OK smart guys, explain this to me.....

[FMCoug]

The Holy Spirit of Promise factors into this as well. I remember being taught about how the Holy Spirit of Promis is what actually "binds" an ordinance. The performance of the ordinance is the physical step ... but the ordinance must be bound by the Holy Spirit of Promis based on worthiness, etc. This came up in a religion class when someone asked a question about those who get married in the temple but are unworthy.

And no I don't have a link ... just rememberd this from a class.

EDIT: Google is my friend

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/b...t_promise.html

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Ordinances are theater to impress our weak mortal minds. We need rituals because they helps us take esoteric principles seriously.

Baptism is a ritual ordinance. So is confirmation. Neither is literally magical or has any automatic inherent power. The authority requirement is to control the membership (I mean that in a good needed way) so there is a unity of faith.

Salvation, then, depends on being covered by the atonement of Christ. To be in good standing in the Church (which I believe was really founded by John the Baptist and Peter/James/John via Joseph) one needs to submit to the ordinances proscribed by inspiration/revelation. These ordinances lead us to sink more deeply into commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ--they bend our arc towards sanctification. But they do not constitute sanctification.

Sanctification is the process of burning the dross out of our spirits. This literally cleansing of the effects of sin from our soul is accomplished by the intake of the Holy Spirit. This almost never happens during ordinances, but can.

I haste to add that all of this is IMHO and there are quotes from Brigham Young (among others I'm sure) that disagree with me. BY taught that when you are baptized and confirmed your blood is literally changed into the believing covenant blood of Israel--that the ordinances are actually magical in a literal way. I don't agree with that and current apostles don't teach this anymore.

Or a third different explanation could be right, possibly incorporating aspects of both positions.

Baptism is a covenant made where in return for taking upon ourselves the name of Christ, we receive a remission of our sins. The ordinance is effectively "signing on the dotted line" to execute that agreement between ourselves and God. Thus, the ordinance does have power.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

I guess you could say the Celestial Kingdom has a written instrument equivalent requirement via the ordinance, but this would seem to me a bit formalistic and unnecessary for the One who knows all our hearts perfectly.

John speaks of a Book of Life.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

Ordinances are theater to impress our weak mortal minds. We need rituals because they helps us take esoteric principles seriously.

Baptism is a ritual ordinance. So is confirmation. Neither is literally magical or has any automatic inherent power. The authority requirement is to control the membership (I mean that in a good needed way) so there is a unity of faith.

Salvation, then, depends on being covered by the atonement of Christ. To be in good standing in the Church (which I believe was really founded by John the Baptist and Peter/James/John via Joseph) one needs to submit to the ordinances proscribed by inspiration/revelation. These ordinances lead us to sink more deeply into commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ--they bend our arc towards sanctification. But they do not constitute sanctification.

Sanctification is the process of burning the dross out of our spirits. This literally cleansing of the effects of sin from our soul is accomplished by the intake of the Holy Spirit. This almost never happens during ordinances, but can.

I haste to add that all of this is IMHO and there are quotes from Brigham Young (among others I'm sure) that disagree with me. BY taught that when you are baptized and confirmed your blood is literally changed into the believing covenant blood of Israel--that the ordinances are actually magical in a literal way. I don't agree with that and current apostles don't teach this anymore.

Or a third different explanation could be right, possibly incorporating aspects of both positions.

Interesting. Do you spew this rhetoric to your children as well? Or do you live a double life?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ewth8tr

Yesterday in EQ, the recently called EQ pres was giving the lesson on baptism and made the statement that baptism washing away our sins is one of the biggest false doctrines in the church. He said that be baptized does not wash away our sins, it's the confirmation and receiving the holy ghost that actually absolves our sins. a couple of his friends agreed and he went on. Any one agree with that and, is so, could you tell me the logic behind that?

It is my opinion that EQ teachers such as this are closer to the road to apostacy than someone who smokes cigars.

People who can't just be satisfied with the Gospel being simple, but have to go into deep thought on it and espouse it to others as fact, need further outlets to spew their intelligent ravings.

They end up forming a group and heading to Missouri early.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

It is my opinion that EQ teachers such as this are closer to the road to apostacy than someone who smokes cigars.

People who can't just be satisfied with the Gospel being simple, but have to go into deep thought on it and espouse it to others as fact, need further outlets to spew their intelligent ravings.

They end up forming a group and heading to Missouri early.

Reminds me of some on CG.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by BYU71

It is my opinion that EQ teachers such as this are closer to the road to apostacy than someone who smokes cigars.

People who can't just be satisfied with the Gospel being simple, but have to go into deep thought on it and espouse it to others as fact, need further outlets to spew their intelligent ravings.

They end up forming a group and heading to Missouri early.

I'm 100% with you on this, 71.

Interestingly, your description in the second paragraph so nicely fits so many of those posting on this board it's silly.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sanctification brings about the remission of sins. Sanctification is a process of the Holy Ghost. That is probably what he meant. But neither ordinance alone, baptism or confirmation, absolves any sins automatically.

I agree with this, as stated here - simply performing the ordinances does nothing if the person being baptized is not properly prepared & has not had the requisite 'change of heart'...

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Adam

Dude, this is Nibley 101. Ordinances as theater isn't unique or original to me. It is the view of every classiest in the church, and those influenced by them, and is viewed not as opinion but as historical fact.

If you don't buy it, fine, but it is a common view among educated Mormons (at least those who read Nibley) and I think perfectly compatible with a strong living testimony of the restored church.

Mormons. Eventually you will find that the Church has nothing to offer since you are so educated. Just happened to a member of our ward. Took his wife and 6 children with him as well. I'm sure they are better off now.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Adam

Ordinances are theater to impress our weak mortal minds. We need rituals because they helps us take esoteric principles seriously.

Baptism is a ritual ordinance. So is confirmation. Neither is literally magical or has any automatic inherent power. The authority requirement is to control the membership (I mean that in a good needed way) so there is a unity of faith.

Salvation, then, depends on being covered by the atonement of Christ. To be in good standing in the Church (which I believe was really founded by John the Baptist and Peter/James/John via Joseph) one needs to submit to the ordinances proscribed by inspiration/revelation. These ordinances lead us to sink more deeply into commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ--they bend our arc towards sanctification. But they do not constitute sanctification.

Sanctification is the process of burning the dross out of our spirits. This literally cleansing of the effects of sin from our soul is accomplished by the intake of the Holy Spirit. This almost never happens during ordinances, but can.

I haste to add that all of this is IMHO and there are quotes from Brigham Young (among others I'm sure) that disagree with me. BY taught that when you are baptized and confirmed your blood is literally changed into the believing covenant blood of Israel--that the ordinances are actually magical in a literal way. I don't agree with that and current apostles don't teach this anymore.

Or a third different explanation could be right, possibly incorporating aspects of both positions.

While I agree with the gist of what you're posting - that personal conversion & sanctification by the HG is more important than the ordinances in & of themselves - those ordinances are absolutely vital.

We're taught that without the ordinances of baptism, confirmation, and the temple, we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. I believe that to be true, regardless of the 'theatrical' element of the ordinances themselves.


I'm surprised that you, having espoused numerous times that you are a faithful LDS mainly because this is the only place where resides the keys to perform those ordinances, would so blithely denigrate the importance of them. This ideology, taken as it's written here, would seem to me to espouse the idea that you don't need the church as long as you have the confirmation of the spirit.