Home » The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints » LDS Deep Doctrine » The remission of Sins does not require baptism (Discuss the concept)
| The remission of Sins does not require baptism [message #2735] |
Sun, 08 September 2013 11:15  |
Seeker
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quote: 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.
If they received the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of sins then the spiritual work is done and the physical baptism is a physical sign of an inner commitment and change that has already taken place.
~ Seeker
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The remission of Sins does not require baptism [message #2745 is a reply to message #2735] |
Thu, 19 September 2013 00:00  |
 |
JulesGP
Messages: 357
Registered: May 2012
Location: Davis County, UT
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Seeker wrote on Sun, 08 September 2013 11:15Quote: 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.
If they received the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of sins then the spiritual work is done and the physical baptism is a physical sign of an inner commitment and change that has already taken place.
Seeker, I was just discussing this with a friend the other day!! This is what I found - it makes the same point your scripture does:
Quote:23 Thus passed away the thirty and second year also. And Nephi did cry unto the people in the commencement of the thirty and third year; and he did preach unto them repentance and remission of sins.
24 Now I would have you to remember also, that there were none who were brought unto repentance who were not baptized with water.
25 Therefore, there were ordained of Nephi, men unto this ministry, that all such as should come unto them should be baptized with water, and this as a witness and a testimony before God, and unto the people, that they had repented and received a remission of their sins.
26 And there were many in the commencement of this year that were baptized unto repentance; and thus the more part of the year did pass away.
It may still be symbolic, but it seems as if baptism here, is supposed to be an outward symbol of HAVING RECEIVED these greater things - as it says, "a witness and a testimony before God, and unto the people, that they had repented and received a remission of their sins".
So Christ tells us we are supposed to be baptized. It seems to me, that He is saying that we should OPENLY declare when we have received a remission of sins from God by doing this symbol - like bearing testimony of it (not hiding it or considering it too sacred to share - like current church culture teaches).
~Jules
|
|
|
|
| Re: The remission of Sins does not require baptism [message #2890 is a reply to message #2745] |
Tue, 04 March 2014 23:02 |
Binyamin
Messages: 6
Registered: June 2013
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Seeker, I dont know that I fully understand the necessity of outward ordinances yet. Did everything spoken by the Savior apply to all people? If so It seems that Jules may be correct. I dont take that to be the case though. If i look into other scripture I find that we are not to be compelled in all things.
I have been considering this topic for months now. All outward ordinances are but a shell. The deeper and real ordinance is the one that is reflected upon your soul as your have a baptism by fire. This change that occurs inside of us seems much more valuable to me than the the outward ordinance themselves. Maybe both are necessary?
I disagree with Jules in one area though. I dont know that current LDS Culture teaches to keep sacred things quiet and closed. It seems like most of the times sacred things are worn more as a "badge of honor". "I went to the temple this morning". Or "I was reading my scriptures". Or the church culture places a massive amount of value upon outward ordinances without seeming to value as much the inward. The culture would rather you never have a baptism by fire. You would be left alone if that was the case. Now, if you chose to not be baptized, or not go to the temple to be sealed in 1 year after a civil ceremony, or be ordained to the priesthood at 13 instead of 12, or not go on a mission, or go on a mission late, or only have 1-2 children, or discuss deeper doctrine, etc then the culture of the church would come into play. You would be treated as if you don't have any kind of testimony even though you may have one of the greatest. Or you would be treated as if you somehow aren't as qualified to be a member. Somehow the outward ordinances are much more valuable to the culture. People are defined and loved or reviled based upon these. God of course seems to place much more value upon true conversion. The scriptures support this in numerous accounts throughout. James 2:14-26. Faith without works is a wonderful example. What our hearts are focused upon seems to be what we are judged upon on judgement day. If I only had one choice then I would say that the need for the outward ordinances pales in comparison to the need for the inward. The outward are needed to prepare and assist those living a lower law increase to a higher law. The inward are the result of conscientiously seeking God and finding answers and growing closer to Him.
If you compare the laws to the Priesthood then we have the Aaronic and the Melchizedek laws. The Aaronic was originally created because the people could not live the higher law. An Aaronic Law may be compared to an outward ordinance. This lower law came from God as well. I believe it came directly from Christ in fact. In this case should we still be living a lower law simply because it was commanded for those who couldn't live a higher yet? There may not be a parallel that exists there. I may need to study some more. I would never want to use one instance to blanket justify another. I think there is good learning and growth that is intended in each situation and we simply need to decipher what that good is and listen to the Spirit as it teaches us to hear.
If we are excommunicated do we lose our standing before God? Are we now somehow less of a righteous person based upon an ordinance that was outward from the beginning? Or is it the change inside that defined and defines us into the future? I support the outward ordinances and can see a LOT of good that can come from them. I wouldn't ever want to persuade someone away from these opportunities. I needed them. Or at least I thought that I did. It turned out for the longest time that much of my spiritual blockage was because of the emphasis that I placed upon entities, organizations, ordinances etc without the emphasis on the true change. I don't know that I would have found the path without the lower law.
It may be necessary for initial progression but not for continued foundational support or maintained righteousness and relationship with God.
I suppose that I cant have a stand for or against an outward ordinance. I can seek to educate those that take that as the end-all and teach them that it is only the beginning. It doesn't really seem that anyone was seeking to support and not support Outward Ordinances. The main awareness is the fact that it is the mere beginning.
_Fortunate_
[Updated on: Tue, 04 March 2014 23:06] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: The remission of Sins does not require baptism [message #2891 is a reply to message #2890] |
Sat, 08 March 2014 19:31 |
bishop
Messages: 144
Registered: July 2010
Location: USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In agreement with what has been said, let me make a few points.
First: When the Holy Spirit is with us, we are cleansed from our sin. This is what the Holy Spirit does, and it cannot dwell in an unclean temple. That is why it comes and goes depending on our righteousness. The more we have it in our lives, the more sanctified we become and the more worthy of its presence. Non-members feel this cleansing when they are taught by the Spirit. This is part of the true conversion process.
Second: At some point in our spiritual progression, we come to realize that the LDS Church, with its outward ordinances, fills an important roll in bringing mankind unto Christ. But we eventually realize that once it brings us unto Christ, out of the Telestial life and out of the Terrestrial life, it has fulfilled its mission. It is not designed to aid us much after we have received the 2nd Comforter. It has fulfilled its mission (to bring all men unto Christ), using outward ordinances to help change the inward man, until he comes unto Christ.
Third: I am confident that the LDS Church has the fastest, most concise and understandable path to the 2nd Comforter, because of the Book of Mormon and the endowment-both of which are quite specific on how one can enter into the presence of Christ.
Bishop
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 25 02:45:50 MST 2024
|
Elliaison.org - Forum
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
