And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one (3 Ne. 11:27).
In preparation for a post on my Book of Mormon blog, I have been going through references in that book to being “cut off.” One of these is in Mormon’s epistle to Moroni, in which he discusses disagreements over baptism — disagreements not addressed by Christ in 3 Nephi, even though his stated purpose was to end such disputations. Mormon says:
[T]each parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. . . .
Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism (Moro. 8:10, 14-15).
In the afternoon, I finally finished Joshua Cutchin’s very long book Ecology of Souls, reading it in one of the coffee shops I frequent. In the afterword, the author discusses his Christian faith and how he reconciles it with his Fortean interests and theories. Here’s one paragraph from this afterword:
This, in my opinion, is the point. To show humility, to show compassion, to realize that, while we should never neglect our individuality, we are all one when everything is said and done. While I remain unconvinced that a just universe would deny immortality solely because someone didn’t meditate, didn’t go to church, didn’t go to South America for an ayahuasca session—didn’t take the time to forge an “afterlife vehicle”—we do need to put our own houses in order, so to speak, if we stand any chance of evading Ammit’s maw.
This clearly echoes Mormon — the need for humility, the unacceptability of the idea that God would allow anyone to perish solely because he neglected to participate in a particular rite — but I wouldn’t have noticed had I not been hit over the head with a much more striking synchronicity. At the very moment I read “we are all one,” the background music playing in the coffee shop was a song called “We Are All One”:
7 comments:
@Wm I cmpletely agree that "the unacceptability of the idea that God would allow anyone to perish solely because he neglected to participate in a particular rite "
But "we are all one" is not the only alternative, nor do I think it is remotely true!
Bruce, the two concepts are presented together here for synchronicity reasons, not because there is any logical connection between them, such as the one being the only alternative to the other.
"We are all one" is too ambiguous for me to call it true or false. Certainly I am an ontological pluralist, as you are, and would reject an over-literal or solipsistic reading. "Being one" is a major theme both in the Fourth Gospel and in the revelations of Joseph Smith, though, so there must be something to it. It tends to be presented as a goal which may or may no be brought about, though, so the blanket statement that "we are all one" is probably not true in the Mormon/IVG sense of "one."
I think the uniqueness of "I" has the same paradoxical quality as the uniqueness of the present moment, and lends itself to the same sort of Dunnean analysis. I may post later on my Dunnean theory of the Atman, but it's something you're unlikely to be sympathetic to.
But does the Book of Mormon also say it is "wickedness to suppose that God saveth one ADULT because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism"?
From what yoy quoted I would only conclude a rejection of original sin and not that God doesn't require baptism. "Else what will they do who are baptized for the dead?"
Anon, you are correct. Mormon is only talking about children. (The modern CJCLDS does baptize children, though not infants.) Elsewhere, the BoM does teach that the unbaptized “shall be damned” (3 Ne. 11:34). There is no baptism for the dead in the BoM, but even that later doctrine doesn’t really solve anything. How just would God be if he damned someone solely because his descendants neglected to get baptized on his behalf?
I suppose I should have mentioned all this in the post. In sync posts, I quote books just to point out coincidences, not to explain the authors’ intended meaning.
What is IVG?
Oh, it guessed it probably means IVth Gospel, never mind.
MLB, yes, that's what it means.
Post a Comment