I lost track of a lot of this message and thought I was finished but was
not. Consequently there was a lot left that counted on the quoted quota
<g>.
So here is another attempt
"rasqual" <scott.marquardt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13to5bdroolrh91@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Curmudgeon" <gfuller1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "rasqual" <scott.marqua...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
Snip my statement about my "Profession of Faith" when I was 10, asking how
was that different from the notion that my subsequent Baptism was a public
"Proifession of Faith".
> It wasn't. On the other hand, even though all of us have been born, we
> like to formalize the acknowledgement of that with a celebration of
> that birthday. It doesn't mean that on days we don't celebrate it, we
> weren't born. Nor, of course, does the celebration some sense make our
> birth "effective." "Is the celebration of a birthday required for one
> to have been born?" No.
Correct. What is needed for a person to be born is to go through all the
processes of conception, growth in the mother's womb, emergence from the
womb and arguably the first breath But there is a lot that yet needs to
take place before that person is a mature person. We merely claim that
there
may be (indeed are) some things before one is "born again". We do not deny
that all must be born again. Indeed our Scriptures are very clear on that
from the Bible to the Book of Mormon. Starting with the Book of Mormon,
see
Mosiah 27:25; Alma 5:49, Alma 7:14, Alma 36:23. From the Pearl of Great
Price, Moses 6:59. Finally from the Bible: John 3:3. 7; 1 Peter 1:23. Of
course as always I do not claim that these snppets stand alone. If one
wishes to understand what they are saying, one needs to pray for the
wisdom
to understand what Father wants us to know, and at a minimum read the
surrounding verses for context.
You know that Latter-day Saints remember these initial steps nearly every
Sunday don't you? The central aspect of Sacrament Meeting is the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper, itself. It takes a small ****tion of the time of that
meeting,but it is of central im****tance. Here are the prayers that are
read
each time, to insure accuracy, to insure that over time they do not become
altered and diluted:
>From Doctrine and Covenants 20
77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus
Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who
partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son,
and
witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to
take
upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his
commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit
to be with them. Amen.
Skip 78
79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus
Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who
drink
of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which
was
shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father,
that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with
them. Amen.
In verse 79, the word Water is put in place of wine because of the
revelation contained in Doctrine and Covenants 27:2-4.
>> What does the New Testament give as a reason for being baptized?
>> In which place where baptism is mentioned does it say that it is
>> for "public professon of faith ..."?
>
> I'm not sure that it is "for" that in a strictly purposive sense, and
> I don't think I've quite explained it that way. I've described what
> baptism IS, generally, among orthodox. Purposes vary -- but then so do
> purposes for birthday parties (especially in non-Western cultures).
Well, if it was not your intent to "expain" that baptism was "foe public
profession of faith", I accept that you did not explain it that way.
> As far as I've ever heard, baptism in the New Testament is an
> initiatory rite -- an identification with Christ and with his covenant
> community.
And I agree with that idea, just not that some organization or loose
federation of organizations which make no convenants so far as I can see,
and require none of their members, that I can see, can possibly be "His
Covenant Community". But we believe that we do require such covenants and
therefor are His Covenant Community. At least I do. I don't currently have
a
mouse in my pocket so maybe I should not use the pronoun "we.
Here I will cut and past a bit, from the Book of Mosiah chapter 18. When
I
was a member of the Bishopric in our local ward, I always wanted to insure
that if I was conducting a baptismal service that this passage was read.
Mosiah 18
8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters
of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come
into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear
one another's burdens, that they may be light;
9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort
those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at
all
times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until
death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the
first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life--
10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have
you
against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him
that
ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep
his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon
you?
11 And now when the people had heard these words, they clapped their
hands
for joy, and exclaimed: This is the desire of our hearts.
The implicit (at least) covenat which is part of baptism is that we want
to
1) Come into the fold of God, 2) to be called God's people, 3) we are
willing to bear one another's burdens, 4) that we are wiling to mourn with
those that mourn, 5) that we are willing to comfort those that stand in
need
of comfort and 6) (Very im****tant to me and one of the reasons I come
here)
we are willing to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things
and in all places that we may be in. We understand that God's part in this
covenant is that we may be redeeed and numbered with those of the first
resurrection and have eternal life.
The purpose of baptism then is to be a witness before God (The Lord Jesus
Christ) that we are entering into a covenant with Him "that we will serve
Him and keep His commandments" and His part of the Covenant, if we do
this,
"He will pour out His Spirit abundantly upon us".
So for me, at least, my baptism was much more than my celebration of a
birthday party. When I partake of the elements of the Sacrament, the bread
and water, representing the broken body and shed blood of my Savior, I am
reminded of His Atoning Sacrifice and of my obligation to Him, out of love
and gratitude, to keep my part of that covenant and to attempt to do all
things that I am aware that He wants me to do.
>> But of course I would not say it is a "ritual that
>> adds a notary public's stamp to a premortal plan." If you think that is
>> what
>> I believe it is, then you think erroneosly in this case. Of course I am
>> pretty sure that when Jesus told John "Suffer it to be so now", He was
>> not
>> wanting to be baptized as a public profession of faith in his own
saving
>> work.
> Right. In his case -- of course -- it was a mark of identification
> with and participation in the community his work spawned.
You think? You thik it was not that He was acting in obedience to the Will
of Hs Father? He said "thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness".
You think that was merely a flowery way of saing, "Hey, dude, I want to be
one of my own group!"?
> But the moment we start believing that baptism enacts some kind of
> magical effect, then none of the rest of this makes much sense or, at
> least, fades in im****tance.
Well, of course "magic" is your word. There is nothing magic in the normal
sense about the Gospel of Jesus Christ or His life. There is nothing
magical
about our life in His Church, even if we are guided by the Holy Ghost, or
if
at times Priesthood blessings seem to bring about things that cannot be
explained by medical (or any other kind of ) science.
> For an old guy ;-) you make a good neoMormon, BTW.
Old guy, guilty as charged. "NeoMormon" or any other kind of "Mormon", not
guilty, your honor. The word "Mormon" is so loosely used that to me it is
as
meaningless as the word "Christian" is to me. I am a member of The Church
of
Jesus Christ restored by Him through the Prophet Joseph Smith, complete
with
the authority and ordinances that He has ordained for His Church. That
Church is now know formally and officially as The Church of Jesus Christ
of
Latter-day Saints. Other orgainzations calling themselves churches or part
of the overall body of Christ no doubt have ****tions of the Gospel.
Insofar
as they live according to the light and truth that they are willing to
accept, their offerings are acceptable to Him, I think. But they miss out
on
the abundance that could be theirs. Of course so do many of "us" in The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
>> You know, strangely you and I almost agree that baptism is the
>> ordinance that intitiates us into the body of Christ. In your case, the
>> body
>> of Christ is apparently disorganized and in my case the body of Christ
is
>> His Church,
>
> Right. The divide is whether the kingdom is invisible, or visible --
> whether the body of Christ transcends institutional boundaries, or is
> limited by articles of incor****ation and charters and the like (for
> those are, fundamentally, what comprise an organization).
Noted. Not completely accepted and agreed, but noted. Parts of the Kingdom
are indeed invisible to us in mortality. Those members of the Kingdom who
have died already, for example, are not normally visible to us. But they
are
part of the organization that Jesus Christ built.
Interesting as always.
Snip comparison of God's perfection (in what He does when He intervenes)
with man's "bureaucratic bumbling"
> Most orthodox believe Christ's return will involve replacing our
> varied polities (be they national or ecclesial) with his direct rule.
> When the complete and perfect is in play, the inadequate and . . .
> well, this is an election year in a country with one of the best
> systems in the world, need I cast about for adjectives? ;-)
This strikes me as speculation. My own speculation which I think many in
the
Church also accept, is that when Christ returns He will come as our
rightful
King. That is why we call the people whom He will be with, who will be
His
subjects, and the organization that they will be part of, the "Kingdom of
God" Other LDS are hereby invited to contribute to this discussion. <g>
> If there are tares in the institutional church itself, how can the
> organization be identified with the organism?
That is an interesting question. I suggest that you read Section 86 of
Doctrine and Covenants for more light and knowledge regarding that
parable.My own comment is that my own organism as a human and the
organization of my body are almost inseparable. My appendix rubtured about
1944 when I was barely 14. That was part of the organization. But it
certainly affected my orgsanism. Even with the "tare" of a ruptured
appendix, my organism still was my organism. Other things happened.
Perhaps
because I did not "eat meat sparingly" (see Doctrine and Covenants 86)
some
of my cardiac arteries "clogged up. More "tares". But the organism was
still
there. By the year 2000, I underwent a quintuple bypass. More "invaders"
of
my body. More "tares". But my organism was still the same.
So, I think I am talking about something that may bear on the subject that
you are discussing.
> Aside from that, it's just a bit hard to understand how a relation****p
> that's fundamentally spiritual -- between God and people and among his
> people -- can be illegitimate if signatures and seals arent' all in
> order. That's back to hypersacerdotalism or (prescinding from
> allusions to the dramatic eternal efficacy credited to temple
> ceremonies) hyperbureaucratism.
We disagree. Of course to me, the reason we disagree is that I have
learned
something that you have not. Something has been revealed to me, that you
do
not accept, if it has been revealed to you.
Snip
> But eternal life is no more in the institution than a family's life
> consists in occupying the house. It's like the difference between a
> house and a home. The organization is the house, true enough. But what
> animates that house and brings grandchildren back to it has little to
> do, essentially, with the architecture.
Assuming that you are correct and eternal life is not in the institution
(and we do not claim it is, by the way, not even in ours per se) that does
not mean that the institution is not instrumental in the scheme of our
Father in mediating the path way to eternal life.
> Of course, denominations are not unstructured nor non-institutional.
> The question isn't whether anyone besides Mormons is organizated (they
> are), but whether the "home" -- authentic Christianity that issues
> into eternal life in the presence of Father -- is coextensive with the
> Mormon organization.
No question here. Those who gain "Eternal Life" which is the kind of life
that Father has, are not necessarily at this time in The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. You and your acquaintances may all yet be
there. It is also true that it is likely that many of the members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be in the Celestial
Kingdom and hence will not be in the presence of God the Father, and maybe
not even in the presence of Jesus Christ.
> As for the NT church, as I read Acts it looks to me as if their
> organizational impetus was often ad hoc and determined by how best to
> meet ends (e.g., the feeding of widows). That's natural, and I'm sure
> it's true in Mormondom as well as anywhere else.
I thought that you had studied the Church enough that you knew that we
have
grown, organizationally and otherwise perhaps, over time. We do this as we
are inspired by God to do so. I believe that as long as Peter and the
others
who had been with Jesus, and even Paul to whom Jesus appeared, were on the
scene, this is the way it happened in the New Testament Church. I believe
that they made some decisions on their own, and maybe made some errors.
But
God was able to guide them back to the right path. For example the idea of
the Judaising of gentile converts. The same thing has happened, I believe,
in the Restored Church. We as a Church, as an organization, are not yet
perfected.
> But the emphasis I
> see in Acts is on spreading the word of Christ's work and the new
> covenant. As the church grew throughout the Mediterranean, one sees a
> LOT of exhortation from Paul on how to select leader****p in the
> various geographically centered communities of Christ. However, these
> instructions leave open a LOT of room for creative adaptation -- and
> indeed, the instructions showcase such adaptation by Jewish Christians
> to Gentile communities. Ecclesiology wasn't so much a "point in
> possibility space" ("one true way to do it!") as it was a possibility-
> scape with some clear boundaries demarcated.
And if you look at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if you
look with clear vision, I think you will see the same sort of thing.
Snip
> Sure. So consider sects that aren't orthodox -- such as
> Mormonism. ;-)
To which of course I respond with a "Happy agreement that my church is not
"orthodox" in the sense that you mean. I claim, however that The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is orthodox Christinaity, since it is
led
by Jesus Christ through men and women whom He has called to lead us.
> Smith didn't agree with a lot of other folk who didn't agree with each
> other. So he went off and started something else for people not to
> agree with.
That is one way to look at it. That puts him in good company with the
likes
of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, the fellow
named Fox who is credited with starting the Quakers, if I recall
correctly,
and many others.The difference is that Joseph did it under the direction
of
Jesus Christ. I am not sure that Luther, Calvin and the Campbells etc had
that direct guidance. They were maybe working just from the inteligence
that
was innate to them. But this is evidence, whether good evidence or not,
that
the staus as it was had problems that needed to be corrected.
Unfortunately
man alone had no authority and therefor no power to correct those
problems.
That is until God restored it through Joseph Smith.
Snip true observation of how God can use the errors of men to bring about
at
least parts of His purpose.
> Those who identify the organism with the organization, though, sadly
> perpetuate the originators' divisive motivations. "We are the one
> true." Rome does that to some extent, but still acknowledges that we
> Protestants are "separated brethren." We're not in jeopardy on account
> of not being Catholics, of missing out on eternity with Father.
> Mormonism would have it, however, that unless we enact the proper
> rituals (my allusion of a notary public seal) we're left with a
> consolation prize of an eternity only with Jesus -- provided we're
> morally nice folk. :-\
You understand this differently. No big surprise. It is my understanding
that Rome at one time, if not now, indeed believed and taught that without
accetping their sacraments we are lost. But that is not a subject for this
news group. It is also a fact that you are not in jeoparday of not being
with Father in the Eternities. That is because if you have been prevented
by
the lies and errors even and machinations of men, while on earth you will
still be taught in the period after death. You will be able to learn and
accept the Truth in its completeness. You will be able to accept the truth
and repent as needed for any failure to be "teachable" here. Actually we
don't teach in any detail what the "lower" kingdoms are like. Any Kingdom
of
Glory will be so much better than anything we can imagine. But even to
seek
the Celestial Kingdom is probably going to be for wrong motives. Any
motive
other than to obey our Father because we love Him is probably a wrong
motive. Any motive that is based on seeking some sort of reward or gain is
almost certainly a wrong motive.
Snip interesting paragraph about the unity in division.
Sound like you are discussing something more like an earthly political
party
or parties than the Truth of God. I also detect nothing here that hints at
a
"revealed religion". It had not occurred to me that we might be talking
past
each other because of that. Is that the case? Do you speak from a thought
that there is no revelation today? Or that God "scatters" His revelations
somewhat indiscriminately
Snip lots of stuff
"Some day ... face to face" Ah yes. Some day he Silver cord shall break,
and
I no more as now shall sing, but oh, the joy that shall be mine within the
palace of theKing! And I shall see him face to face, and tell the story
saved by Grace!"
Snip
> As a point of wisdom, I absolutely agree. One reason there are issues
> in churches where migrations of people result in "church
> commuting" (it's existentially difficult for older people to leave the
> familiar for new territory), is perhaps because the wise thing is not
> the done thing. I don't know if we can quite call it "sin"," but there
> are consequences to not exercising wisdom -- things get more
> difficult.
Well, I have no ties here in Mattoon except the Ward of which I am a part.
I
have a lot of close acquaintances, but no real friends outside the ward.
So
the reason I resist leaving Mattoon is first the ward. I know that the
chances are good that I would easily find a ward very similar to this one.
Of course second is my experience with my physicians. I even have a son
and
daugher in law in Rochester, Minnesota, home of Mayo clinic and all that
implies. So I fully understand the difficulty of the "older people". After
all,I hope to be one some day. <g>
Snip
> There'd be more discernment involved than just carrying that
> assumption around, I think. Mormons have it pretty simple -- if it's a
> Mormon church, it's where they belong. For orthodox on the move, they
> have to exercise judgment. Obviously one might "visit" churches, and
> chat with members. Often relation****ps in their new workplace or
> community lead to selection of a church; Christians tend to bond with
> each other, and often identify each other just by how they react (or
> don't) in challenging situations.
Don't forget that I have been there. I left the Disciples of Christ
because
there was not one where I lived, and became a Southern Baptist. It was
compatible, and I have said that the thing that drew me to it was that the
members seemed to like each oher. Maybe it was love rather than like.
After
anout 8 years and member****p in seveal loal Southern Baptist churches, I
left them in Rome, New York partly for doctrinal disagreement and partly
for
disagreement about their treatment of black members. I went back to the
Disciples some time later, because I was not completely disilluioned as
yet.
When I left them, the last time, I was disillusioned so I was very
agnostic
for several years. Finally God ledme to His Church after having me in
various kindergartens for many years.
> I'm describing things a bit analytically in our exchanges; from a
> standpoint of how people think -- here, I'll put it this way. It's not
> so much that orthodox folk think a particular way: "any church will
> do." It's more of how they don't think "only one church will do." The
> former posture relieves them of the burden of exercising judgment
> about which church to select. The latter is merely a posture of
> curiosity unen***bered by positive prejudice. Obviously as people gain
> experiences with diverse churches, their judgment will change. We're
> showcasing some diverse experience in our own conversation here!
Yes, I understand what you are saying. My Disciples of Christ and
Congregational Christian experience ( through my parents and grandparents
on
the latter, not as a member but very nearly - I know the members accepted
me
as if I were one of them) was one of attempting to bring all the diverse
groups "back" together in a loose organization. But I have shopped. I have
attended many denominations, Methodist, Assemblies of God, Church of the
Four Square Gospel, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, etc.
> Best to ye,
>
> - S
"And wirh thy spirit"
Gene
|
