Translate

Saturday, September 24, 2016

A Response To: Baptism Will Not Save You

I recently read a blog post by Rob Smith, in which he denounced the idea that preaching repentance through baptism by water would be very effective in holding off a prophesied coming destruction.  Now, I don't want to come off as being against Rob Smith's overarching point.  I actually think that Rob makes a very valid point in his post that our focus should be on Heaven ratifying our faith rather than pridefully proclaiming something that we have little evidence of.   However, due to principles advanced in his post and also in response to conversations that I have had with others recently, I felt the importance of giving a -hopefully- persuasive different view of this very important topic.



To parse these ideas it is going to be necessary to differentiate between different terms being used.  In this example I want to point out that there is a difference between 'Saved' eternally and being 'Spared' of some destruction that God wants to pour out at a certain time.

After the death of our Lord, God saw fit to inflict mass destruction upon those who lived among the descendants of Lehi.  Not only were many lives lost, but whole cities suffered incredible destruction.  So much so, that those who remained after, marveled at the extreme changes that had occurred at the time of the destruction. (see 3rd Nephi 11:1)  Yet through this incredible destruction that involved whole cities being buried in water, earth and fire, there were a remarkable number of people who did survive.

After the destruction had ended the Lord, decided to speak to those who had been spared.  In doing so, He disclosed to those who remained that they had been spared not because they were righteous but rather just more righteous than the others who had been destroyed.  (see 3 Nephi 9:13)

Now to anyone who has desires for their own well-being, the question should be asked, "What is the definition of 'More Righteous'?  Is the Lord referring to people who swore, but didn't say the REALLY bad words?  Perhaps these were people who over-ate, but didn't ever let alcohol touch their lips?  Or perhaps those who would ogle the women in the red-light district of Zarahemla, but never allowed themselves to go in unto them?

The good thing is that within the account the Lord provides the answer: And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared— (see 3 Nephi 10:12)

The definition of being 'More Righteous' seems to then be: receiving the true messengers that have come from the presence of the Lord with a message of repentance.  But then that brings up the question of what does it mean to 'Receive' these prophets of the Lord?

In the Book of Ezekiel there is a recorded conversation between the Lord and Ezekiel wherein the Lord informs Ezekiel about the people of his day saying,

"Also, thou son of man, the children of thy people still are talking against thee by the walls and in the doors of the houses, and speak one to another, every one to his brother, saying, "Come, I pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth from the Lord."

And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.
And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.  And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them."  (See Ezekiel 33: 30-33)

In this excerpt the Lord demonstrates that neither hearing the words of a true messenger, nor even believing that the message originates from the Lord, is sufficient to escape His condemnation of having not 'received' one of His servants.  The Lord points out that the hearers -in addition to believing the message- must DO the words of the servant.

Now previously in the Book of Ezekiel the Lord condemns as idolatrous, the Elders of Israel for looking unto a man -even if that man is a worthy, true servant of God- and treating the counsel of that man as higher than the revelation that should be had in a personal connection with God.  (see Ezekiel 14)  So on one hand the Lord hands out condemnation to people for not respecting enough the words of His servant, and on the other He condemns people for only respecting the words of that same, true servant.

This line is fine, but in order to understand the difference between why the Lord sometimes spares and why sometimes He destroys, it should be parsed.

A true messenger from God will always come to draw you closer to Him.  If anyone teaching you does not bring you closer to Christ, you can know that they are not a dully authorized teacher from God.  The verification of whether a man is a true messenger from God, is found in his message.  When a messenger sent by Christ to testify speaks, you will hear/feel/resonate with the voice of Christ that is contained therein.  This can not be duplicated by another source.  An attempt can and always will be made to copy it, but it is not nor can not accurately/precisely be duplicated.  

Now a true messenger almost always, will be commanded to ask you to be baptized as a sign to Christ that you have heard/felt/resonated with His voice in the message of the true messenger.  This is a wise purpose in the Lord that baptism is the sign chosen to demonstrate a persons willingness that he/she has not only heard the voice of Christ but is willing to follow it by following Him in to the water.  Of course the mechanics of this ordinance can be duplicated as well.  However the requisite first part of hearing the Voice of Christ can not be and we should trust that.  When hearing it, we should receive baptism when it is offered to us.

Now to demonstrate this principle I will use several examples from the Book of Mormon.  The first example that I will use is that of Alma the Younger when he begins his ministry as a traveling minister to the people in and around Zarahemla.  He gives a great sermon of repentance to the listeners which included both members and non-members of the church in his day.  What is REALLY interesting is that he concludes by commanding the members of the church and only inviting the non-members to repent and BE BAPTIZED!  (see Alma 5:62)

This indicates that even though the members of the church had received baptism by Alma's father, who was the founder of their church (see Mosiah 29:47); because of the message of repentance obtained by Alma the Younger, they would need to be re-baptized purely because Alma the Younger came with another message from God for the people to repent!

Next lets point out that Joseph Smith revealed that prior to the ministry of John the Baptist, the jews had already been practicing baptism.  (see JST-Matthew 9:18-21)  However, notice that the Savior rejected their baptism.  Why?  If it was because of their lacking the keys, the problem with that idea is that Joseph Smith taught that, "[John the Baptist] wrested the keys, the kingdom, the power, the glory from the jews, by the Holy anointing and decree of heaven,"  What was the 'holy anointing' by which John wrested the keys?

In Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph revealed that John was ordained at 8 days old to that work!  The question is then, does that mean that the jews had no choice about losing the keys?  Were the keys lost the minute that John was ordained/anointed at 8 days old?  Could they have not repented and retained the mandate/keys the Lord had directed them with?  Of course they could, but by the time that John came, they needed to receive his message of repentance, following it by being baptized, in order to retain what the Lord had initiated with them.

This is what is meant in the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew Chapter 9 when the Savior said that He rejected the baptism offered by the Pharisees.  He explained that it was because they did not keep the law.  And what was the part of the law that most largely kept them from being accepted?  "if ye had kept the law, ye would have received me, for I am he who gave the law."

This does not only mean that because He is God that we have to receive Him, but this statement was made while He was a mortal man acting in the capacity of a True Servant, delivering a message of repentance from His Father.  The Pharisees did not receive Him, because if they would have, they would have been baptized by Him!  (see John 3:22)

So John baptized, and it was recognized by Heaven because he was anointed and by obedience to the mandate given to him, pointed the people to Christ.  (See Matthew 3:11-12)  The Lord baptized and it was accepted by Heaven for the same reasons.  But the Pharisees baptized, and our Lord rejected it, because they did not receive Him as a messenger from Heaven.

So if receiving true prophets means to do what they teach, and if they teach that we must be baptized; then using the Book of Mormon as a case scenario, the precedent exists that there were people who despite not having their faith adequately ratified by heaven in order to be made clean/righteous, they were spared because they received true messengers from heaven!  And this means they received the baptism of water that the messengers are always commanded to give.

Now this does not mean that at that point they received anything greater than temporal salvation to be spared for a time until they could receive greater truth which would enlighten their path back into the presence of Christ.

Furthermore, this does not mean that after being baptized by an authorized servant of God, we should lose focus of all else which the messengers of God have taught us about the importance of seeking the face of God.  It does not mean that we are authorized to teach that after baptism of water, all is well, anymore than we are authorized in teaching that receiving ones Calling and Election is anything other than a first rung on a ladder.

So although it doesn't mean those things, nobody should take the liberty of definitely and absolutely pre-claiming, 'Baptism by water is useless without baptism by fire.'  
I realize that that statement was made in reliance of the accuracy of the notes taken by Willard Richards for a talk that Joseph Smith gave.  The context of that talk is that it was given by Joseph in defense of the question on the necessity of authorized ordinances.  Willard's notes record Joseph as having stated that 'the sects' taught that they do not believe that baptism by immersion is necessary.  Then the record states that Joseph quoted a theoretical sectarian as saying 'I believe in being converted.'  Joseph then is quoted as saying, ' I believe in this tenaciously.'  And then, 'But I further believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.  Evidence by Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:38.'  
It is at that point that we find Joseph saying, 'You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost.  Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half-that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost.'  There are multiple problems with this record and the jumpiness of the account is not a minor one among them.

One thing that I believe firmly is that details matter.  And contemporary note takers are not very good at recording a lot of details; let alone all of the necessary details.  Because Joseph had gazed into heaven -and because Willard Richards never proclaimed the same- I trust that Joseph understood more than Willard did.  Therefore for me to trust that in this jumpy account, Willard correctly recorded Joseph as having meant and said that baptism by water is good for nothing to anyone, anywhere unless it is accompanied by an event that isn't definitively defined anywhere in scripture requires more than I can give: when I consider the weight of scripture against that idea.

Now I am not saying that any unrepentant, person can receive baptism by water, even from an authorized servant and control the outcome of prophecies given by God.  However, I would suggest that at a minimum the Baptism of Fire starts out as hearing the Voice of Christ.  I suggest to you that this can happen even in the form of a mortal minister.

Therefore, if God sends a messenger to preach, and if you hear the voice of Christ in the message of that messenger, and if you DO what the Lord asks of you in the message of that authorized messenger, then when that messenger informs you that God has said that those who do so, will be those whom He protects during some period of coming destruction: you can be assured that God is a God of truth and does not lie.

But remember, Joseph also taught that not all of the Saints of God will live through the coming destruction and in fact there may be many righteous people who perish.  Also, just because God has shown that He will protect those who receive His prophets, you should also suppose that there may be many who never did receive those prophets whom God decides for one reason or another that He wants to spare.

6 comments:

She's the Bishop's Wife said...

Very well written. I appreciate what you have laid out in this post. I also read Rob Smith's post. I would like to add that just because a person gazes into heaven for 5 minutes does not make one an expert on heaven. If you have to choose messages which seem to disagree from different messengers/servants it might be wise to choose the one who has gazed into heaven much longer than 5 minutes.

Rob said...

Hi Edwin,
I appreciate the time you took to respond to my post. I have read your words several times. I am grateful for what I've gleaned from your post, because it is encouraging me to go back, clarify, and extend my original post. Maybe you should consider doing likewise, as it is difficult for me to see exactly how most of what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote, or even what exactly is your position on the issue. Someone reading your post without reading mine would come away with a very inaccurate view of my points. For example, I never suggest that baptism by water is not a commandment or isn't essential. If you are going to respond to something someone wrote, it is good to represent the points they make then make a counterargument to each. The only time I think you directly represent what I said then attempt to rebut it is when you cite something I said quoting Joseph Smith, and then make a very weak argument that he never said it, without considering that whether he said it or not, it is a scripturally valid argument. All the best.

Edwin Wilde said...

Rob,
I went back and read your extended words. I must say, that I liked your original post; but I like your second post more.
I want to point out -as I did in my OP: "I actually think that Rob makes a very valid point in his post that our focus should be on Heaven ratifying our faith rather than pridefully proclaiming something that we have little evidence of."
So first, I would like to say that although my post was incited by yours, it also entailed a much larger spectrum of conversation that I have had with others as well, that have reflected a similar sentiment to the original words of your post.
Second, I understand that my position in my post is left somewhat ambiguous here, because like all points in the Gospel of Christ, this one is very nuanced. The details REALLY matter. I tried to demonstrate my sentiments on this ambiguity by stating what I did in the final three paragraphs
Third, as demonstrated by my title, my post was only a response and not a rebuttal. Therefore I am not looking to debate any of your points but rather add my thoughts to those which were given to me upon reading your blog post. Also, as I said before, I liked your overall point that our focus should be on finding 'How' to get Heaven to ratify our faith rather than proudly proclaiming that we possess something that we may or may not have any evidence of.
Fourth: because I didn't want to rebut your points, I decided to send a link to your post at the beginning of my post, so that anyone who felt the ambiguity of my post, might go and decide for themselves to what I was referring.

Edwin Wilde said...

Continued...
Fifth, you pointed out in your OP that we must keep the commandments in order to be saved. Is not being baptized, keeping with the commandments? Of course you didn't say that it wasn't; and of course it isn't the entirety of the commandments, but you also didn't point that being baptized is keeping the commandments of God. So when you say that you didn't suggest that baptism by water is not a commandment or isn't essential, you're right. But when -in an effort to downplay the salvific nature of baptism by water- you say that we must keep the commandments in order to repent, you are leaving things ambiguous and therefore I felt the importance of clarifying (not debating) that point.
Sixth, baptism by water being good for NOTHING, (without the Baptism of Fire) is not a scripturally provable point. Granted the Savior taught that one must receive both in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven, but that does not mean that it has no value. You seem to concede that point in your extended post, by pointing out that there are ordinances which did temporally extend the lives of unrepentant folks, (even if doing so, didn't seem to give them much more than the trials that they continued to live through; it at least offered them more time to repent...something that I believe we all would or will appreciate.) If these ordinances had even a small value, then at best I would say that Joseph may have been speaking in hyperbole to make his point: if he made that statement at all.
Your leaning on that statement to teach that people should not be testifying of the necessity of baptism by water, is unwarranted unless you would like to provide additional context to your point. I am more than open to hearing it, but as of yet I do not see that you have given sufficient evidence to be persuaded otherwise.
Seventh, I will concede that my argument about Joseph's statement is weak. I could have elaborated, on additional thoughts about that statement, but again...my point in this post was not to really rebut your points, and my purpose in providing context to this statement attributed to Joseph Smith was only to provide a response that I thought would allow others to think about something that perhaps they never had previously.

Edwin Wilde said...

Continued...
As far as my position on this issue: I would like you to look at the final 3 paragraphs of my post. That is the level of nuance that I believe is necessary to definitively state how, when and why baptism of water is necessary and salvific. I believe that in your post you emphasize the importance of Baptism of Fire, but from the context of that single post you provide little to not context to what that even means. In my post I give context to what I believe that term means at its beginning in which it exists as a continuum. And how that is related to Baptism of Water.

I do not see your conversation as opposing mine, but rather mine as a continuation of yours.

LJn said...

I didn't really think of this post as a rebuttal to Rob's post. It seems to me that it's more like, "Rob said this. I think a little differently. I'm going to springboard from there and go off into my own thoughts and opinions on things." I haven't read Rob's post, am not left with any negative view of Rob's post, and feel like I was exposed to the complete message of the Instigator's post.
Toni