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

[Marie5890]

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.

Im sorry Why Me could you post to the post you are referring to? I have been reading other threads in other parts of CAF so I may have missed it?

Thanks

 

[TheosisM]

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.

No worries dianaiad. I wasn’t trying to attack you, just to clarify what you said, and I can see your point. The indelible mark cannot be separated from what baptism does, and I think I actually mean that the remission of sins is the main point of baptism.

Hope you feel better.

 

[Marie5890]

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.

WhyMe is sounds like Theosis has given you the explanation to your question.

Hope that helps answer your questions.

 

[Marie5890]

Opp…Dianad…

Just read your reply stating you are not feeling well…

Feel better soon…

Being sick is never any fun!!

I think you should give yourself a gift and take a break until you feel better!

You need to take care of you and use your energy to feel better…

 

[dianaiad]

Yes it does leave a mark.

I take it you find this offensive for whatever reason.

No, I take no offense at it at all. This is your belief–and parents are doing what they think best for their children in utter love and faith. It would be completely idiotic for me to take offense at the love parents show their children!

What I DO note is the intense irony of this position…that Catholics will do this to their infants without permission…that is, put an ‘indelible mark’ upon their souls…and think that this is perfectly acceptable, and then turn around and criticize Mormons for doing proxy work. I think it is an incredible double standard—and THAT I take offense at. Catholics get all bent out of shape because we OFFER a proxy baptism that has absolutely NO effect until and unless it is accepted willingly by the recipient, and is utterly meaningless if it is not…
…and they are forcing a baptism upon infants without the permission of those infants, and claim that those infants (because of course the mark is indelible) never WILL have any say in it. It’s done. That’s it, will you, nill you.

No, it’s not the infant baptism that is offensive. It is (under the circumstances) the incredible chutzpah y’all have in criticizing what WE do that is. It’s not even the pot calling the kettle black. It’s the pot calling the window black because all it can see is its reflection.

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.

You aren’t wrong, especially this week. (sigh)

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

(grin) quite frequently, Marie. That’s rather the point of the non-Catholic religions forum. If you go back awhile, you will see that attacks upon Mormonism are frequent–and pretty much unchanging. If someone (like me) corrects a misstatement about what our beliefs ARE, then the anti’s will either just change the subject and go to another as if nothing were said, or ignore what was said. Most of the time, in a week, or two, or three—the same stupid claims will be made by someone else. I get on this forum (and THIS forum is actually more polite that almost anywhere else) and the FIRST thing I see is a side bar where CAF is selling anti-something or other books, usually anti-Mormon books. “What Mormons really Believe,” or “Beginning Apologetics” (with the contents about how to address Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or something) …there is almost always ONE anti-Mormon text for sale, usually two. Once in awhile all three are anti-Mormon.

I don’t have a problem with people who disagree with my beliefs…if they are actually disagreeing with my beliefs. That would be refreshing, actually. But that very seldom happens. Mostly the attacks are upon strawmen…and it’s getting very old.

THIS week, though, I plead swine flu.

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.

This is absolutely true…and one of the reasons I’m still HERE.

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.

 

[dianaiad]

Opp…Dianad…

Just read your reply stating you are not feeling well…

Feel better soon…

Being sick is never any fun!!

I think you should give yourself a gift and take a break until you feel better!

You need to take care of you and use your energy to feel better…

Thank you, Marie…I think I will go crawl back under the bed now, at that.

 

[Marie5890]

. I get on this forum (and THIS forum is actually more polite that almost anywhere else) and the FIRST thing I see is a side bar where CAF is selling anti-something or other books, usually anti-Mormon books. “What Mormons really Believe,” or “Beginning Apologetics” (with the contents about how to address Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or something) …there is almost always ONE anti-Mormon text for sale, usually two. Once in awhile all three are anti-Mormon.

Ohhh swine flu (or the porker flu as I affectionately call it )

I bet I can explain those lists of books on the side bar…Its a form of advertizing that is computer generated by what is being talked about in the threads…
Ive been on other forums where the same thing happens and the owners over the site have no power over it…

someone would talk say about flowers and the next thing you know the adverts on the site would start being about flowers or online florists etc…!!

Took awhile for all of us to realize it was a computer program of the site gathering info on words and then spitting out adverts on that topic…

GET SOME REST!!!

fluids fluids fluids as my mother would say

 

[why_me]

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

Marie has annoyed me a little with her comments about the lds church and research, research, research remarks.

It is quite amazing just how catholics are whitewashing their past. Now I have to admit growing up catholic was a good thing for me. It kept me in line and in confession once a month. I liked it. But I also was afraid of hell and hell is where I was heading as a boy if I did not go to confession. And hell, was a place of fire with a red serpent with pointed tail and pitch fork. But I was a good boy that is for sure. And I have no regrets at all about catechism class.

And infant baptism is the same. The real down to earth reason was to save the soul of the baby in case he or she were to die. Without baptism, his or her soul went into uncertainity. So it was recommended to have the baptism as soon as possible.

My post does not contain intellectual elitism…just down to earth teaching from that time in the early sixties.

 

[why_me]

Im sorry Why Me could you post to the post you are referring to? I have been reading other threads in other parts of CAF so I may have missed it?

Thanks

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

 

[TheosisM]

Marie has annoyed me a little with her comments about the lds church and research, research, research remarks.

It is quite amazing just how catholics are whitewashing their past. Now I have to admit growing up catholic was a good thing for me. It kept me in line and in confession once a month. I liked it. But I also was afraid of hell and hell is where I was heading as a boy if I did not go to confession. And hell, was a place of fire with a red serpent with pointed tail and pitch fork. But I was a good boy that is for sure. And I have no regrets at all about catechism class.

And infant baptism is the same. The real down to earth reason was to save the soul of the baby in case he or she were to die. Without baptism, his or her soul went into uncertainity. So it was recommended to have the baptism as soon as possible.

My post does not contain intellectual elitism…just down to earth teaching from that time in the early sixties.

Please. No Catholic here is whitewashing anything. What we are addressing, practically on every thread that you post on, is your misrepresentation of actual Catholic teaching through the centuries (especially your seemingly endless stories from your “Catholic childhood” which make me laugh every time), which many of us have studied in formal settings (outside of catechism classes). It baffles me (and probably others) when you attempt to put forth your claim on infant baptism as the “real down to earth reason” why it was/is done, when that is clearly false. Infant baptism (and adult baptism) is done for the remission of sins, specifically original sin in the case of infants. In fact, your claim as to the “real reason” why infant baptism is practiced would be wonderful to discuss with others that practice it as well (Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc).

What many Catholic theologians speculated on was what happened to infants that died without baptism, which led to the widely-believed theological position (non-doctrinal, though doctrinally correct (meaning that limbo was never an actual doctrine, though it does not contradict anything in the Catholic faith)) on limbo. However, it is completely erroneous to state that the “real reason” why infant baptism is practiced is because of some sort of fear or to save the baby in case it died. The real reason why we baptize infants is the same reason why we baptize adults: for the remission of sins, and that has always been the case.

 

[TheosisM]

Im sorry Why Me could you post to the post you are referring to? I have been reading other threads in other parts of CAF so I may have missed it?

Thanks

Why Me is misrepresenting the ECFs. Yes, they did have a concern for infants that died without baptism, as did other theologians after them (leading to the speculation on limbo). However, neither the ECFs nor the Catholic Church ever believed that this was the reason why we baptize infants. Again, we baptize infants for the same reason that we baptize adults: for the remission of sins. There is one faith, one baptism, one reason for that baptism.

 

[Marie5890]

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

I have no problem with this. I dont find it contradicting anything I was taught.

(Sorry if I dont remember what your original concern was. Was it the “fear” for the baby if the baby died w/o baptism?)

Fear and guilt has been a strong elements in just about all Christian denominations thru out the ages. I know it’s had its place in both Catholicism and Mormonism. And I find both have focused away from that sort of prisms in the recent past decades. Focusing more on love, mercy, forgiveness etc.

I admittedly am very big into research. I love doing it. I love encouraging others to do it as well. I think its very helpful in making well-informed decisions.

I dont like being deceived or duped. The only way I can have some element of protection against that is to take responsibility for my own understanding of whatever the topic is.

If that is what you see as “intellectual elitism” I cant stop you.

But I believe in it. And I encourage others to do so as well and not just take what people have to say at face value.

 

[Marie5890]

Why Me is misrepresenting the ECFs. Yes, they did have a concern for infants that died without baptism, as did other theologians after them (leading to the speculation on limbo). However, neither the ECFs nor the Catholic Church ever believed that this was the reason why we baptize infants. Again, we baptize infants for the same reason that we baptize adults: for the remission of sins. There is one faith, one baptism, one reason for that baptism.

Don’t worry. Im not worried about Why Me. I’ve come to think he is wanting to trap people the way many tried to trap Jesus with their questions.

It happens.
I find no offense in it.
I just pause and wonder what the motives are.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

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.

We don’t baptize for the dead, but thanks for affirming what I said about the Mormon belief about baptizing for the dead.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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

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.

If he was telling us what he believed then he wouldn’t use the present tense in the bolded part. The first sentence is a flat out statement on why we baptize infants, and with the use of “real reason” and he implies that though we say otherwise his reason is actually why we baptize infants. My parents were born “back in the day” (1920 and 1930) and they talked about God’s mercy if an infant dies without baptism, so mercy is not a new concept for us.

 

[why_me]

Why Me is misrepresenting the ECFs. Yes, they did have a concern for infants that died without baptism, as did other theologians after them (leading to the speculation on limbo). However, neither the ECFs nor the Catholic Church ever believed that this was the reason why we baptize infants. Again, we baptize infants for the same reason that we baptize adults: for the remission of sins. There is one faith, one baptism, one reason for that baptism.

When I was a boy, the church was very Augustinian. Those babies who died without being baptized died in original sin and as such were denied Christ’s pressence. And that is what Saint Augustine is saying. And it is that that I remember. And many catholic mothers felt pain if their baby died before baptism. And that pain was very real and sad.

How would you interpret what Augustine said about not being able to obtain a remission of original sin and not being vivified in christ?

The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

I just checked the Wiki and got the above. And a lot of what I remember from my boyhood is in there especially the damned part. Now were the teachers wrong? Perhaps. But one can see the sadness of the mothers who were told the extreme negative interpretation or even the denial of beatific vision or never being able to obtain it.

I prefer the mormon interpretation: those who died as infants go straight to the Father and our doing marvelous work for him in eternity. They were choice spirits in the preexistence.

Diana can correct me if I am wrong about the mormon interpretation.

 

[why_me]

If he was telling us what he believed then he wouldn’t use the present tense in the bolded part. The first sentence is a flat out statement on why we baptize infants, and with the use of “real reason” and he implies that though we say otherwise his reason is actually why we baptize infants. My parents were born “back in the day” (1920 and 1930) and they talked about God’s mercy if an infant dies without baptism, so mercy is not a new concept for us.

It is what my generation believed and was taught. To die in original sin had no positive connotation at all to my generation. Your parents must have had very enlightened priests because such talk is extremely modern coming from the secular age which we now live:

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=46911

“Original Sin is a reality that really marks the fragility of the human condition,” the archbishop remarked. Salvation from sin can come only through Jesus Christ, and baptism is necessary to remove the stain of Original Sin. But in the case of children who are not baptized, through no fault of their own, “then it would seem that the saving power of Christ ought to prevail over the power of sin,” he said. In a “complex and secularized society,” questions about the fate of unbaptized children are raised more and more frequently, Archbishop Forte said. Most pastors, he continued, respond to those questions by encouraging the faithful to place their trust in God’s mercy and entrust the children to his loving care. That pastoral response, he noted, is backed by the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I must say, it sounds much better than when I was a boy. Many mothers would have loved to be told about mercy back then. But even now, the archbishop needs to use words like it would seem. But he doesn’t know.

 

[TheosisM]

When I was a boy, the church was very Augustinian. Those babies who died without being baptized died in original sin and as such were denied Christ’s pressence. And that is what Saint Augustine is saying. And it is that that I remember. And many catholic mothers felt pain if their baby died before baptism. And that pain was very real and sad.

How would you interpret what Augustine said about not being able to obtain a remission of original sin and not being vivified in christ?

The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered, have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

I just checked the Wiki and got the above. And a lot of what I remember from my boyhood is in there especially the damned part. Now were the teachers wrong? Perhaps. But one can see the sadness of the mothers who were told the extreme negative interpretation or even the denial of beatific vision or never being able to obtain it.

I prefer the mormon interpretation: those who died as infants go straight to the Father and our doing marvelous work for him in eternity. They were choice spirits in the preexistence.

Diana can correct me if I am wrong about the mormon interpretation.

Why Me, I have already addressed this.

The Wikipedia article you quoted states what I have already stated: the Limbo of Infants is a hypothesis; that it has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it.(or, as I stated, a Catholic can believe in the Limbo of Infants if they want to, because it is doctrinally correct (meaning that it does not contradict anything that has already been revealed), however it is not dogma.

As another Catholic already mentioned, the Catholic Church has continuously taught the mercy of a just God, and that in this, the salvation (to Heaven) of unbaptized infants is believed. This is similar to the doctrine of baptism of desire. As Catholics, we believe that baptism is normative for salvation. However, we also believe that our merciful and just God can and does save those who, through no fault of their own, were unbaptized (and are ignorant of the Gospel), and would have accepted it if they had the chance to.

So again, a Catholic is free to believe in limbo if they want to, and I’m sure many do. Catholics are also free to believe in the official position of the Church, that we have faith in a merciful and just God to save unbaptized babies, similar to (but not the same as) baptism of desire.

Augustinian theology is not always correct, especially as it relates to original sin (and the concept of ‘original guilt’ inherited). Theologians speculate on many matters that are non-doctrinal, and it is important for everyone to realize that the ECFs were not infallible, and their words are not scripture (though they are helpful to see what the early Christians believed and taught). The same goes for theologians today.

 

[TheosisM]

It is what my generation believed and was taught. To die in original sin had no positive connotation at all to my generation. Your parents must have had very enlightened priests because such talk is extremely modern coming from the secular age which we now live:

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=46911

“Original Sin is a reality that really marks the fragility of the human condition,” the archbishop remarked. Salvation from sin can come only through Jesus Christ, and baptism is necessary to remove the stain of Original Sin. But in the case of children who are not baptized, through no fault of their own, “then it would seem that the saving power of Christ ought to prevail over the power of sin,” he said. In a “complex and secularized society,” questions about the fate of unbaptized children are raised more and more frequently, Archbishop Forte said. Most pastors, he continued, respond to those questions by encouraging the faithful to place their trust in God’s mercy and entrust the children to his loving care. That pastoral response, he noted, is backed by the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I must say, it sounds much better than when I was a boy. Many mothers would have loved to be told about mercy back then. But even now, the archbishop needs to use words like it would seem. But he doesn’t know.

And as the article states, he is supporting the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and is a position similar to that of baptism of desire.

 

[joann1957]

Thank you, Marie…I think I will go crawl back under the bed now, at that.

Hope you are feeling better , just a question i have for you.? If you believe so firmly in your convictions with your doctrine and being a Mormon why are you on a Catholic forum.?

Just curious

Joann