21 Reasons It Doesn’t Matter if The Church is True

[Guest]

14 hours ago, NightSG said:

Depends; how far beyond SAAMI specs are you willing to go?  A 180gr flying 3200fps will stay pretty darn flat for a while, but I think I was pushing the limits of even the 1917 Enfield with that load.  OTOH, pushing 55gr .243 Barnes Varmint Grenades around 4,000fps will scatter an orange over a 30+ foot radius, while not hurting the orange behind it.

You're really looking beyond the mark now.  Just what is it that you're getting at?

FIRST:  SAAMI specs don't matter.  Those are contributing factors.  But the bottom line is only about two factors: speed and aerodynamics.  

SECOND: Those factors are why we zero a weapon in the first place.  Once any weapon has been zeroed to the proper range, then it doesn't matter.  The 30-06 is only slightly more prone to drop than the .243, but that's why we zero the weapon.  So, the weapon has a slightly different setting to make up for it.  

Apples-to-apples comparison: 180 gr of each

30-06: 3350fps                         .243: 3200fps

The section properties of the .243 has less drag and more resistance to drop.  

These factors tend to cancel each other out.

But again, whatever is different is made up for in the zero of the weapon in question.  So, you're saying that because (you believe) it is a better round, that it is easier to zero the weapon?  That doesn't make sense.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Guest

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But again, whatever is different is made up for in the zero of the weapon in question.  So, you're saying that because (you believe) it is a better round, that it is easier to zero the weapon?  That doesn't make sense.

Again, you're assuming a target at the zero range, or even at a known range.  Flatter trajectory means less vertical deviation anywhere within the effective range, so I don't need to know whether I'm looking at a midget at 150 yards, a normal person at the 300 yard zero or a giant at 500.  Plenty of rounds would go right over the midget with the holdover for the giant.

After all, there's a reason .45-120 isn't one of the preferred rounds on the 1000 yard range.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Again, you're assuming a target at the zero range, or even at a known range.  Flatter trajectory means less vertical deviation anywhere within the effective range, so I don't need to know whether I'm looking at a midget at 150 yards, a normal person at the 300 yard zero or a giant at 500.  Plenty of rounds would go right over the midget with the holdover for the giant.

After all, there's a reason .45-120 isn't one of the preferred rounds on the 1000 yard range.

Well, if you're going to be an accurate shot at 1000 yards, then hats off to you -- especially if you're doing it with a .45-120.  But shorter than that(like the 250 to 300 yd range we're talking about) the difference in drop between the 30-06 and the 243 is so negligible that we're not going to notice a change in accuracy.  And when the round hits, the 30-06 is going to have a much bigger impact on the target.  Of course if you're going to use exotic rounds like frangible or grenades, that's going to have some more impact.  But the 30-06 will probably be able to fit more into it than the.243 round.

Now, imagine using a frangible 30-06 round on a vole.  Can we say "fuzzball"?  I could see that a vole might be difficult to hit properly without proper zeroing.  I like saying vole because I just learned what it is thanks to a recent youtube video on lawn care.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Guest

[Anddenex]

12 hours ago, Finrock said:

So, little children and children who die before the age of accountability and those who are without the law need not to be baptized. The power of redemption comes on all them that have no law and they are not condemned and cannot repent, therefore baptism means nothing to them. All children who have died before the age of accountability, will never need to be baptized, not even by proxy. This is also true for people who have the mental capacity of a child. They will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever needing to be baptized. Remember, being saved in the Celestial Kingdom means that you have received the Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit is the prerequisite for entering in at the gate, or having access to the Celestial Kingdom.

Hey Finrock,

Those who have died without the law need not baptism -- in this life -- to be saved. They will eventually be baptized by proxy. And those without law, when the gospel is preached to them in the spirit world, their work will be done in the temples and they will have the opportunity to reject or accept the work being done.

[Finrock]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Hey Finrock,

Those who have died without the law need not baptism -- in this life -- to be saved. They will eventually be baptized by proxy. And those without law, when the gospel is preached to them in the spirit world, their work will be done in the temples and they will have the opportunity to reject or accept the work being done.

That is unlikely given what we have in the scriptures, unless of course the scripture is incorrect. Alvin Smith was already in the Celestial Kingdom, without being baptized for the remission of sins. The scriptures I quoted say plainly that they don't need baptism. They do not qualify that with "in this life". The scripture I quoted plainly states that a person will be judged based on their heart  and their works, not based on what ordinances/rituals they performed. Further, children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized, not even by proxy. If you have a child who has died before the age of accountability, there is no ordinance work that is needed for them. In fact, the Church indicates in Family Search that ordinances, such as baptism, are not needed for these children. You can't do the work for them even if you wanted to. Not to mention it would make no sense to perform an ordinance that is not required. As Mormon says it would be mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ and denying the power of the Holy Spirit to do so.

-Finrock

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Finrock said:

That is unlikely given what we have in the scriptures, unless of course the scripture is incorrect. Alvin Smith was already in the Celestial Kingdom, without being baptized for the remission of sins. The scriptures I quoted say plainly that they don't need baptism. They do not qualify that with "in this life". The scripture I quoted plainly states that a person will be judged based on their heart  and their works, not based on what ordinances/rituals they performed. Further, children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized, not even by proxy. If you have a child who has died before the age of accountability, there is no ordinance work that is needed for them. In fact, the Church indicates in Family Search that ordinances, such as baptism, are not needed for these children. You can't do the work for them even if you wanted to. Not to mention it would make no sense to perform an ordinance that is not required. As Mormon says it would be mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ and denying the power of the Holy Spirit to do so.

-Finrock

It is interesting to note that even though children who died before 8 are specified as "not requiring" baptism.  But those whose mental age is below 8 do not need baptism in this life.  But they are allowed to have proxy baptism after their death.

What do you make of that?

Alvin was "already in the Celestial Kingdom"?  If we take the vision literally and chronologically accurate according to man's reckoning of time, then why do we need to do any baptism for the dead?

We have Mormon's words.  We also have Jesus' words which say that NO man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism.  Conflict?

Edited November 16, 2016 by Guest

[Finrock]

28 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is interesting to note that even though children who died before 8 are specified as "not requiring" baptism.  But those whose mental age is below 8 do not need baptism in this life.  But they are allowed to have proxy baptism after their death.

What do you make of that?

I have not considered this or was I aware that those whose mental age is below 8 can have their proxy baptism performed after their death. That is interesting though. At the moment I don't know what to make of that. 

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Alvin was "already in the Celestial Kingdom"?  If we take the vision literally and chronologically accurate according to man's reckoning of time, then why do we need to do any baptism for the dead?

We have Mormon's words.  We also have Jesus' words which say that NO man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism.  Conflict?

Good question. I think we should take the scripture at face value. I think it means what it says and says what it means. I think there is an answer to the "why do any baptisms for the dead" but I don't have time right now. My point at the moment though, is to demonstrate that according to Mormon theology there are individuals who can and have received the Holy Spirit without the water baptism ordinance having been performed. Also, my point is to demonstrate that the baptism by the Spirit or by fire is the essential and necessary ordinance and that without this component, the water baptism is incomplete or not valid. I don't believe there is a conflict. When I have more time I can expound on my thoughts more; although you may be able to deduce why I believe there is no conflict from what I've written already.

-Finrock

[Anddenex]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is interesting to note that even though children who died before 8 are specified as "not requiring" baptism.  But those whose mental age is below 8 do not need baptism in this life.  But they are allowed to have proxy baptism after their death.

What do you make of that?

Alvin was "already in the Celestial Kingdom"?  If we take the vision literally and chronologically accurate according to man's reckoning of time, then why do we need to do any baptism for the dead?

We have Mormon's words.  We also have Jesus' words which say that NO man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism.  Conflict?

Overtly, there appears to be quite a few principles of doctrine that conflict with each other; however, I think you would agree that the conflict is more due to our limited knowledge -- missing principles -- that we learn line upon line to find light amidst the illusion of conflict.

At this moment, the illusion of conflict will remain unless more is revealed or through personal revelation. At this moment, my mind theories possible options. As pertaining to mentally handicapped children and little children probably falls under the "age" rather than accountability. Similar to a bishop who interviews one who is challenged mentally and this brother/sister is able to know -- enough -- to be baptized and is given permission by the bishop and stake president. They are now accountable for what knowledge they do have, and as they are no longer considered a child.

 If we take the vision literally and chronologically accurate according to man's reckoning of time, then why do we need to do any baptism for the dead?

The only reason that is apparent to me is "The Lord commanded it," and this falls under the same bounds as the Lord, Jesus Christ, when he was baptized. He had no need for a baptism of remission, but did have responsibility due to his Father's commandment to fulfill all righteousness.

We have Mormon's words.  We also have Jesus' words which say that NO man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism.  Conflict?

Now, this would again be mine own thoughts, not doctrine. I have wondered if even children who have died before the age of accountability will eventually be baptized by proxy. As to my understanding that children will be resurrected according to the age they passed on from life, and then will grow into maturity. As they grow they will be taught. They will receive instruction, and it would not surprise me if once they reach the age of accountability they will receive baptism by proxy. Of course, this is "thoughts", nothing revealed to me. This though would account for "All" needing baptism and once again these children would fall in the same category as the Lord who need not baptism save to fulfill righteousness.

Haha, sorry, I thought I was responding to Finrock's response to me. But hey, I will read his again.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Finrock said:

That is unlikely given what we have in the scriptures, unless of course the scripture is incorrect. Alvin Smith was already in the Celestial Kingdom, without being baptized for the remission of sins. The scriptures I quoted say plainly that they don't need baptism. They do not qualify that with "in this life". The scripture I quoted plainly states that a person will be judged based on their heart  and their works, not based on what ordinances/rituals they performed. Further, children who die before the age of accountability are saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized, not even by proxy. If you have a child who has died before the age of accountability, there is no ordinance work that is needed for them. In fact, the Church indicates in Family Search that ordinances, such as baptism, are not needed for these children. You can't do the work for them even if you wanted to. Not to mention it would make no sense to perform an ordinance that is not required. As Mormon says it would be mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ and denying the power of the Holy Spirit to do so.

-Finrock

Mormon's response is regarding "little children' who have not reached the age of accountability. This doctrine we agree on. We would disagree on the interpretation of scripture, and Carb then provides a good question regarding Alvin, "Why even do any work in the temple"? If we then take Alvin as an example all the temple work I have performed for my ancestors who died before Alvin, who did not have the gospel (but were "honest but unbaptized Christian"), they then would also not need proxy either, and this work has been done in vain.

Here is words from the Church's history portion of their website, "In January 1836, Joseph Smith saw a vision of the celestial kingdom in which he learned that those who did not receive the fulness of the gospel in this life but would have if given the chance, such as his brother Alvin, would not be denied the highest rewards in the life to come. With this vision, the Lord began to gradually reveal the doctrines and practices surrounding baptism for the dead to Joseph Smith and his successors over the course of several years.

Joseph’s vision affirmed God’s mercy, but it was not entirely clear whether the scriptural requirement of baptism would be waived for Alvin and others like him or whether it would be fulfilled in some other way. Some Latter-day Saints recognized this gap in their knowledge. Joseph Fielding, for example, “thought much on the subject of the redemption of those who died under the broken covenant” and speculated that “perhaps those who receive the priesthood in these last days would baptize them at the coming of the Savior.”1

But at the funeral of Seymour Brunson on August 15, 1840, Joseph Smith taught the principle that men and women on earth could act for their deceased kin and fulfill the requirement of baptism on their behalf. The Saints joyfully embraced this opportunity and began almost immediately to be baptized for departed loved ones in rivers and streams near Nauvoo." (emphasis added)

Edited November 16, 2016 by Anddenex

[mordorbund]

39 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Mormon's response is regarding "little children' who have not reached the age of accountability. This doctrine we agree on. We would disagree on the interpretation of scripture, and Carb then provides a good question regarding Alvin, "Why even do any work in the temple"? If we then take Alvin as an example all the temple work I have performed for my ancestors who died before Alvin, who did not have the gospel (but were "honest but unbaptized Christian"), they then would also not need proxy either, and this work has been done in vain.

Here is words from the Church's history portion of their website, "In January 1836, Joseph Smith saw a vision of the celestial kingdom in which he learned that those who did not receive the fulness of the gospel in this life but would have if given the chance, such as his brother Alvin, would not be denied the highest rewards in the life to come. With this vision, the Lord began to gradually reveal the doctrines and practices surrounding baptism for the dead to Joseph Smith and his successors over the course of several years.

Joseph’s vision affirmed God’s mercy, but it was not entirely clear whether the scriptural requirement of baptism would be waived for Alvin and others like him or whether it would be fulfilled in some other way. Some Latter-day Saints recognized this gap in their knowledge. Joseph Fielding, for example, “thought much on the subject of the redemption of those who died under the broken covenant” and speculated that “perhaps those who receive the priesthood in these last days would baptize them at the coming of the Savior.”1

But at the funeral of Seymour Brunson on August 15, 1840, Joseph Smith taught the principle that men and women on earth could act for their deceased kin and fulfill the requirement of baptism on their behalf. The Saints joyfully embraced this opportunity and began almost immediately to be baptized for departed loved ones in rivers and streams near Nauvoo." (emphasis added)

EDIT: I have strike throughs and I am not sure how they got there and I can't get rid of them.

[ s ] probably. strikethrough text 

Edited November 16, 2016 by mordorbund

[Vort]

14 hours ago, Finrock said:

So, it is a fact in Mormon theology that millions will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized by water in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not even by proxy.

This is the crux of our disagreement, succinctly stated. My understanding is exactly opposite of this, and I believe our theology is quite clear and explicit on this point: For those who have reached the age of accountability, no one enters into the kingdom of God without baptism. Since the Church is in very fact the kingdom of God on earth, this amounts to a description of how one joins the Church. Since there is no salvation outside the kingdom of God, it is axiomatic that baptism is a sine qua non for salvation.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Finrock said:

Alvin Smith was already in the Celestial Kingdom, without being baptized for the remission of sins.

This was a vision of the future. Note that Joseph also saw his parents there, even though they were still alive at the time.

[NightSG]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, if you're going to be an accurate shot at 1000 yards, then hats off to you -- especially if you're doing it with a .45-120.

It's easy; fire the shot, wait for the smoke to clear, then walk downrange and move the target in front of the bullet before it gets there.

[mordorbund]

14 hours ago, Finrock said:

The outward or physical ordinance does not save us. There are two baptisms, at least. One is the water baptism, the other is the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost. The baptism by the Spirit, is the one that matters. As Anddenex eluded to in his post,  "[a]ll covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead" (D&C 132:7).

To enter in at the strait gate means to be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost. A baptism is only valid if it has been sealed by the Holy Spirit. This does not automatically happen just because a person with proper authority has performed the ritual. This only happens when one has a broken heart and a contrite spirit or has become as a little child.

Are there people who have received the Holy Ghost without being baptized in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Absolutely! First, let me point out that anyone who is saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God has, by definition, received the Holy Ghost.

So, little children and children who die before the age of accountability and those who are without the law need not to be baptized. The power of redemption comes on all them that have no law and they are not condemned and cannot repent, therefore baptism means nothing to them. All children who have died before the age of accountability, will never need to be baptized, not even by proxy. This is also true for people who have the mental capacity of a child. They will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever needing to be baptized. Remember, being saved in the Celestial Kingdom means that you have received the Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit is the prerequisite for entering in at the gate, or having access to the Celestial Kingdom.

But, it's not just children who die before the age of accountability or individuals with the mental capacity of a child who are saved without baptism...

Notice the gate that is described in D&C 137. It is a gate of fire, and all must pass through that fire to enter the Celestial Kingdom. If they are there, they were baptized by fire and received the Holy Ghost and yet they were baptized by fire and received the Holy Ghost without the ordinance of water baptism, not even by proxy.

So, it is a fact in Mormon theology that millions will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom without ever being baptized by water in to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not even by proxy.

Here is one apparent example from the scriptures speaking about valid water baptism performed by Sidney Rigdon, but without the Spirit attending the baptism:

-Finrock

Hi Finrock, I hope you are doing well this afternoon :).

Regarding your scriptural support:

I agree with your reading of D&C 132 that all covenants, etc, including baptism, must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to be efficacious. But what does that mean where there is no covenant entered into? What is there for the Spirit to ratify?

My reading of D&C 22 bolsters @Vort's position. I'll just quote the whole section for the interested reader:

Quote

Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

 2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

 3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

 4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

Those "hundred baptisms" are "dead works" because they are part of an old order that now lacks the authority of the "new and everlasting covenant. "For it is because of your dead works [hundred baptisms under the old covenant] that I have caused this last [new and everlasting] covenant and this church to be built up to me". Baptism by proper authority is not a dead work.

I see D&C 35 as a case study of this principle at work. Sidney Rigdon may have performed a hundred baptisms, but they availed nothing until he received the proper authority under the new covenant.

@Carborendum has raised some good points for Moroni 8, that baptism to remit the sins of the unaccountable is a dead work, but baptism in general is not a dead work. I disagree with @Anddenex's speculation that young children may receive it once their resurrected bodies reach the proper age. Such ordinances belong to this world and must be taken care of before the resurrection (see Talmage's treatment of "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" in Jesus the Christ). So proxy ordinances must be attended to while the recipient is still in the spirit world.

D&C 137 was given before Joseph learned about work for the dead (more on that momentarily). That Joseph's vision of Alvin was not a real-time glimpse into the celestial kingdom can be shown by looking at who else he saw there. "I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept." His father and mother were still alive. What's more, his father was sitting with him in the same room when he had this vision!

I view it as a stepping stone revelation. He was shown that Alvin was an heir of the celestial kingdom, but wasn't shown the mechanism by which it would happen. Joseph's later epistles on baptism for the dead show that he found bridge whereby heirs may actually enter the celestial kingdom via proxy ordinances. Joseph F. Smith was shown the work in the spirit world and shared (D&C 138:58-59):

Quote

The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.

Thus, as in verse 9 of section 137: " the Lord will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."

[Anddenex]

51 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

[ s ] probably. strikethrough text 

I highlighted and clicked on the strikethrough and it didn't remove it

[mordorbund]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I highlighted and clicked on the strikethrough and it didn't remove it

• Edit the original post
• highlight the strikethrough text and copy it
• Delete the strikethrough text
• paste it back in
• select "remove formatting"
• save

you may also just have to delete the few characters preceding the strikethrough to get rid of the silent [ s ].

Edited November 16, 2016 by mordorbund

[Anddenex]

7 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

• Edit the original post
• highlight the strikethrough text and copy it
• Delete the strikethrough text
• paste it back in
• select "remove formatting"
• save

All good now.

[Anddenex]

30 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I disagree with @Anddenex's speculation that young children may receive it once their resurrected bodies reach the proper age. Such ordinances belong to this world and must be taken care of before the resurrection (see Talmage's treatment of "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" in Jesus the Christ). So proxy ordinances must be attended to while the recipient is still in the spirit world.

I was thinking about this teaching when I provided the thought. What you have stated is the way I understand it, and I was thinking, "Well, if 'All' are needing baptism," that could be something, but of course, it is 100% pure speculation, pure theory, pure philosophy -- nothing revealed to me.

[Traveler]

 

It is my life experience that the search for truth is not simple nor trivial.  It is a most complex effort that requires a prolonged (lifetime) dedication with expressed discipline and sacrifice.  One must be fully vested and all in for truth to find it.  Jesus said that one must be completely vested (hunger and thrust) as a metaphor to a generation that were perhaps mostly likely to die from hunger and thrust than any other single factor.

Mankind in general is truth lazy and has a nature to avoid truth – especially if truth interferes with personal conveniences, wants and desires.  In essence most will only deal with truth when they have to or must – otherwise they limit truth to what supports their personal preferences.  This is most often seen in politics and religion – in contrasts there is something about science and engineering that provide immediate returns to those that know what they are doing.  But connecting to truth in religion is more about what one wants to believe than that is true.

G-d has revealed to his prophets that there is only one “TRUE and LIVING” G-d.  In other words; G-d is inseparable from truth.  That knowing the True and Living G-d is an essential element and primary parameter in the quest for truth.  It stand to reason that just as there is one unique and “True and Living” G-d that there is one unique “True and Living” way, organization, path, or kingdom of G-d.

I understand that there are many g-ds as there are many churches in the many cultures and societies of men and that many profit good from the many churches and religions.  But I witness to all that listen that truth is singular and unique.  That just as there is one truth – there is one True and Living G-d and as there is a G-d there is only one True and Living way or path.  There is only one covenant, one King and one Kingdom (or church or path).  There are many look-a-like counterfeit but the real things is always singular.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

It is my life experience that the search for truth is not simple nor trivial.  It is a most complex effort that requires a prolonged (lifetime) dedication with expressed discipline and sacrifice.  One must be fully vested and all in for truth to find it.  Jesus said that one must be completely vested (hunger and thrust) as a metaphor to a generation that were perhaps mostly likely to die from hunger and thrust than any other single factor.

Mankind in general is truth lazy and has a nature to avoid truth – especially if truth interferes with personal conveniences, wants and desires.  In essence most will only deal with truth when they have to or must – otherwise they limit truth to what supports their personal preferences.  This is most often seen in politics and religion – in contrasts there is something about science and engineering that provide immediate returns to those that know what they are doing.  But connecting to truth in religion is more about what one wants to believe than that is true.

G-d has revealed to his prophets that there is only one “TRUE and LIVING” G-d.  In other words; G-d is inseparable from truth.  That knowing the True and Living G-d is an essential element and primary parameter in the quest for truth.  It stand to reason that just as there is one unique and “True and Living” G-d that there is one unique “True and Living” way, organization, path, or kingdom of G-d.

I understand that there are many g-ds as there are many churches in the many cultures and societies of men and that many profit good from the many churches and religions.  But I witness to all that listen that truth is singular and unique.  That just as there is one truth – there is one True and Living G-d and as there is a G-d there is only one True and Living way or path.  There is only one covenant, one King and one Kingdom (or church or path).  There are many look-a-like counterfeit but the real things is always singular.

 

The Traveler

So true.