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

[why_me]

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

And an infant needs a remission of sins? I think that you are not being totally truthful here. The reason is found in the early fathers:

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:“Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,” St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

From the Newadvent website.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The fate of the baby’s soul was in jeopardy if it wasn’t baptised before death. This is why the priest would run to the home or hospital if a chance of infant death was to occur. And if the priest did not make it to that home in time, the parents were left in fear for their baby’s soul. This is where limbo entered the picture.

 

[Marie5890]

Dianad…Theosis and Stephen addressed your misunderstanding about infant baptism so I will just let that stand.

 

[why_me]

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

Would you say the same to the catholics please who seem to keep explaining mormon beliefs to the mormons.

 

[TheosisM]

And an infant needs a remission of sins? I think that you are not being totally truthful here. The reason is found in the early fathers:

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:“Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,” St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

From the Newadvent website.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The fate of the baby’s soul was in jeopardy if it wasn’t baptised before death. This is why the priest would run to the home or hospital if a chance of infant death was to occur. And if the priest did not make it to that home in time, the parents were left in fear for their baby’s soul. This is where limbo entered the picture.

Please demonstrate how I am “not being totally truthful here”. As the Nicene Creed states, “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, and this applies to infants, children and adults, and is the reason for all baptism. Demonstrate how what I said contradicts what you pasted from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

I get it. The important part, for the purpose of this conversation, however, is the ‘indelible mark’ part. You believe that what you do does something to (or for) the child–no matter what he or she decides to do later, this baptism as an infant is done; it is a thing they cannot refuse, abrogate or destroy.

Indelible.

I’m not about to address whether that is a good thing or a bad one, or what it’s FOR; that’s irrelevant. The relevant thing is…that it is ‘a thing.’; and Stephen was projecting his view of infant baptism upon OUR view of proxy work. The two are not the same, nor is the effect the same in the eyes of those who perform them. He is projecting the idea that, just as CAtholic infant baptism puts an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul of the infant, so to must a proxy baptism put such a ‘mark’ upon the soul of the person for whom it is done.

The problem is, it is so incredible a paradigm shift that we can’t wrap our own heads around such a concept. We simply cannot conceive of a mindset that thinks it permissible to force such an eternal ‘mark’ upon someone else, without their knowledge and permission. It never occurs to us that anybody could think we would…and there, I’m beginning to understand, is the problem with proxy baptisms in general; this idea that it’s permissible for THEM to place ‘indelible marks’ upon the souls of their infants, without their knowledge or permission, and assuming that our proxy baptisms work the same way.

Ironic as all get out, too, given the arguments used.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

You need to stop explaining Catholic beliefs to me, Stephen, because when I repeat what YOU tell me, you are the one who looks bad.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Pardon my sloppy grammar…but whether the purpose of the baptism is the remission of sins (which I think is pretty silly given that infants can’t, y’know, COMMIT any) or the remission of original sin, the result is that indelible mark…and if that mark were not indelible, you wouldn’t DO it. Therefore the purpose for baptism is the remission of sins, and the reason you baptise for the remission of sins is because it puts an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul, indicating, I suppose, that this baptism was performed.

You are unable to defend your position, so you are circling around the rhetoric.

 

[TheosisM]

I get it. The important part, for the purpose of this conversation, however, is the ‘indelible mark’ part. You believe that what you do does something to (or for) the child–no matter what he or she decides to do later, this baptism as an infant is done; it is a thing they cannot refuse, abrogate or destroy.

Indelible.

I’m not about to address whether that is a good thing or a bad one, or what it’s FOR; that’s irrelevant. The relevant thing is…that it is ‘a thing.’; and Stephen was projecting his view of infant baptism upon OUR view of proxy work. The two are not the same, nor is the effect the same in the eyes of those who perform them. He is projecting the idea that, just as CAtholic infant baptism puts an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul of the infant, so to must a proxy baptism put such a ‘mark’ upon the soul of the person for whom it is done.

The problem is, it is so incredible a paradigm shift that we can’t wrap our own heads around such a concept. We simply cannot conceive of a mindset that thinks it permissible to force such an eternal ‘mark’ upon someone else, without their knowledge and permission. It never occurs to us that anybody could think we would…and there, I’m beginning to understand, is the problem with proxy baptisms in general; this idea that it’s permissible for THEM to place ‘indelible marks’ upon the souls of their infants, without their knowledge or permission, and assuming that our proxy baptisms work the same way.

Ironic as all get out, too, given the arguments used.

I agree. From the multiple proxy baptism threads recently, it seemed as if many were not getting that it doesn’t do anything unless they accept it, and that we simply operate in different theologies on what baptism is, who it’s for, what it does, who does it, etc.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianad…Theosis and Stephen addressed your misunderstanding about infant baptism so I will just let that stand.

Marie, does infant baptism leave an indelible mark upon the soul of the infant or not? It doesn’t MATTER why anyone wants to put that mark there, the point is…is it there? Does the infant have a choice in the matter, EVER?

 

[why_me]

Please demonstrate how I am “not being totally truthful here”. As the Nicene Creed states, “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, and this applies to infants, children and adults, and is the reason for all baptism. Demonstrate how what I said contradicts what you pasted from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The consequences for not having the baby baptized is the real reason that infants are baptized. Now, in this day and age I hear about god’s mercy if an infant dies without baptism. But back in the day, when I was studying catechism every sunday after children’s mass, where boys would sit on one side and girls on the side of the church, with parents sitting in the middle pews and nuns would be sitting with the boys and girls to keep us in line during mass, I remember what was taught about infant baptism when mass was ended and we went to study our catechism. And I don’t remember god’s mercy part at all. It was that the infant soul was in jeopardy if death occured before baptism.

And the church fathers that I quoted from would agree.

 

[TheosisM]

Pardon my sloppy grammar…but whether the purpose of the baptism is the remission of sins (which I think is pretty silly given that infants can’t, y’know, COMMIT any) or the remission of original sin, the result is that indelible mark…and if that mark were not indelible, you wouldn’t DO it. Therefore the purpose for baptism is the remission of sins, and the reason you baptise for the remission of sins is because it puts an ‘indelible mark’ upon the soul, indicating, I suppose, that this baptism was performed.

You are unable to defend your position, so you are circling around the rhetoric.

Stephen gave a wonderful analogy that explained the position, and I’m curious as to what position you believe I am unable to defend, especially since I was responding to an incorrect presentation of Catholic practice. This is quite simple. The purpose of baptism is for the remission of sins. As I mentioned twice, the Nicene Creed that we recite every Sunday states that “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. It does not say “we acknowledge one baptism for the indelible mark on the soul”. The purpose and reason for baptism is the same: remission of sins. The “indelible mark” is one of the results of baptism, baptism is specifically for the remission of sins.

And yes, obviously infants cannot commit any sins. Baptism is for the remission of all sins, including original sin and actual/personal sins. Therefore, when an infant is baptized, original sin is remitted. When an adult is baptized, original sin and their actual/personal sins are remitted (though usually they will go to confession prior to their baptism).

 

[dianaiad]

I agree. From the multiple proxy baptism threads recently, it seemed as if many were not getting that it doesn’t do anything unless they accept it, and that we simply operate in different theologies on what baptism is, who it’s for, what it does, who does it, etc.

You have it in one.

We do not believe that one must be baptised for the remission of any sins but one’s own; Jesus Christ, in His Atonement, took care of any original sin. At the risk of being clobbered again, I understand that in the Catholic viewpoint, baptism is for the remission of original sin…and if it IS, I can understand why everyone would want infants to have it; after all, it’s not fair to saddle an infant with a sin that is not his or her committing.

Neither do we…but we don’t believe that original sin is even in the mix. This is a very different window to look at the whole thing through.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The consequences for not having the baby baptized is the real reason that infants are baptized. Now, in this day and age I hear about god’s mercy if an infant dies without baptism. But back in the day, when I was studying catechism every sunday after children’s mass, where boys would sit on one side and girls on the side of the church, with parents sitting in the middle pews and nuns would be sitting with the boys and girls to keep us in line during mass, I remember what was taught about infant baptism when mass was ended and we went to study our catechism. And I don’t remember god’s mercy part at all. It was that the infant soul was in jeopardy if death occured before baptism.

And the church fathers that I quoted from would agree.

Telling people what they believe again.

 

[TheosisM]

You have it in one.

We do not believe that one must be baptised for the remission of any sins but one’s own; Jesus Christ, in His Atonement, took care of any original sin. At the risk of being clobbered again, I understand that in the Catholic viewpoint, baptism is for the remission of original sin…and if it IS, I can understand why everyone would want infants to have it; after all, it’s not fair to saddle an infant with a sin that is not his or her committing.

Neither do we…but we don’t believe that original sin is even in the mix. This is a very different window to look at the whole thing through.

Very true.

See my post above. Baptism is for the remission of all sins, both original and personal. In infants, since they cannot commit personal sins, original sin is the only “sin” that is remitted. In adults, both original and personal sins are remitted.

 

[dianaiad]

Stephen gave a wonderful analogy that explained the position, and I’m curious as to what position you believe I am unable to defend, especially since I was responding to an incorrect presentation of Catholic practice. This is quite simple. The purpose of baptism is for the remission of sins. As I mentioned twice, the Nicene Creed that we recite every Sunday states that “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. It does not say “we acknowledge one baptism for the indelible mark on the soul”. The purpose and reason for baptism is the same: remission of sins. The “indelible mark” is one of the results of baptism, baptism is specifically for the remission of sins.

And yes, obviously infants cannot commit any sins. Baptism is for the remission of all sins, including original sin and actual/personal sins. Therefore, when an infant is baptized, original sin is remitted. When an adult is baptized, original sin and their actual/personal sins are remitted (though usually they will go to confession prior to their baptism).

The problem I had here was that I was being attacked for word choice, and not substance. the reality is, if baptism IS for the remission of sins…would you do it at if one of the results was NOT that ‘indelible mark?’ Would you baptise your infants if you didn’t believe that it actually, y’know, WORKED–and thus LEFT that mark?

So another analogy would be…you have just completed a painting that you expect to sell for many thousands of dollars. You varnish it in order to protect it. Varnishing it leaves VARNISH on it…and that’s the point. You would not put water on your painting. You would not wave a magic wand over it. You do what you know will actually varnish it. With varnish.

Therefore, your purpose for varnishing your painting is to protect it with varnish.

The purpose for baptising infants, in the same way, is for remission of sins…and doing so leaves an indelible mark on the infant soul; that mark is the sign/ (varnish?) that this has been done. the child is protected…and that is the purpose.

…and when the conversation is about the permanent and indelible nature of the ‘mark,’ then it is perfectly appropriate to talk about creating it as the purpose behind baptism. It’s all context.

In all honesty, though, if Stephen and others had not decided to get insulting about it, I would have said…sorry, I should have stated that better, and gone on. I’m still not over the flu, and thus my temper and my patience are not at their smoothest.

 

[why_me]

Dianad…Theosis and Stephen addressed your misunderstanding about infant baptism so I will just let that stand.

Hello Marie!

You asked me for references and I gave you them. But you haven’t commented on my references of early church fathers. It seems that they were concerned for the child’s soul and more or less said that infants that were not baptised had a difficult eternity. What do you think about what the early church fathers said? Now of course, I know that the catholic church has evolved since then, but still, that is what was said. What do you think about it.

 

[dianaiad]

Telling people what they believe again.

Actually, I think he was telling you what HE believed.

 

[TheosisM]

The consequences for not having the baby baptized is the real reason that infants are baptized. Now, in this day and age I hear about god’s mercy if an infant dies without baptism. But back in the day, when I was studying catechism every sunday after children’s mass, where boys would sit on one side and girls on the side of the church, with parents sitting in the middle pews and nuns would be sitting with the boys and girls to keep us in line during mass, I remember what was taught about infant baptism when mass was ended and we went to study our catechism. And I don’t remember god’s mercy part at all. It was that the infant soul was in jeopardy if death occured before baptism.

And the church fathers that I quoted from would agree.

No why me, the consequences for not having the baby baptized is not the real reason that infants are baptized. All people, whether they are infants, children, or adults, are baptized for the remission of sins. There is only one baptism, therefore there is only one reason why people are baptized. Because baptism also remits original sin, Catholics (and others) baptize infants as well. Infants do not have personal sins, so those are only remitted in those that are able to commit personal sins. The Church Fathers that you quoted actually agree with me, because Augustine states that [infant] baptism is for the remission of original sin (since he believes that one cannot be Catholic and believe that an infant can receive a remission of original sin apart from baptism). And just as a fyi, not everything that the ECFs taught was doctrinal, and many of the things they believed simply are not actual Catholic teaching. Augustine, for example, believed in an “original guilt” that has never been Catholic teaching on original sin.

 

[why_me]

Telling people what they believe again.

I just quoted from the early church fathers and I do know what I was taught in catechism and people my age who went through catechism would agree. I was around during the devil was red with a pitch fork time.

 

[Marie5890]

Marie, does infant baptism leave an indelible mark upon the soul of the infant or not? It doesn’t MATTER why anyone wants to put that mark there, the point is…is it there? Does the infant have a choice in the matter, EVER?

Yes it does leave a mark.

I take it you find this offensive for whatever reason.

Looking at one of your recent posts I understand the point you were trying to make in the comparison of infant baptism and proxy baptism is well founded.

LDS dogma is that the person can either accept it or reject it. There is no “mark” on them

Infant baptism is different in its dogma.

In reading your posts, your tone seems angry, aggravated, even bitter at times. I realize I could be wrong in this.

It’s made me wonder what this is all about for you? Has some Catholic offended you?

When I was LDS I found that Catholics were hardly ever Anti-Mormon. I found the real viral hatred and attacks came from either really angry and bitter former Mormons, (they can be really nasty) or the Evangelical fundamentalists, esp the southern groups.

Life’s a gift and it’s too short to let someone else’s belief system throw a wrench into one’s own spiritual journey with Christ.

Mormonism works for you That’s great. I wish you well in your path.

Catholicism works for many of us here. That too is great.

I can’t help but wonder what Christ would do if He were here amongst us in the flesh??

Get up and leave and go and do good for someone in need?
Rebuke the un-Chirst-like nature some of these posts tend to take on??

I have no problem in asking honest questions. Answering with honest answers. Encouraging people to do research research research.

But I really have little interest when posts tend to get a sense of

“My church is better than your chruch” tone to them.

That sounds something like elementary school children would bicker about it. And its been a very very long since I was in elementary school.

Ive never real ever seen the value in debating different belief systems, either when I was Mormon, as now as a Catholic.