22 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
CES was right. Baptism is symbolic of having your sins washed away and is the first step. The HG actually cleanses you spiritually from sins. Its why you don’t need to keep getting baptized over and over again although early Mormons did this from time to time. The HG can and will continue to cleanse you post baptism after repentence from subsequent sins. I am surprised this was controversial unless there was something in the way she presented it that threw people off. |
I would have to say that the Holy Ghost is the one who sanctifies us – or makes us holy. I just gave a talk on this in a baptism a week ago. I feel like there may be a distinction between being cleaned – in the waters of baptism – and being sanctified – through the Holy ghost. I am no expert, though…that’s just the way that I understand it. |
bbell–I would say that the controversy stemmed from a) a presentation that ruffled feathers right from her self-introduction, and b) an audience that was largely made of adult converts and (how shall I say this?) antagonistic towards “educated elites” or anyone they thought fell in that category. |
Hello–4th Article of Faith, anyone? …”baptism by immersion for the remission of sins” The alternative, as presented by ESO, was not the Holy Ghost generically, but “Confirmation of the Gift of the Holy Ghost”–a one-time event that is not the equivalent of being sanctified. It does not appear that the ongoing process of being cleansed of post-baptism/confirmation sins was even being addressed. |
ESO, I figured there was more to the story. |
Preaching false doctrine at the pulpit in such a way that has people thinking about it and disputing it for weeks after isn’t all that bad an outcome for a sacrament meeting talk. Maybe better than most. Perhaps CES guy and Mrs. CES guy had a good cop / bad cop routine worked out. |
Considering that a lot of the baptized masses are only eight, Sister CES’s talk couldn’t have been that big a blow. Most of us commit our major sins after we’re baptized. |
I might get branded as a heretic here, but I think both are wrong. I don’t think baptism or confirmation cleanse us of our sins. It’s repentance and the Atonement that cleanse us from our sins. Baptism and the partaking of the Sacrament are how we witness that we accept the Atonement, but by themselves, they have no effect. |
I’m surprised that your branch actually had follow up meetings. In my last branch we had the former branch president regularly get up and preach his own personal doctrine. (i.e) Glen Beck and getting rid of illegal aliens. Mind you all of this with in steps of our Spanish speaking members. He never gets told that he’s wrong on anything. And he’s allowed to continue to talk. Its’ quite disgusting and I’m glad I don’t go to that branch anymore. |
We had a stake president once that told everyone in stake conference that they needed to pay tithing on all increase, including produce from a family garden. This was controversial because most people considered family gardens a losing proposition financially. Some discontinued their gardens after that speech. I think we have enough to worry about without stirring up controversy over points of doctrine from the pulpit. |
The entire topic of remission of sins versus sanctification is very interesting, and not well understood because it isn’t discussed much in the Church. If one is not familiar with the distinctions between the two one could easily give a confusing talk or alternately, misunderstand a talk that used the terms correctly. What does it mean to be baptized by fire? I think it is much more than simply being told to “receive the Holy Ghost.” |
arJ, I think you’re right. |
Ken Brooks got it right. |
Confirmation, as such, doesn’t do anything of the kind, either. The D&C teaches that people should not be baptized until there is evidence that they have already received a remission of their sins, through reception of the “Spirit of Christ”.
There are a number of comparable passages in the Book of Mormon. Mosiah 4:3, Moro 8:25, for example. “baptized for the remission of their sins” seems to be a short hand for this process. |
I still think there is a value and validity to the teaching that being baptized brings about a forgiveness of sins. There are many people out there who have not had the truth in their lives and who have made some terrible decisions – it is a blessing to them to learn the gospel and to know that when they are baptized they begin their membership in the church with a clean slate. |
I think there’s no question that (unless you’re 8) you need to repent of your sins at the time of baptism. Baptism by itself doesn’t wash away sins you of which you have not repented. But that doesn’t that baptism is irrelevant to the process. |
oops: that doesn’t MEAN that baptism is irrelevant to the process. In other words, we can’t ignore the fact that the scriptures tell us that baptism is for the remission of sins, even though repentance is still necessary to make that happen. |
If it’s a choice between a normal (read: lethally dull) orthodox meeting and one with interesting false doctrine, give me false doctrine every time. I’d even settle for questionable doctrine if necessary. That being said, Mrs. CES Lady and bbell are preaching damnable heresy and must renounce their heterodoxy and be purified by flames in this life, if they wish to avoid eternity in the pit of everlasting fire. |
ESO – you weren’t in a big city in the Great Lakes area when this happened, were you? |
Baptism by water alone for remission of sins is but half a baptism, is it not? Baptism by fire (ie, Holy Ghost) is also necessary from my understanding of the scriptures and words of the prophets. |
Also remember that Oliver and Joseph had the Holy Ghost fall on them, and received a spiritual gift, that of prophecy, immediately after their baptism under the direction of John the Baptist. So the baptism did something or represented something right then and there. |
Gilroy–I was not–did it happen there, too? |