Why does God require rituals?

[_Buffalo]

You're coming off as kind of butthurt now. Just saying.

Sez you, .....nice strategy, but its too transparent and often the last refuge
frankly put, you are an easy argue and i almost feel bad at all the dismantling of your "alleged" intellect.

Well, you keep referring to that thread about rainbows that you ran away from. You know, the thread where you refused to even discuss the evidence that contradicted your viewpoint? And then you bitterly quote my disdain for your weak position in an unrelated thread. What am I to conclude other than you are consumed by butthurt?

[_canpakes]

so, what then of Mark 16:16? Baptism is not offered as an option in that verse. John 3:5 also reinforces this notion. It can not be easily be discarded because we see that water used similarly in Eph 5:26 and Titus 3:5. One can not attribute its use as being similar in meaning to John 7:37, because the word "water" is used in a completely, and clearly, different manner.

James Chapter 2 is a stark testimony of that. One can not simply have "faith", God commands that we act upon it, and Christ has commanded a specific action, the act of being baptized...i agree, its not the water in-and-of-itself, but our willingness to go into the water, and God is only satisfied with the sincerity of our willingness when we come up out of the water.

Reference also the parable of the vineyard, only those that are working receive the penny wage.
1 Peter 1:10, 20-23
John 3:3-5
Acts 19:1-7
1 Peter 3:21

Again, continue reading Hebrews 11 and you will see that faith is inextricably linked to work, to action, by obedience to what has been commanded. I have not seen where faith has provided salvation for any who believed but did nothing.
John 6:44-45, you can not even come unto Him without working.

Many have believed in Christ but were not saved
James 2:19
John 12:42-43
Acts 22:1-16
Matt. 7:21-27

To contend that Faith is all that is required contradicts the teachings for confession, repentance, baptism, endurance, etc...
There is no magic ingredient, the recipe must be followed
Acts 3:22-23

Additionally, there is evidence, outside of the scriptures as well, that early Christians baptized the dead. There is precedence for both the spiritual notion and the continued revelation that has brought about baptism by proxy today.

These are great references, but they do not explain how a proxy baptism would be valid or required for someone who has died. Nor do they explain anything about the sealing concept (mortal-to-mortal, especially as regards parents to children).

[_Melchett]

so, what then of Mark 16:16? Baptism is not offered as an option in that verse. John 3:5 also reinforces this notion. It can not be easily be discarded because we see that water used similarly in Eph 5:26 and Titus 3:5. One can not attribute its use as being similar in meaning to John 7:37, because the word "water" is used in a completely, and clearly, different manner.

James Chapter 2 is a stark testimony of that. One can not simply have "faith", God commands that we act upon it, and Christ has commanded a specific action, the act of being baptized...i agree, its not the water in-and-of-itself, but our willingness to go into the water, and God is only satisfied with the sincerity of our willingness when we come up out of the water.

Reference also the parable of the vineyard, only those that are working receive the penny wage.
1 Peter 1:10, 20-23
John 3:3-5
Acts 19:1-7
1 Peter 3:21

Again, continue reading Hebrews 11 and you will see that faith is inextricably linked to work, to action, by obedience to what has been commanded. I have not seen where faith has provided salvation for any who believed but did nothing.
John 6:44-45, you can not even come unto Him without working.

Many have believed in Christ but were not saved
James 2:19
John 12:42-43
Acts 22:1-16
Matt. 7:21-27

To contend that Faith is all that is required contradicts the teachings for confession, repentance, baptism, endurance, etc...
There is no magic ingredient, the recipe must be followed
Acts 3:22-23

Additionally, there is evidence, outside of the scriptures as well, that early Christians baptized the dead. There is precedence for both the spiritual notion and the continued revelation that has brought about baptism by proxy today.

These are great references, but they do not explain how a proxy baptism would be valid or required for someone who has died. Nor do they explain anything about the sealing concept (mortal-to-mortal, especially as regards parents to children).

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be along soon with a "Riddle me this..." answer.

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_Fence Sitter]

Why be sealed as a family? God already knows if we have the right desires and intentions in our hearts, so why the need for a physical ritual to display that intention?

The question of Sealing Ritual makes a lot more sense if you understand it as it was viewed in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's time. They had a entirely different perspective on it then we do now. Priesthood and the ability to trace your Priesthood line of authority back to Adam played a big part in how sealings were viewed. The intent, initially, was to connect yourself with people who had the Priesthood, both in this life and those that were dead so that you could trace your priesthood authority back to Adam. (When you think about this is also helps understand the Adam God theory that BY was teaching.) For a long time unless a dead male had held the priesthood in this life you could not be sealed to him. You did not/ could not be sealed to your parents unless your dad had held the Priesthood in this life. So people were sealing themselves to anyone who held the Priesthood and they would usually choose someone like BY of Joseph Smith Jr because it placed them higher on the authority chart the closer they were to Adam. These were called adoptive sealings when there was no blood relationship. See here for an article on this. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885588

The problem was it caused a lot of contention in the church as people were vying to increase their Celestial Fantasy football teams. Brigham Young had to make several speeches telling the Elders to stop fighting over extending their families. (In one quote he says that some Elders would even adopt the Devil if they were allowed to.) "President John Taylor was not sealed to his parents though they died in the Church, as he felt is was rather lowering himself to be thus sealed when he was an apostle and his father was a high priest."Eventually Wilford Woodruf had a revelation that this was really all about sealing families to each other and not about a Priesthood power grab. He had to come up with something otherwise they had just spent a lot of time and effort to build these temples for nothing.

[_moksha]

Who are the rituals actually for because I can't see that God needs them?

All he ever really specified was a good fireworks show at Liberty Park on July 24th of every year. Who doesn't enjoy fireworks?

[_UnicornMan]

I'd like to do away with the repetitive rituals. They bore me to death. Except maybe the short ones.

[_subgenius]

.......

as usual brevity escapes you...let us cut closer to the chase and forgo the obvious misinterpretations you impose.

Here "little children" and those "without law" are both described as being "alive in Christ" and saved by the "power of redemption". It goes on to state that baptism for both of these categories "availeth nothing" and is a “mockery before God”.

yes, but that is relevant to the doctrine of being of the age of accountability. And you purposely, as usual, try to confuse doctrine. The salvation does not assure one of progress in the spiritual realm.

The LDS Church continues to admit that baptism is not necessary for children and does not perform the temple work of proxy Baptisms for the dead for them or Endowments. However due to Joseph Smith's development of his Baptism for the dead doctrine it does now for those "without law" in contradiction of the Book of Mormon which calls it a "mockery".

your understanding of those "without law" is flawed. You cherry pick scriptures in an effort to combine them to have some meaning that they obviously never have when read in context.
For example: to claim that Alma 34 speaks to how one can not repent after death is disingenuous, when taken out of the context. Clearly that conclusion can not be reached when one realizes that this scripture's context is about the audience, a group called the Zoramites - former Nephites that had once had true religion but had rebelled against it and abandoned. Alma, Amulek and others went to them and preached the Gospel seeking to bring them back. The words of Amulek in Alma 34:33-35 clearly mean that those who have heard the Gospel and knowingly reject it, and who know they need to repent but refuse to do, cannot procrastinate repentance until the time of death or after. But this says nothing about those who have not had a fair chance to hear and accept the Gospel.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

you are welcome

[Guest]

I'm having a 'thinking' day today.

I'm pondering over why the Church has rituals and ordinances and also has them for the dead.

According to Mormonism God is all knowing. He knows what's in our minds and in our hearts. He knows our intentions.
If that is true why does He require a physical manifestation of that intention?

I mean, if a fundamentally good person dies without knowing the Gospel, but God already knows that he would have joined the Church if he had been given the option then why is a posthumous baptism required?

Why is tithing settlement a requirement? God already knows if we have paid a full tithe or not and He already knows our intentions for the future payment of tithes.

Why be sealed as a family? God already knows if we have the right desires and intentions in our hearts, so why the need for a physical ritual to display that intention?

Who are the rituals actually for because I can't see that God needs them?

Hey Drifting and all,

The purpose of rituals has been lost in most public churches, and so what is often found is a repetitive action or event that is flat, non-energetic.

Ritual, in my experience, has a twofold purpose, both ends are actually related. One is to direct our focus and desire on a singularly object or event. Remember scripture talking about loving God with all our heart mind and soul and loving others as our self? And seeking first the kingdom of God? Etc? Most of us have scattered desires/love, and certainly do not nor cannot love or desire God and/or for others as is needed. (Yes, this is what is needed, necessary, though not what is required, meaning that our love/desire is necessary for something to happen.) And so we have ritual, to focus our attention, our desire, our love, our adoration.

Someone said that God already knows the desires of our heart. I offer what our the desires of our heart, truly? Are they not admixtured, and all over the place? So if the desires of our heart are going to be filled, is it not better for them to be singularly, powerfully, focused as they can be in a ritual?

The other purpose for a ritual is as an invocation of God's Power and Presence, or actually a means to create a Way (through the opening we make with our ritual (focus and desire) for God to move and act in this world). The more righteous or giving we are, the more focused will be our desire for a specific outcome, and thus more likely will our prayers be answered.

Thus ritual is a place for heaven and earth to meet in loving, desirous union. A place of the meeting of the heart of man and the heart of God. And just imagine the Power that is invoked when man's will is in alignment with God's!

We do not realize the potential power we have, to heal, to invoke God's working through our focused and devoted words and actions!

Shalom!

Sheryl