any former mormons out there?

[artist3189]

And also, if Mormons except the idea of the Baptism of the Dead, the living accepting baptism on behalf of the DEAD, who can accept or reject it while in the spirit world, then why not accept and perform a baptism on a infant, acting in there stead until they reach the age of reason. When exactly is a child’s DEEDS considered sinful, acts of their own will that carry sinful consequences, at 3, or 5 or 13. When is a child’s state of reason such that they can ACCEPT baptism and Christ of their own free will with all it’s obligations and understand it fully and what it actually means? When is a child considered at the age of culpable reason? And why wait? Why not accept it for them since they can’t do it for themselves, just as the dead can’t get baptized for themselves? As Catholic parents and god-parents, we accept the child’s baptism, further validating it on their behalf, promising to keep the faith burning for them as they grow, and themselves renewing it with the Sacraments. What exactly is wrong with that?

 

[artist3189]

I think the problem is that Polycarp states he had been a Christian for 86 years, not that he had been baptized 86 years before. It’s probably a valid point.

Got it. Thanks much. It certainly doesn’t disprove infant baptism either though. I guess what everyone is looking for is the statement " infant baptism was not done and was forbidden by Christ and the early Church’s and that certainly doesn’t exist, so what’s the problem. If they choose to do it, they did. And if we believe sin came into the world with the fall of man, then that’s what we believe. I have no problem to disagree with Mormons on this at all.

 

[artist3189]

I think the problem is that Polycarp states he had been a Christian for 86 years, not that he had been baptized 86 years before. It’s probably a valid point.

Now that I think more about this, I don’t know if he has a valid point. Again, is doesn’t disprove anything. He could NOT have been a Christian and NOT have been baptized, that WAS NOT POSSIBLE and it logically follows that if he was a Christian for 86 years, he would positively have been baptized, if not as a newborn, then at a very very very early age, well before the age of reasoning, not of his own accord or understanding but by the direction of his parents, would you agree, christianley? I don’t think Z. can argue this topic to any degree of certainty.

 

[christianley]

And also, if Mormons except the idea of the Baptism of the Dead, the living accepting baptism on behalf of the DEAD, who can accept or reject it while in the spirit world, then why not accept and perform a baptism on a infant, acting in there stead until they reach the age of reason. When exactly is a child’s DEEDS considered sinful, acts of their own will that carry sinful consequences, at 3, or 5 or 13. When is a child’s state of reason such that they can ACCEPT baptism and Christ of their own free will with all it’s obligations and understand it fully and what it actually means? When is a child considered at the age of culpable reason? And why wait? Why not accept it for them since they can’t do it for themselves, just as the dead can’t get baptized for themselves? As Catholic parents and god-parents, we accept the child’s baptism, further validating it on their behalf, promising to keep the faith burning for them as they grow, and themselves renewing it with the Sacraments. What exactly is wrong with that?

Of course. From my experience an eight year old has very little understanding of what baptism and a lifelong commitment to the Mormon Church is all about. It’s not about accepting Christ and his church as much as it is about pleasing mom and dad and having a fun day with lots of attention showered on them.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

The thing that got to me when I attended the LDS church was the way everybody would go up to the podium and say,
" I want to give my testimony: I KNOW that
the Church is True…"

What finally made me say, ok, this is just a form of brainwashing was when a little girl not even three years old
was held up to the microphone and she said the same thing, of course skipping over a few words and syllables, but I thought to myself, this child is not much more than a baby, there is no way she can have reasoned all this out.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[artist3189]

Of course. From my experience an eight year old has very little understanding of what baptism and a lifelong commitment to the Mormon Church is all about. It’s not about accepting Christ and his church as much as it is about pleasing mom and dad and having a fun day with lots of attention showered on them.

Then I guess my question to Z would be, if as you stated before, that baptism is ‘used for the remission of sins’ and therefore infants don’t need it, what about an 8 year old?. When does the LDS Church STATE that at a certain age, a person is of sufficient age to commit sins ‘IN NEED OF THE REMISSION OF THOSE SINS PROVIDED BY BAPTISM?’ What is the age of culpability and why? Does the LDS Baptize severely mentally handicapped people EVEN if they don’t have the sufficient ‘reason’ to commit sins that need remission, so why baptize them? It is clear that even Z can’t say that if a newly converted 1st century family, a family brought to Christ by the Apostles themselves, would then say, “oh, we repent, so baptize us, but not our infant because he doesn’t need it, YET, or not our 5 year old or 2 year old because they don’t need it YET, we think. Come back when they are, what, 8, because that time we think they will be real true sinners.” Does the LDS really believe that would happen. Baptism brings us from the sin associated with the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. It is once and for all. Once done we can not reject it. But in our sinful earthly way, we can later TURN FROM GODS GRACE AND REJECT HIM. But our basptism remains intact.

 

[majick275]

actually the LDS church has a category called “not accountable” for mentally handicapped persons and anyone over 8 years of age who in the opinion of the local bishop is not accountable for their “sins”. In my experience this was only used for Down’s syndrome children and a few other very similar type situations.

 

[artist3189]

actually the LDS church has a category called “not accountable” for mentally handicapped persons and anyone over 8 years of age who in the opinion of the local bishop is not accountable for their “sins”. In my experience this was only used for Down’s syndrome children and a few other very similar type situations.

Do they baptize these ‘not accountable’ persons? What about the age for baptism of everyone else, and is that age accepted as the age of accountability when bad actions can become truely sinful?

 

[PaulDupre]

Do they baptize these ‘not accountable’ persons?

No.

What about the age for baptism of everyone else, and is that age accepted as the age of accountability when bad actions can become truely sinful?

AFAIK, they baptize everyone else at age 8.
Paul

 

[majick275]

what he said

 

[Nan_S]

Sure I will. These are from the link that Christianly had given:

Nice tangent. But you don’t get away with it. The challenge was, and still is, for you to prove your allegation that Catholics taught that unbaptized babies are condemned to hell.

Since you’ve apparently forgotten, here’s how it went:

You said: According to this doctrine, a new born infant… will go to hell if he dies in infancy unless he is baptized to wash away that sin. That has been the traditional Christian view. They have watered it down in recent times because of its awful implications, and replace “hell” with “limbo” which is not much better. But that is the traditional view—and it is false. It is a great abomination in the sight of God to suppose that little children are sent to hell because of no baptism.

I replied: where are you getting your Catholic theology anyway - Dante’s Inferno and the Nine Circles of Hell???
Limbo is not, and never has been, a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Here’s what the Church really says about children who die without baptism: CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.

You came back with: That is a recent innovation. It has not always been the doctrine.

And I challenged you: Oh, really? How about you cite me the Catholic source that backs you up? (Hint: it doesn’t exist.)

We’re still waiting for your proof that Catholics taught unbaptized babies are condemned to hell. :yawn:

When it says “household” and “family” were baptized, it does not have to include infants. It means adult members of the family. Their cats and dogs were also part of the “household”. Did they baptize their cats and dogs as well? If I said that “Missionaries came to my house today and taught the gospel all of my family,” does that mean that they taught it to new born infants as well? How ridiculous can you get.

Your may have a dog and cat you consider family, but mine and most other peoples’ are pets. I paid $25 to the animal shelter for mine. And no, I didn’t baptize it; animals don’t have immortal souls, because God didn’t breathe His Breath of Life into their nostrils.

A baby in the womb is not only surrounded by fluid, but its lungs are also filled by the same fluid. Why would it need to close its mouth for anything?zerinus

A unborn baby’s lungs are uninflated. It doesn’t need to breathe.

Please enlighten us: how many babies have been drowned by baptism in, say, the last 100 years? None that I know of. Your argument is ludicrous.

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Nice tangent. But you don’t get away with it. The challenge was, and still is, for you to prove your allegation that Catholics taught that unbaptized babies are condemned to hell.

Since you’ve apparently forgotten, here’s how it went:

You said: According to this doctrine, a new born infant… will go to hell if he dies in infancy unless he is baptized to wash away that sin. That has been the traditional Christian view. They have watered it down in recent times because of its awful implications, and replace “hell” with “limbo” which is not much better. But that is the traditional view—and it is false. It is a great abomination in the sight of God to suppose that little children are sent to hell because of no baptism.

I replied: where are you getting your Catholic theology anyway -

Dante’s Inferno and the Nine Circles of Hell???

Limbo is not, and never has been, a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Here’s what the Church really says about children who die without baptism: CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.

You came back with: That is a recent innovation. It has not always been the doctrine.

And I challenged you: Oh, really? How about you cite me the Catholic source that backs you up? (Hint: it doesn’t exist.)

We’re still waiting for your proof that Catholics taught unbaptized babies are condemned to hell. :yawn:
The answer to that question was given in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1847532&postcount=626

If you want to make yourself deaf, dumb, and blind, whose problem is that? You seem to think that everyone else is stupid except you. I am not sure exactly whom you are trying to fool. I doubt if it’s me. It must be your own fellow Catholics. You obviously don’t have a lot of respect for their intelligence, including your own. Let me assure you that I don’t intend to continue with this thread if your strategy is to play stupid and hope that nobody will find out. I can find more useful tings to preoccupy my brains with.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Nice tangent. But you don’t get away with it. The challenge was, and still is, for you to prove your allegation that Catholics taught that unbaptized babies are condemned to hell.

Since you’ve apparently forgotten, here’s how it went:

You said: According to this doctrine, a new born infant… will go to hell if he dies in infancy unless he is baptized to wash away that sin. That has been the traditional Christian view. They have watered it down in recent times because of its awful implications, and replace “hell” with “limbo” which is not much better. But that is the traditional view—and it is false. It is a great abomination in the sight of God to suppose that little children are sent to hell because of no baptism.

I replied: where are you getting your Catholic theology anyway - Dante’s Inferno and the Nine Circles of Hell???
Limbo is not, and never has been, a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Here’s what the Church really says about children who die without baptism: CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.

You came back with: That is a recent innovation. It has not always been the doctrine.

And I challenged you: Oh, really? How about you cite me the Catholic source that backs you up? (Hint: it doesn’t exist.)

We’re still waiting for your proof that Catholics taught unbaptized babies are condemned to hell. :yawn:

Your may have a dog and cat you consider family, but mine and most other peoples’ are pets. I paid $25 to the animal shelter for mine. And no, I didn’t baptize it; animals don’t have immortal souls, because God didn’t breathe His Breath of Life into their nostrils.

A unborn baby’s lungs are uninflated. It doesn’t need to breathe.

Please enlighten us: how many babies have been drowned by baptism in, say, the last 100 years? None that I know of. Your argument is ludicrous.

Nan

I think it is time we stop playing with the troll because that is all Zerinius is. He’s not here to honestly learn anything. As long as he is unwilling to admit the Book of Mormon is false there is nothing that we can say that will matter. Believing in the Book of Mormon is akin to believing that space aliens populated the Ancient Americas. If he believes in the Book of Mormon why would he be willing to listen to anything reasonable? It’s a kind of insanity.

 

[artist3189]

The answer to that question was given in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1847532&postcount=626

If you want to make yourself deaf, dumb, and blind, whose problem is that? You seem to think that everyone else is stupid except you. I am not sure exactly whom you are trying to fool. I doubt if it’s me. It must be your own fellow Catholics. You obviously don’t have a lot of respect for their intelligence, including your own. Let me assure you that I don’t intend to continue with this thread if your strategy is to play stupid and hope that nobody will find out. I can find more useful tings to preoccupy my brains with.

zerinus

Yes, like spelling…

 

[artist3189]

The answer to that question was given in this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1847532&postcount=626

If you want to make yourself deaf, dumb, and blind, whose problem is that? You seem to think that everyone else is stupid except you. I am not sure exactly whom you are trying to fool. I doubt if it’s me. It must be your own fellow Catholics. You obviously don’t have a lot of respect for their intelligence, including your own. Let me assure you that I don’t intend to continue with this thread if your strategy is to play stupid and hope that nobody will find out. I can find more useful tings to preoccupy my brains with.

zerinus

Where does the Church doctrine, say they go to hell, you show us two opinions from Church fathers as some kind of proof of something, as you usually do, you pull this stuff out of a hat and somehow that’s ‘IT’. ‘Vivified’, as the English term used here, means ‘given life’ (with Christ) and yes, the inclination ‘could be’ that they possibly don’t attain heaven, according to St Augustine AT THAT TIME, but he doesn’t say,THEY GO TO HELL, he wasn’t sure. That was discussed for hundreds of years Z. Just that topic alone. Longer than your whole church has existed. If you read more on this, you’d find this out rather than throwing statements against the wall to see if it sticks. Those unfortunate children have always been commended to the mercy of God. Hey Z, much of Mormon theology, or how much of Joe Smith’s stuff has been ‘tossed’ already and it’s only been 170 years? Please… This is the problem with people like you, just don’t understand the full extent of the Church. You take bits and pieces and somehow that’s ‘proof text’ for everything you believe or don’t believe. You always say things like, ‘that’s a recent development’. Z. your whole religion is a recent development from top to bottom. A complete fabrication. All of the Church Doctors and Fathers, the Saints, Sacred Scripture, Apostolic teachings, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium WORK TOGETHER. You can’t just grab one thing that one person said and say ‘that’s it’. But of course, to a Mormon apologist who only cares to undermine, confuse, misrepresent, con, twist, attack, this is a perfectly logical approach. It’s not really about the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches, but it’s about trying to desperately PROVE the legitimacy of a sect of heretics. AS LONG AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STANDS, THERE IS NO LEGITIMACY FOR YOU!. THE CHURCH IS A ‘CONSTANT REMINDER’ TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE NO CONNECTION TO CHRIST, NOR THE APOSTLES, NO 2000 YEAR HISTORY, NO SAINT AUGUSTINE TO QUOTE, NO 2 MILLENNIUM OF THINKERS PONDERING THESE GREAT MYSTERIES, NO LINE OF 266 POPES GOING BACK TO PETER, NO GREAT SAINTS. You and your friends are truly clueless

 

[zerinus]

Yes, like spelling…

Everyone makes typos when they type posts in these message boards. People don’t have a lot of time to spend on editing and proof reading their posts. Here is a typo I found in Nan’s post:

“Your may have a dog . . .”

If you don’t know how to make any more intelligent comments on peoples posts than to pick up on their typos (which you don’t, as I have observed), you might consider finding something else to do than debating with people on message boards.

zerinus

 

[artist3189]

Everyone makes typos when they type posts in these message boards. People don’t have a lot of time to spend on editing and proof reading their posts. Here is a typo I found in Nan’s post:

“Your may have a dog . . .”

If you don’t know how to make any more intelligent comments on peoples posts than to pick up on their typos (which you don’t, as I have observed), you might consider finding something else to do than debating with people on message boards.

zerinus

That’s really funny. I have yet to read a post from you that even comes close to understanding what it is you’re even debating, let alone putting it in the context of the Church and it’s teaching. You’ve seen my posts, they ask specific questions, reply to them if you wish. Debating is not what I am doing, I am correcting your inaccurate representations of our faith. I have nothing to debate with you over. You want to call everyone stupid, who is being USED as the TOOL here Z? This is a CATHOLIC web site, YOU are here to refute us, to deny us, to attack us, to prove us all stupid, to convert us over to your way of misunderstanding the world, history and the True Church, to do the bidding of others, to fulfill your agenda, who is being used as a tool? If anyone is being fooled, it’s YOU, by your religion, by your elders, by your so-called experts, not by us. The Catholic Church has endless resources, millions and millions of thoughts and ideas from centuries of great thinkers and then there’s you.

 

[artist3189]

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

Go to this link for an HONEST appraisal of the infant hell discussion, and REMEMBER the difference in what the Church ‘endeavors’ to “teach” within the confines of its understanding at any particular time in history, as opposed to what it declares as ‘Doctrine and Dogma’. They are two different things.

 

[Allweather]

I can find more useful tings to preoccupy my brains with.

zerinus

I doubt that Zeromus does have more useful “tings” to “preoccupy” his many brains with, or to put it into more proper syntactical form: more useful things with which to occupy (his) brain.

The problem for Zeromus is that he is preoccupied with Catholicism. He can’t find enough to do over in the Mormon camp. The state of Utah won’t yet allow him to build his harem, and for sure, there are no decent women about who would have very much to do with an admitted adulterer/polygamist. So, my best guess is that his dating life really, really sux.

Therefore, Zeromus will spend his long, lonely days hanging out here in Catholicism, hoping to convince some poor schmuck that the broken down jalopy that Joseph Smith designed is worth 10% of his annual before-tax income.

 

[artist3189]

I doubt that Zeromus does have more useful “tings” to “preoccupy” his many brains with, or to put it into more proper syntactical form: more useful things with which to occupy (his) brain.

The problem for Zeromus is that he is preoccupied with Catholicism. He can’t find enough to do over in the Mormon camp. The state of Utah won’t yet allow him to build his harem, and for sure, there are no decent women about who would have very much to do with an admitted adulterer/polygamist. So, my best guess is that his dating life really, really sux.

Therefore, Zeromus will spend his long, lonely days hanging out here in Catholicism, hoping to convince some poor schmuck that the broken down jalopy that Joseph Smith designed is worth 10% of his annual before-tax income.