer darkness:
Amonhi: "Oh, and why did the Lord build this church and give us Baptism, sacrament and Aaronic Priesthood Bishops like in days of old? Well because of our dead works or faith in dead works of course. Rather than relying on dead works, we should really focus on entering at the real gate which is to receive the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost which can be done with or without the baptism of water........
It is clear from all the scriptures that talk about the gate that you have not entered the gate until you have received the baptism of Fire and the Holy Ghost. If you have been baptized by authority but you have not received the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, then you have not entered in at the gate and you are NOT on the path that leads to eternal life. Once you have the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, THEN you have passed through the gate and NOW you are on the path that leads to eternal life......
If you haven't received the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, then you haven't entered in at the gate because if you enter in the gate, then God PROMISES that you will receive the baptism of fire which cleans you of your sins and the Holy Ghost which keeps you clean from sin......
God can clean a person of sin without baptism. He can give someone the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands. He can give any blessing or make any covenant He desires without the church or man involved, even if he has to send angels to accomplish his work independent of the church. "
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=45582&p=786078#p786078

As I said, this isn't LDS Doctrine, this is 'Elliason' doctrine.

Finrock, I think you need to figure out which church you belong to....

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

AI2.0 wrote: June 6th, 2017, 5:00 pm
Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:27 pm
AI2.0 wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:15 pm
Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm AI2.O, Brlenox, and George:

Do you all agree with this conclusion as it is written, that I have made?

Finrock's Conclusion:


Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock
That's not possible as a yes or no is not sufficient for your conclusion, because it depends on who you are referring to and since you've been so cagey, and refused to answer my question, I'm really not sure of your position at this point.

But, I'll still answer your question.

The answer would be 'yes' if you are referring to little children who die before the age of accountability. However, if you are claiming that those who 'would have accepted the gospel, had they heard it in life' such as Alvin Smith can enter the Celestial kingdom without proxy baptism, then I would answer 'no' as this is LDS doctrine. All who lived on earth who have sinned who desire to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom will need to avail themselves of the Atonement and that means baptism is a requirement. All who are willing to accept it will have this blessing--none will fall through the cracks or be forgotten, as was mentioned, we'll have the Millenium to make sure all receive this ordinance who desire it.
We are only dealing with what that statement says. Nothing more nothing less. So, to be clear, you agree with that statement, as written?

-Finrock
No we're NOT only dealing with that statement, because I went back and searched where you initially made it. I finally found it in context , it is from a thread in outer darkness and was in support of some of Amonhi's false teachings. Here it is;
Jonesy1982 wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 3:29 pm
Finrock wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 3:06 pm
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.

-Finrock
I don't know about the proxy part, but it seems that the case is being made that the Church doesn't matter. And while many more will be saved, that is God's judgment. What we have to actively preach is what God has revealed to us as member's of His Church, not any other doctrine.
Just to be clear, I am talking about what God has revealed to us.

Children who die before the age of accountability will not be baptized in any way. You can't even baptize them by proxy, even if you tried. The Church doesn't allow for it in its temple work system.

Also, the scriptures are clear that there are countless others who will never need to be baptized or receive any of the physical ordinances that we are familiar with, yet they are saved in the Celestial Kingdom, in the highest degree. See D&C 137 and Moroni 8:22.

-Finrock

In your post, you attempt to use D&C 137 to support your conclusion, therefore it's clear you relate more to Amonhi's heretical views than the LDS church's. So, my answer to you is 'no'. What you and Amonhi are claiming is false.


Here's the thread if anyone is interested;

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=45582&p=786078#p786078
:)) , goodness...

By-the-way, this was probably done by accident, but you are attributing some of the things that Jonesy said, to me.

Well, clearly you aren't interested in a sincere dialogue since you've decided that I'm a liar, so, here is my final "clarification". Now you all have a choice. Either you are going to treat me fairly and let me clarify my position or you are not and you are going to continue to accuse me of being a liar and go with all the assumptions, all the accusations, and all of the personal attacks. I can deal with either scenario. In any case, here is what I have been saying, being that I know what I mean and what my positions is. Take it or leave it:

I am dealing with only that statement as it is written. I was dealing with only that one conclusion in that thread and I'm only dealing with that one conclusion in this thread.

Note, I said, "Just as a matter of fact, not as a means to prove one point or another point, but as a matter of fact..." I was making it clear that I was interested in making an objective observation and I wasn't taking any sides. The exceptions provided in the scriptures to being baptized by water are certainly something worth considering in a discussion on baptism. I think they are there for a purpose that is important and good, but, that discussion obviously isn't going to happen here.

Now, in this thread, in the course of me asking some questions of Brlenox concerning identifying the Lord's servants, Brlenox accused me of teaching false doctrine (for whatever reason). He quoted what I've now labelled, "Finrock's Conclusion" that I made in that thread you have referenced. So, that was my conclusion. Brlenox quoted "Finrock's Conclusion" and said that it was doctrine outside of scripture. In order to demonstrate that "Finrock's Conclusion" is not doctrine outside of scripture, I supplied my supporting "premises". The premises I used to support my conclusion were the scriptures in D&C 137 and Moroni 8. My whole objective has been to show that what I said in "Finrock's conclusion" is scripturally sound. Because all of you agree at least with one of my premises, the one about children, then all of you agree with "Finrock's conclusion" because that is all it takes to establish "Finrock's conclusion" as true.

Why then, before I ever supplied my supporting premises which you have found fault in at least some of them, did Brlenox say that I was teaching things that were false? Well, either, A) Brlenox assumed that I was saying more than what I was saying and did not realize that I meant and do mean exactly what I said, nothing more and nothing less, or, B) Brlenox has a personal problem with me (and based on the personal attacks and the attempts to personally discredit me so far in his posts, this is a reasonable and likely option to consider).

As I've stated before, you guys are free to interpret those scriptures as you wish and you can deal with them any way that you want. However, "Finrock's conclusion" as written is an established scriptural fact. Even if one or two of my supporting "premises" are wrong, not all of my supporting premises are wrong. I've established the truthfulness of "Finrock's conclusion". What is so interesting and funny in all of this is the fact that all of you agree that little children (and even the extra-scriptural notion of "mentally handicapped" individuals) don't need to be baptized, not even by proxy, which means that all of you agree with "Finrock's conclusion" even though initially you stated that you did not. Despite the assumptions and the accusations, I was only ever using D&C 137 to support "Finrock's conclusion" as it was written, not to make any other point.

I do appreciate the information provided as it relates to Alvin and as I've said before, it deserves to be seriously considered, which I will do. Now, had we been able to get past all the assumptions and accusations, it may have been interesting to discuss what are some of the implications of accepting the conclusions that have been offered as it relates to the extra-scriptural information that was used to demonstrate that D&C 137 does not support "my" conclusion. However, I will say that if I accept the conclusions that have been offered in this thread by Brlenox (or Stacy Oliver) as it relates to D&C 137, it seems to introduce other problems and contradictions that I don't like (unrelated to "Finrock's conclusion") and so although I see where you guys are coming from, I will have to consider that data a little more closely.

To answer what I believe are AI2.0's concerns, I was never arguing against proxy baptisms or against baptism in general. I believe in proxy baptisms and I believe in the general principle of being baptized by water. I am not a disciple of Amonhi and although I find many of his posts useful, I've learned many things from what he has written over the years, and I have agreed with him at times, I certainly don't agree with everything he says nor do I support all of his conclusions or teachings. In this instance here and in that Outer Darkness thread, I only made the factual observation that there are exceptions in the scriptural account to those who need to be baptized. I think it would be in everyone's best interest to carefully consider the distinction between being baptized by water and being baptized by the spirit, with an emphasis on being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost.

Hope you all have a great evening! :)

-Finrock

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock,
I was never arguing against proxy baptisms or against baptism in general. I believe in proxy baptisms and I believe in the general principle of being baptized by water

OK can you answer a simple question.

If Alvin, and other people who would have accepted Jesus Christ and been baptized, had they had the opportunity to do so, not need to be baptized by proxy.

Who does?

Regards,

George Clay

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

brlenox wrote: June 6th, 2017, 5:28 pm
Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:27 pm
AI2.0 wrote: June 6th, 2017, 4:15 pm
Finrock wrote: June 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm AI2.O, Brlenox, and George:

Do you all agree with this conclusion as it is written, that I have made?

Finrock's Conclusion:


Yes or No will suffice.

-Finrock
That's not possible as a yes or no is not sufficient for your conclusion, because it depends on who you are referring to and since you've been so cagey, and refused to answer my question, I'm really not sure of your position at this point.

But, I'll still answer your question.

The answer would be 'yes' if you are referring to little children who die before the age of accountability. However, if you are claiming that those who 'would have accepted the gospel, had they heard it in life' such as Alvin Smith can enter the Celestial kingdom without proxy baptism, then I would answer 'no' as this is LDS doctrine. All who lived on earth who have sinned who desire to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom will need to avail themselves of the Atonement and that means baptism is a requirement. All who are willing to accept it will have this blessing--none will fall through the cracks or be forgotten, as was mentioned, we'll have the Millenium to make sure all receive this ordinance who desire it.
We are only dealing with what that statement says. Nothing more nothing less. So, to be clear, you agree with that statement, as written?

-Finrock
Buzzzzzzzz. Wait, Wait is it the end of the game? Oh Noooo! I've lost the championship...Finrock, head hung low, heads towards the locker room.

Never mind Finrock. As far as I am concerned there is no need to continue this game of lack of integrity. All we are offering you is a chance to own up to your statements. We all know you have missed the boat on this one. It has become painfully obvious that you lack the fortitude to be mature and take responsibility. It does not change anything at this point other than maybe I would be able to grant a moment of raised respect which is natural when people handle these types of things with dignity.

I am reminded of something you once said about Elder Cook. I think it more applies to you:
Finrock wrote: October 4th, 2016, 6:00 am The stories were used to validate gospel principles. He was lying. How can a person have the Spirit when they are lying in order to make themselves look better and to sell books? He was also engaging in other activities that were unbecoming of his calling. You don't command the powers of heaven through the principles of unrighteousness. You can't teach God's word with the intellect. If he didn't have the Spirit then what he was saying was not from God.

It's actually disingenuous of you to minimize this and pretend it's not a big deal. Further it is only one example. There are many more. Trust the Spirit, get the Spirit as your guide.

We are not bound to believe everything that comes out of another man's mouth, only that which is spoken by the Spirit and received by the Spirit.

-Finrock
Then I am reminded of this comment as well:
Finrock wrote: September 24th, 2016, 4:29 pm I will happily engage with you if you agree to employ the principles of intellectual integrity. This means we don't purposefully utilize fallacious reasoning such as straw men, ad hominem attacks, or other such things. And, if we do it accidentally, we repent immediately once it becomes known to us. Intellectual integrity means that you won't ignore facts, ideas, or information that contradicts or challenges your point of view. When you are obviously mistaken, you should admit it. The point here isn't to argue and contend with one another, but to learn from one another, to have a spirit filled conversation. This can only happen if we treat one another with kindness, fairness, and allow freedom to reign.

Finally, I would like to suggest another future topic for your rebuttal in this quote here:
Finrock wrote: July 29th, 2016, 8:17 am At Church, I have been ordained an Elder and am a second councilor in the EQ presidency. By God, I've been ordained a High Priest and have the High Priesthood. The Church doesn't know this and doesn't acknowledge it, but, I don't care about that. I happily serve as an Elder in the Church and have no desires to be recognized by the Church and I don't care if the Church disapproves, approves, whatever, because I know God approves.
You are your own judge and I concur with your evaluations above as they apply to you.

This is very sad to see such a mess. Your spirit voice has taught you amiss in so many things.

As Joseph once stated: “nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God."

You are not what you claim and the tragedy is you cannot see what has become painfully obvious. Good day my friend, hoping your lot improves with the acquisition of correct understanding.
Thank you for your concern, brlenox. Those are some good quotes, btw, glad you dug them up and brought them to light! :)

-Finrock

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

gclayjr wrote: June 6th, 2017, 6:27 pm Finrock,
I was never arguing against proxy baptisms or against baptism in general. I believe in proxy baptisms and I believe in the general principle of being baptized by water

OK can you answer a simple question.

If Alvin, and other people who would have accepted Jesus Christ and been baptized, had they had the opportunity to do so, not need to be baptized by proxy.

Who does?

Regards,

George Clay
Something to think about, isn't it?

These things are best discussed within a framework of mutual trust, sincerity, kindness, and in good faith. Not within a framework of antagonism, distrust, accusations, etc.

-Finrock

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock,
Something to think about, isn't it?

These things are best discussed within a framework of mutual trust, sincerity, kindness, and in good faith. Not within a framework of antagonism, distrust, accusations, etc.
So no straight answer huih?

I would have thought it easy and straightforward, but I guess in the complex web you have spun, that which for most us LDS members would be a simple question with a straightforward answer, becomes difficult and complex.

Regards,

George Clay

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

gclayjr wrote: June 6th, 2017, 7:04 pm Finrock,
Something to think about, isn't it?

These things are best discussed within a framework of mutual trust, sincerity, kindness, and in good faith. Not within a framework of antagonism, distrust, accusations, etc.
So no straight answer huih?

I would have thought it easy and straightforward, but I guess in the complex web you have spun, that which for most us LDS members would be a simple question with a straightforward answer, becomes difficult and complex.

Regards,

George Clay
These things are best discussed within a framework of mutual trust, sincerity, kindness, and in good faith. Not within a framework of antagonism, distrust, accusations, etc.

-Finrock

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Somehow duplicated
Last edited by gclayjr on June 6th, 2017, 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock,
These things are best discussed within a framework of mutual trust, sincerity, kindness, and in good faith. Not within a framework of antagonism, distrust, accusations, etc.
While I make no claim to be a prophet (Interesting, saying something like this was what first got me derision from Amonhi), I will note that most prophets were hated by the world, and often killed. Why is that? It is because they speak plainness and truth to heresy. Your problem is that, like the heretics in the Bible, and book of Mormon, you consider plain talking an attack, or antagonism. Now, I don't have the patience for heresy and ridiculous arguments, that I should, and you may have a point in that I haven't put in the effort that I might have in being patient with your heresies, I do, however, speak sincerely and honestly.

One thing that the conversation on this thread has proven, is that it doesn't matter. I have been amazed at the patience, and the careful delicate verbiage that both Brienox, and AI2.0 have used to try and point out the ugly path you have taken, as gently as possible, and you still get your panties in a twist. You have no respect for their honesty either. So unfortunately, they have wasted a lot of hard work and good hearts in actually trying to gently point out your errors.

But like the heretics in both the bible, and the Book of Mormon, you cannot stand the truth no matter how gently delivered, so you spend most of your time accusing everybody of attacking you personally.

Since I do believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, is the true Church of Christ, lead by his chosen and inspired leaders, and I am not whatever that mushy half baked whatever you try to present yourself, as one who believes in heretical ideas completely contrary to that which is clearly taught by this church, but somehow trying to not actually admit that you actually have separated yourself from this church and its leaders, such a question as I asked you to answer is really simple and straightforward. I don't need your trust, sincerity, or kindness, or even good faith to testify the answer to that question

Vicarious baptism, is for all accountable souls who lived upon this earth, who did not get the opportunity to learn the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and died without fulfilling John 3:5. This, along with a great missionary work to these souls, teaching them the true gospel of Jesus Christ, will be the great work to be completed during the millennium, for the billions of souls who did not have this opportunity during their mortal life.

See, no need for some grand discussion. I just declare it.

Regards,

George Clay

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

gclayjr wrote: June 6th, 2017, 8:05 pm Finrock,
These things are best discussed within a framework of mutual trust, sincerity, kindness, and in good faith. Not within a framework of antagonism, distrust, accusations, etc.
While I make no claim to be a prophet (Interesting, saying something like this was what first got me derision from Amonhi), I will note that most prophets were hated by the world, and often killed. Why is that? It is because they speak plainness and truth to heresy. Your problem is that, like the heretics in the Bible, and book of Mormon, you consider plain talking an attack, or antagonism. Now, I don't have the patience for heresy and ridiculous arguments, that I should, and you may have a point in that I haven't put in the effort that I might have in being patient with your heresies, I do, however, speak sincerely and honestly.

One thing that the conversation on this thread has proven, is that it doesn't matter. I have been amazed at the patience, and the careful delicate verbiage that both Brienox, and AI2.0 have used to try and point out the ugly path you have taken, as gently as possible, and you still get your panties in a twist. You have no respect for their honesty either. So unfortunately, they have wasted a lot of hard work and good hearts in actually trying to gently point out your errors.

But like the heretics in both the bible, and the Book of Mormon, you cannot stand the truth no matter how gently delivered, so you spend most of your time accusing everybody of attacking you personally.

Since I do believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, is the true Church of Christ, lead by his chosen and inspired leaders, and I am not whatever that mushy half baked whatever you try to present yourself, as one who believes in heretical ideas completely contrary to that which is clearly taught by this church, but somehow trying to not actually admit that you actually have separated yourself from this church and its leaders, such a question as I asked you to answer is really simple and straightforward. I don't need your trust, sincerity, or kindness, or even good faith to testify the answer to that question

Vicarious baptism, is for all accountable souls who lived upon this earth, who did not get the opportunity to learn the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and died without fulfilling John 3:5. This, along with a great missionary work to these souls, teaching them the true gospel of Jesus Christ, will be the great work to be completed during the millennium, for the billions of souls who did not have this opportunity during their mortal life.

See, no need for some grand discussion. I just declare it.

Regards,

George Clay
I'm sure you feel justified in all your words and I have no doubt you believe everything you've declared. I'm sure many will support you and agree with you.

-Finrock

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by Finrock »

brlenox wrote:These posts on this thread between he and I would not exist, as I would have gone on passing over his material in a desire to avoid being confrontive. I really don't care if people believe different than I do. However when they represent themselves as Called and Elected in a public forum then they have raised themselves to a place where so many gullible types, who have no clue what to look for in such claims, just fall all over them and begin to turn away from the church in an unrighteous pursuit of a blessings that requires much knowledge and understanding. His comments and implications are what I have come to expect from those who have such a superior perception of their status before God. They tend to use the same arguments and overlook the same corrective material from scripture and or the brethren. I am all for receiving our calling and election, it is a worthy objective. However, another indicator of a true calling and election and it's receipt is that it will be carefully guarded and treated with the reverence it should be. Observe just a few quotes by the brethren concerning such things:
The idea of getting one's calling and election has less to do with having a bunch of knowledge, but more to do with being converted to Jesus Christ and willing to take upon you His name. That means you are converted to the way of Christ and of conducting your life after the principles of Christ no matter the circumstances, so that you can be called by His name. Your calling and election is also a gift, so it isn't so much about us "earning it" through hard work or through our righteousness, as it is about us receiving it because we have confidence enough in God and in the things He has said. It is ultimately a function of God's mercy and grace and it is obtained by having faith and being believing!

But, before any of this should even be on our radar, we need to be sure that we've been baptized by fire and have received the Holy Ghost.

Being baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost is the sum total of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is what Jesus came on earth to fulfill but of course it isn't the totality of Father's Eternal Plan of Happiness, which encompasses many more things. However, the Church has been setup with the express purpose of bringing people to the point where they will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, if they have not already. Now, many individuals are baptized by water and become members of the Church. Based on retention rate statistics, only, though there are other indicators, it is clear that a large majority of people who are baptized by water, are confirmed and are directed to "receive the Holy Ghost" by one with authority, were not actually converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ nor to His Church and in fact they did not receive the Holy Ghost. So, how does one receive the Holy Ghost if it doesn't just automatically happen because one has performed the outward ordinances?
Joseph Smith wrote:The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use; they are necessarily and inseparably connected.
Joseph Smith wrote:You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
The Book of Mormon is the book on which we can rely to find out how we can be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost.
2 Nephi 31:17 wrote:Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost
3 Nephi wrote:20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.
It isn't enough for us to just be baptized by water. It isn't enough for us to receive the confirmation by one who has authority. The Book of Mormon teaches us clearly and plainly that to obtain the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost, one must come unto Christ "with a broken heart and a contrite spirit" then those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit will Christ baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
Moroni 6 wrote:1 And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.

2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.
D&C 20 wrote:37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.
"Wherefore, although [we] should be baptized an hundred times [by water] it availeth [us] nothing..." if we don't humble ourselves and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits having truly repented of all our sins. The gate by which we should enter is the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost.

Once you've obtained this gift, then the words of Nephi begin to apply when he says...
2 Nephi wrote:“For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do. Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh.
D&C 11 wrote:12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.

13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, which shall fill your soul with joy;

14 And then shall ye know, or by this shall you know, all things whatsoever you desire of me, which are pertaining unto things of righteousness, in faith believing in me that you shall receive.
Once we obtain the Holy Ghost we are to put our trust in that Spirit which will lead us to all good things. With the Holy Spirit as our guide we "...must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life" (2 Nephi 31:20).

With the Holy Spirit as our guide and our constant companion, we can press forward, with a perfect brightness of hope, a love of God and of all men, feasting upon the word of Christ, until eventually we receive the promise from the Father that we shall have eternal life.

-Finrock

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Polarizing Question

Post by gclayjr »

Finrock,
The idea of getting one's calling and election has less to do with having a bunch of knowledge, but more to do with being converted to Jesus Christ and willing to take upon you His name. That means you are converted to the way of Christ and of conducting your life after the principles of Christ no matter the circumstances, so that you can be called by His name. Your calling and election is also a gift, so it isn't so much about us "earning it" through hard work or through our righteousness, as it is about us receiving it because we have confidence enough in God and in the things He has said. It is ultimately a function of God's mercy and grace and it is obtained by having faith and being believing!

Does being converted to Jesus Christ require honesty, and fulfilling one's word?
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.
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.
Or as long as you SAY you accept Jesus Christ and follow Amonhi's 3 steps, you get your calling and election made sure, and you don't need to actually be honest and forthright in what you say and do? Oh yea, I forgot, once your calling and election is made sure, your sins no longer count against you, do they?

Regards,

George Clay

Post Reply