Do LDS openly acknowledge that their religion teaches the belief of multiple gods?

[Janet1983]

Back in what day?

How is all of this part of the topic?
Infant baptism is nowhere in the original article nor in the title…

 

[zaffiroborant]

Attack is the wrong word…I think that the word agree is more suitable. Mormons do not attack the catholic position on infant baptism. But they don’t agree with it either. But I can understand why you can not use more neutral words. Much better to use loaded words that convey negative connotations if one is stressing to paint the mormon church in a negative light.

Just as you used loaded words that convey negative connotations in order to paint the Catholic church in a negative light in the post quoted below.

I think that your sons are with heavenly father right now. And yes, they did get a first class ticket to His arms. I can not see a loving god doing otherwise. God has power over life and death and I can not see Him punishing an infant for dying before baptism.

I have my own theory about this catholic doctrine of fear that many mothers experienced. But I will not state it here.

 

[zaffiroborant]

14 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.
• • •
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

• Moroni 8: 14, 20

That’s some language, loaded for attack and sending people to hell.

 

[why_me]

That’s some language, loaded for attack and sending people to hell.

I think that you understood what I meant. Mormons are not in front of their pulpits attacking infant baptism or the catholic church’s practice of infant baptism. There are many protestant sects that practice infant baptism too. It is not just a catholic practice. For mormons, infants should not be baptised. But they are blessed when they receive their name infront of the congregation.

For mormons, the book of mormon is a text from god and not from man.

 

[why_me]

Just as you used loaded words that convey negative connotations in order to paint the Catholic church in a negative light in the post quoted below.

It was not loaded at all. Many catholic mothers experienced fear when they lost their babies before the baby was baptised. We need to go back many years before the notion of god’s mercy was stressed. I already quoted from church father’s about infant baptism. Fear is the correct word to decribe what these mothers’ felt when the infant died before baptism.

However, to get back on topic. The nature of the mormon godhead is different. I really don’t care about the differences at all. It is not something that keeps me awake at night. I just look at it all as a difference of opinion, and nothing more. But the end result is the same…both churches are attempting to make their members more godlike and better people through wholesome and good moral values.

 

[ParkerD]

That’s some language, loaded for attack and sending people to …

Zaffiroborant,
Whenever one reads verses like that, one would do well to remember that “hell” is considered a temporary condition that would be similar to the belief in “Purgatory”; then the person would receive their condition of glory based on all their other actions and their sincere repentance during their life on earth.

If I have understood correctly, then little children are not considered to “need” baptism in current Catholic teachings in that if they don’t receive it they are OK. Correct?

 

[Marie5890]

Zaffiroborant,
Whenever one reads verses like that, one would do well to remember that “hell” is considered a temporary condition that would be similar to the belief in “Purgatory”; then the person would receive their condition of glory based on all their other actions and their sincere repentance during their life on earth.

If I have understood correctly, then little children are not considered to “need” baptism in current Catholic teachings in that if they don’t receive it they are OK. Correct?

No. The need is still there due to original sin.

It’s also important to understand that grace is bestowed all the sacraments as well.

Similar to the Mormon thought that the Holy Ghost is bestowed upon confirmation.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think that you understood what I meant. Mormons are not in front of their pulpits attacking infant baptism or the catholic church’s practice of infant baptism. There are many protestant sects that practice infant baptism too. It is not just a catholic practice. For mormons, infants should not be baptised. But they are blessed when they receive their name infront of the congregation.

For mormons, the book of mormon is a text from god and not from man.

No one said they were.

 

[TheosisM]

If I have understood correctly, then little children are not considered to “need” baptism in current Catholic teachings in that if they don’t receive it they are OK. Correct?

All people, whether infants, children, or adults, need baptism, otherwise we wouldn’t baptize infants if they did not “need” it, or that it didn’t really do anything. Catholicism also includes a belief in baptism through other means, such as baptism of desire. Baptism is normative, however we believe that God, who is merciful and just, will take care of those, who through no fault of their own, were not baptized and/or did not hear the Gospel, and would have accepted it, if they did receive it in this life.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
Whenever one reads verses like that, one would do well to remember that “hell” is considered a temporary condition that would be similar to the belief in “Purgatory”; then the person would receive their condition of glory based on all their other actions and their sincere repentance during their life on earth.

Hell is a little part of the loaded language in that verse.

If I have understood correctly, then little children are not considered to “need” baptism in current Catholic teachings in that if they don’t receive it they are OK. Correct?

What Marie said.

 

[ParkerD]

Hell is a little part of the loaded language in that verse.

What Marie said.

OK.

For Mormons, “hell” means a place of torment and suffering that is a temporary condition from which there is rescue by Christ. It is more like “Purgatory” than the permanent “hell” that is commonly understood in Catholic lingo. That was my main point.

Those verses focus also on faith, hope, and charity. I think it is uncharitable to think that infants would be punished or not receive glory if they weren’t baptized, so if that brings “Purgatory” for a person who has that thought, then perhaps by suffering in “Purgatory” such a person will realize that Christ’s grace really does abound and really does cover infants completely, by His grace, with no action on their part or their parents’ part.

 

[dianaiad]

Diania,

Aren’t you doing the same thing you accuse others of doing?

It can be seen that way.

You are telling HIM what HE believes.

Nope. I’m not. I’m saying that, from the sources he used to present the materials he used to ask questions about Mormonism, (very anti-Mormon, at least at first) that he was looking at what WE believe through a very biased lens.

I didn’t address his beliefs at all, and you are being disengenuous in the extreme.

 

[zaffiroborant]

OK.

For Mormons, “hell” means a place of torment and suffering that is a temporary condition from which there is rescue by Christ. It is more like “Purgatory” than the permanent “hell” that is commonly understood in Catholic lingo. That was my main point.

Those verses focus also on faith, hope, and charity. I think it is uncharitable to think that infants would be punished or not receive glory if they weren’t baptized, so if that brings “Purgatory” for a person who has that thought, then perhaps by suffering in “Purgatory” such a person will realize that Christ’s grace really does abound and really does cover infants completely, by His grace, with no action on their part or their parents’ part.

And I think Moroni 8:14 is an uncharitable judgment on people who believe in and practice infant baptism.

 

[dianaiad]

They use Christian terms like born again, saved, trinity, Father God, etc., however, the meanings they put on these Christian terms are entirely different

. The Mormon message supposedly was given to them by the angel Moroni. The apostle Paul warned about angels with false doctrine in Galatians 1:8, 9, “If an angel from heaven proclaims any other gospel than the one you received let him be cursed by God”.

I was simply going to read this and leave it alone, but you asked to be ‘enlightened’ if any of what you wrote here was incorrect. So… (by the way, the operative words here are not ‘an angel from heaven,’ but rather 'any other gospel than the one you recieved." We obviously believe that the gospel we teach is the SAME one that Christ taught. Hence the word ‘restored.’ WE aren’t the ones ‘preaching another gospel,’ in other words. That would be, in our view…you. )

Mormons have said that Jesus married both Mary and Martha and had children

Actually, it is possible that some Mormons think that. I know of no one who has done any serious preaching about that, unless it is one of the Mormon polygamist offshoot sects. Some Mormons think He was married. Others do not. Some think He had children. Others do not. It is not, you understand, a matter of dogma or doctrine…and is firmly in the realm of purest speculation. It’s certainly not something that defines our beliefs or core.

LDS teaches a limited atonement; Brigham Young said “the blood of Jesus was ineffective for the cleansing of some sins. Those that believe it will lose their salvation”

Ironic indeed, from someone who REALLY believes in a limited atonement. In fact, you have this very much upside down. WE believe that Christ’s atonement was absolutely unlimited and universal. He paid the price for Adam’s sin (which is why, by the way, we do not BELIEVE in ‘original sin.’ Jesus atoned for it. To believe that any of us is subject to it is to deny the atonement rather completely, seems to me.) On top of that, (and I dont know if you are one of these…) there are a whole bunch of Christians who believe that the Atonement only serves for the ‘elect,’ and that those who are not of the elect have no place in any of it.

We, on the other hand, believe that through Christ’s Atonement, ALL people are spared any punishment for original sin, all things may be pardoned (well, except for denying the Holy Ghost) and most things forgiven; murder, perhaps, having to be physically atoned for by the sinner (because of the nature of repentence.) Between viewpoints, I find it rather eyebrow raising that someone who restricts the atonement to a select few people can actually accuse US of believing in a ‘limited atonement.’
joann1957;5938152:

The Latter Day Saints idea of needing God’s grace is that grace is needed so we may have power to progress and become like God. All Mormons must strive for perfection, sanctification and god hood

Oh, yes. “faith without works is dead.” How very odd of us.

Mormons believe that the family unit will endure unto eternity and some go through baptism rituals in the temple to save unbaptised dead.

Yep, we do believe that the family unit may be eternal.

cont…

 

[dianaiad]

cont…

They say when Jesus returns that the Mormons will be gathered together in new Jerusalem in Missouri before the judgment
The Latter Day Saints have three heavens - one for the heathen, one for the Christians and one for good Mormons. When Mormons progress enough to be gods they will get a planet of their own to rule

Great googly moogly. There is so much WRONG with the above statement that it is difficult to know where to begin. I’ll just say…boy, are you off base with the description and the ideas…and the fact that you have been told OVER AND OVER again that we do NOT believe that we will ‘get a planet of our own,’ NEVER HAVE, and NEVER TAUGHT that…

My standard response to this is no…I’m going after my own universe.

Look, Joann, you really don’t know what you are talking about. You truly do not. You present a Mormonism that I do not recognize as the belief system I was raised in and believe. Since I am the Mormon, and I am the one doing the believing, then what I say goes.

The Mormons have added to the word of God by adding to the canon their Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon.

WE did not add to the Word of God by doing this, GOD did. He can add whatever He wants to whenever He wants to, wouldn’t you agree?

The books have contradictions with each other and with the Bible

We don’t think so.

There is no archeological evidence to support the claims of the book of Mormon and there is much to refute it

The same thing can be said about the bible, insofar as the miracles, etc., are concerned…and frankly, Joann, given that people keep coming up with ‘evidence’ to ‘refute’ EVOLUTION, I have a little trouble being serious with you about this.

But the thing is, you wouldn’t believe the Book of Mormon to be true if we found a properly carbon-dated sign saying 'Zarahemla, 50 cubits (or whatever unit of linear measurement was used)" you have a great deal of faith that it is FALSE, so, no amount of evidence supporting it would convince you.

The book of Mormon shows lack of knowledge about world history

No, actually, it doesn’t.

The book of Mormon contains words that were not in existence at the time it was said to have been written (500 - 600 BC) - words such as Church, Christ, BIBLE etc.

The KJV Bible contains words that were not in existence at the time the bible was said to have been written, as well. That’s why it is called a TRANSLATION. SHEESH.

Is this all false about the Mormons,if it is then enlighten me.

Some is true, more is false, and ALL is twisted beyond the recognition of someone who actually understands Mormonism…like, y’know, an actual Mormon.

Jo ann

 

[dianaiad]

I understand we all have our prism but it seems to me Catholics try much, much harder to help others understand us. Sometimes, it has takes pages of a thread to get a simple yes or no answer from a Mormon about what they believe. Maybe you can help with my understanding and problem with Mormon baptism?

Mormon baptism is for the forgiveness of sin and entrance into the covenant.
They reject infant baptism because the person being baptized must be willing.
They baptize for the dead, so people can enter the covenant.
BUT
Just like an infant, the dead person is baptized against their will. The human soul is being baptized without permission of that soul. The infant soul and the dead person’s soul have to later accept the covenant of Christ. How is that different from infant baptism? Where in the after life would a person’s soul be to not know God, and it still be possible to reject him?

Stephen, snarky and inaccurate comments aside, you are incorrect. I have been told several times by Catholics here that the reason that Catholics baptise infants is because that baptism leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul. That mark is WHY it is permissible to baptize infants without asking their permission. It is, in fact, the entire point. If it did NOT leave such a mark, so that the ‘infant soul’ would have to accept it later for it to be effective, why bother baptising infants? Why not wait until the child is old enough to understand what he is doing the first time?

No, it is important to you to baptise infants; there is something special that you are doing FOR that child, that sticks with or without that child’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

…and you can’t seem to get it through your head that WE DON’T THINK THAT WAY. Yes, we do the proxy work for the dead…but unlike you, we do NOT believe that this work has any effect whatsoever; none, until and unless the person for whom it is done wants it to have an effect. There is no “mark” on the soul at all, much less an ‘indelible’ one. If the person for whom it is done wants nothing to do with the idea, it’s ink on a page. Less than that.

How can it be any other way, when we are so adamantly AGAINST infant baptism? When we believe that Christ’s Atonement took care of any hint of original sin…and that infants are born utterly without sin–and if without sin, then without the need of baptism?

Our entire world view is that of free agency–free will. WE are the ones who choose; if we fall, we are the ones who stepped away.

There is no coercion here.

…and your final argument is circular. If we are correct, (and the only way that anybody would know these proxy baptisms were being offered to them would be if we WERE correct, wouldn’t you think?) then wouldn’t YOU accept the baptism? Wouldn’t you be very happy that it was being offered?

On the other hand, I have no problem at all, even with my limited understanding of human thought, imagining that some will say no. After all, a third of the host of heaven did.

 

[dianaiad]

I must add…what I was taught when LDS it was more about being at the age of “accountablity”. IE being able to understand right from wrong.

Little children dont have the abililty to understand right from wrong and Mormons believe that is necessary to be baptised.

“little children” don’t. However, by the time they are seven or eight, they pretty much have ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ figured out. Catholics seem to have figured that age to be about right, as well–don’t most of your ‘first communions’ or ‘confirmations’ happen right about that age?

There really are different prisms that people look thru…

Mormons, thru their prism, find the idea of baptism of infants, the Trinity, the idea of eternal life being about praising God, etc etc…very odd…

Trust me…I have looked thru BOTH prisms…and they are different…Dont let anyone tell you any different…They ARE very different ways of considering the nature of God and our place very very different…

Mormonism is a very different way of looking at things…spiritually speaking…

No getting around that reality

They are different. The problem comes when folks like Stephen insist that Mormons MUST look through a Catholic lens…and you seem to have missed something about that Catholic lens, especially in regard to infant baptism and original sin. That’s a huge difference.

the question is, is there, or is there not, a reason that infant baptism is a good idea? Does it, or does it not, have some effect upon the child? Is that effect 'indelible," or not?

If it has an effect upon the child…if that 'mark" is ‘indelible,’ then it is a very, very different situation from baptism…and proxy baptism…as viewed by us.

 

[twopekinguys]

Stephen, snarky and inaccurate comments aside, you are incorrect. I have been told several times by Catholics here that the reason that Catholics baptise infants is because that baptism leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul. That mark is WHY it is permissible to baptize infants without asking their permission. It is, in fact, the entire point. If it did NOT leave such a mark, so that the ‘infant soul’ would have to accept it later for it to be effective, why bother baptising infants? Why not wait until the child is old enough to understand what he is doing the first time?

No, it is important to you to baptise infants; there is something special that you are doing FOR that child, that sticks with or without that child’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

…and you can’t seem to get it through your head that WE DON’T THINK THAT WAY. Yes, we do the proxy work for the dead…but unlike you, we do NOT believe that this work has any effect whatsoever; none, until and unless the person for whom it is done wants it to have an effect. There is no “mark” on the soul at all, much less an ‘indelible’ one. If the person for whom it is done wants nothing to do with the idea, it’s ink on a page. Less than that.

How can it be any other way, when we are so adamantly AGAINST infant baptism? When we believe that Christ’s Atonement took care of any hint of original sin…and that infants are born utterly without sin–and if without sin, then without the need of baptism?

Our entire world view is that of free agency–free will. WE are the ones who choose; if we fall, we are the ones who stepped away.

There is no coercion here.

…and your final argument is circular. If we are correct, (and the only way that anybody would know these proxy baptisms were being offered to them would be if we WERE correct, wouldn’t you think?) then wouldn’t YOU accept the baptism? Wouldn’t you be very happy that it was being offered?

On the other hand, I have no problem at all, even with my limited understanding of human thought, imagining that some will say no. After all, a third of the host of heaven did.

I just want to address the infant baptism portion of your post.

You are almost there. Yes, the baptism does leave an “indelible mark”, but it is also for the forgiveness of original sin. Which if I am correct, the mormons don’t believe it.

Just so you have a clear understanding of what we believe.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, snarky and inaccurate comments aside, you are incorrect. I have been told several times by Catholics here that the reason that Catholics baptise infants is because that baptism leaves an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul. That mark is WHY it is permissible to baptize infants without asking their permission. It is, in fact, the entire point. If it did NOT leave such a mark, so that the ‘infant soul’ would have to accept it later for it to be effective, why bother baptising infants? Why not wait until the child is old enough to understand what he is doing the first time?

Four days a week I drive my car 45 miles to work; round trip. I use about 2.2 gallons of gasoline everyday to make the trip. The REASON I drive my car is to get to work and I also burn 2.2 gallons of gas in the process. The REASON is not to burn 2.2 gallons of gasoline; the REASON is to get to work.

You need to stop explaining Catholic beliefs to Catholics. It just makes you look bad.

 

[TheosisM]

Four days a week I drive my car 45 miles to work; round trip. I use about 2.2 gallons of gasoline everyday to make the trip. The REASON I drive my car is to get to work and I also burn 2.2 gallons of gas in the process. The REASON is not to burn 2.2 gallons of gasoline; the REASON is to get to work.

You need to stop explaining Catholic beliefs to Catholics. It just makes you look bad.

Thanks, I was about to respond to that part. Catholics do not baptize [infants, children, and adults] because it leaves an “indelible mark”. We baptize all people for the remission of sins. A result of baptism is the “indelible mark”, that forever marks someone as part of the family of Christ (though they can always choose to reject their inheritance and turn away from the family, just like any other family), however the point of baptism is not to receive the indelible mark, but it is for the remission of sins.

“We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”-Nicene Creed