LDS View of the Great Apostasy

[Z_Ninja]

Does say there were children either. I had at one time a household that did not have little children as well, thank goodness.

This is a very good question. Who do you believe brought all the writtings together? And did they have the authority to do so. It would make sense to bring them together, and I am sure why it took over 300 years to do so. So many hands, so many authorities. Some saying I have the proper authority and doctrines and another saying the same thing. Seems a miracle that any of it came through. got to go

But, if they were not supposed to baptize children under 8, shouldn’t that little bit of information have been included. The proper form, requirements and such should have been demonstrated.
Maybe like “Peter entered the house of Samuel where he baptized them all in the name of the LORD, except for the little ones who had to wait until their 8th year.”

And what about Luke 18:15

15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Exactly, the writings survived because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the authority handed down from the Apostles to their students, who they would have ordained. . As far as I’m concerned, there was one Authority and it was through the unbroken line of popes and bishops through the centuries. So, if Authority was removed from the Earth, why would you even bother to follow the Bible if the ECFs did not have the proper authority to decide what goes into the Bible?

 

[Fatboys]

Catholics also believe children have to reach the age of accountability to sin.

So Christ sacrificed only for children under 8 years old but not for people over 8 years old.
Why do you baptize sinless 8 yr olds?

Catholic believe Christ sacrificed himself for all of humanity not just people over the age of 8.

He sacrificed for all mankind. But does require repentance because the do not under the law. And why did Christ get napyized

 

[RebeccaJ]

It has never changed. People try to force doctrine down our throats because the prophet or apostles taught it. That is not how it works. Many times the prophets taught a higher level of understanding to help in the progress of the Saints. But many times the Saints were not ready to live it. So it was recended.

Are you just an experiment, where your God applies some new criteria to see what happens or what?

Or many times they taught their own opinions, but it does not make it doctrine.

So, they are false teachers.

What made it still seem like doctrines were the members trying to force it upon themselves and others. When teachings become doctrine there is a orgainized what of going it. First the prophet councils with his councilors, and if they support it, then it is presented to the rest of the apostles. If they accept it, then it is presented to the priesthood leaders and voted on. If all are in agreement, then it is presented to the general membership. It is voted on whether or not this doctrine is binding on us as a church. If it is accepted, then it becomes part of our doctrine and scriptures,

Not the view of the-way-things-work, that Brigham Young held. So your idea of how to determine what is doctrine has changed, and you have no doctrine that defines how to determine what is doctrine.

Pretty much, believe and teach whatever you like

It really takes a turn when people who hate the church use it as some wierd cult like teachings and beliefs. It may be wierd to those who are not familar with it, but I am sure that at the time of Christ, many of those people found what he taught was wierd and cult like. So it is a matter of perspective. As I have been studying Catholic history, I can actually see why there were parting of the ways of beliefs. I mean you have one leader teaching one thing and then another teaching something else. There were bishops in many of the cities, with no way to confirm the teachings they had been given. The bible did not exist for a couple of hundred years after the death of the last apostle. They did their best. That is why there were so many factions of christianity during this time. To say that there was a complete agreement on doctrines during this time is ridiculous… Just kidding. about ridiculous

It is Jesus Christ who gave us our doctrine. What Jesus taught cannot change, ever. Please give an example of where a Catholic doctrine has changed.

Asserting that Mormons do it differently, and being different makes you correct, is not an example.

thanks.

 

[Stephen168]

He sacrificed for all mankind. But does require repentance because the do not under the law. And why did Christ get napyized

Do sinless 8 yr old have to repent? Why do you baptize sinless 8 yr olds?

 

[Arandur]

Sounds nice, but biblically only those who held the authority were the only ones to be able to administer in the functions of the church. Such as casting out devils healings and baptism. I could be wrong, but I believe that not everone can baptise in the bible. And there is a reason to withhold baptism from infants if they do not need it.

Only those who were ordained could ordain (lay on hands). Only priests could institute the Eucharist. But you will find no such restriction on Baptism. As was Z ninja pointed out, there is the instance in Acts of the people who received Baptism of Desire, and who could then receive Confirmation (another Laying on of Hands to convey the Spirit to the faithful).

Also, you are erroneous about casting out devils and healings. Indeed, during Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Apostles came to him complaining that some people were casting out devils in Jesus’ name, but were not part of their company. Jesus said let them be! Why do you think that is?

Could it be that it is by Jesus’ power that these things are done, by invoking his name, and not merely by some power restricted to a few men?

As for households, yes, there may be some with all children above the age of 8. But of the many households directly spoken of in the NT (the most common explicitly-mentioned baptizing occurrence–the norm for baptism), do you really think that it was only those households with children over 8? That strains belief in a time where families were large and children left the household in their early to mid teens.

Moreover, why do you think it’s significant that the head of a household is spoken of, and then the whole household followed? In that time, the head of a household had authority over the rest, especially the young children, and decided for them. Just as a Jewish man could say, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” and have his sons circumcized into the covenant without them having any say whatsoever in it?

There are many reasons the circumcision connection is apt (Christians understanding baptism to have replaced circumcision as entrance in to the new covenant), not least of which for our discussion is the interesting point that the first recorded disputes over the timing of baptism for children was…whether to wait until the 8th day (the day set aside for circumcision), or whether baptism could be administered immediately after birth (they decided it wasn’t necessary to wait).

Indeed, there was no question recorded anywhere I have ever heard of about whether infants could be baptized until the 16th century. It was known that the new covenant was for you and your children, not something inferior to the old covenant, being withheld from your dear ones until some later date, before which they could die outside the covenant.

You made a lot of comments previous to this that need to be addressed, but I’ll have to get to them later, some time in the next few days.

 

[Arandur]

Do sinless 8 yr old have to repent? Why do you baptize sinless 8 yr olds?

And, as I’ve asked many people face to face who deny baptism until age 8 (with never even an attempt to answer), what happens if the child matures a little early and is rationally understanding of or accountable for their sins earlier?

What happens if a “precocious” 7.5 year old sins and then dies in their sin without baptism?

What happens if an 8 year old is too shy and wants to wait…but then dies in their sin without baptism? My little brother in law, of a restoration branch church (believes the BoM but not JS’s crazier later changes, like multiplicities of gods), was too shy and waited until he was 9…

Why would you wait until the devil has his hooks in a child (through sin) before passing on this free gift of Grace that God wants to give? How monstrous!

What about developmentally-disabled people? Do they just not need baptism, ever?

And as to water, what if you don’t have a sufficient water source, and the person is dying?
What if you’re in a desert and there’s never enough clean water to immerse?–you need that for drinking

Is God so impractical? Jesus’s own Universal Church is eminently practical, so that it can be easily preserved and transmitted to everyone–since God so dearly wants everyone to be saved.

 

[twopekinguys]

We do not believer infants can sin. Sin is the deliberate disobedience of Gods laws. Little children can not understand what is good and what is bad. When the reach the age of accountablity, then they begin to sin. Before that they are capable of disobeying God’s laws, but are not held accountable because they are innocent. Justice does not tolerate disobedience for any reason, and therefore the atonement of Christ excerises mercy upon justice. This is why little children need not repentance or baptism. Christ gave that to them through his sacrifice.

Where did the age of 8 come from?

Why not 9, or 7, or 6 3/4?

Who picked the number 8 out of a hat, and decided that’s when children are accountable?

Any reference at all for this?

Still waiting on that reference for the 99% comment you made before by the way.

 

[Stephen168]

Where did the age of 8 come from?

Why not 9, or 7, or 6 3/4?

And the Lord spake, saying, "Thy shalt only use immersion. Then shalt thou wait until age eight, no more, no less. Eight shall be the number thou shalt use, and the number of the waiting shall be eight. Nine shalt thou not wait, neither baptize at seven, excepting that thou then proceed to eight. Ten is right out. Once the number eight, being the eighth number, be reached, then dunkest thee in thy pool.

 

[twopekinguys]

Stephen168:


You are sooooo not right

 

[TexanKnight]

Sounds nice, but biblically only those who held the authority were the only ones to be able to administer in the functions of the church. Such as casting out devils healings and baptism. I could be wrong, but I believe that not everone can baptise in the bible. And there is a reason to withhold baptism from infants if they do not need it.

That is simply untrue. Remember when the Apostles complained because someone with no authority was teaching, etc. Remember what Jesus said?

Again…I exhort you to actually study

 

[RebeccaJ]

It has never changed. People try to force doctrine down our throats because the prophet or apostles taught it. That is not how it works. Many times the prophets taught a higher level of understanding to help in the progress of the Saints. But many times the Saints were not ready to live it. So it was recended. Or many times they taught their own opinions, but it does not make it doctrine. What made it still seem like doctrines were the members trying to force it upon themselves and others. When teachings become doctrine there is a orgainized what of going it. First the prophet councils with his councilors, and if they support it, then it is presented to the rest of the apostles. If they accept it, then it is presented to the priesthood leaders and voted on. If all are in agreement, then it is presented to the general membership. It is voted on whether or not this doctrine is binding on us as a church. If it is accepted, then it becomes part of our doctrine and scriptures,

It really takes a turn when people who hate the church use it as some wierd cult like teachings and beliefs. It may be wierd to those who are not familar with it, but I am sure that at the time of Christ, many of those people found what he taught was wierd and cult like. So it is a matter of perspective. As I have been studying Catholic history, I can actually see why there were parting of the ways of beliefs. I mean you have one leader teaching one thing and then another teaching something else. There were bishops in many of the cities, with no way to confirm the teachings they had been given. The bible did not exist for a couple of hundred years after the death of the last apostle. They did their best. That is why there were so many factions of christianity during this time. To say that there was a complete agreement on doctrines during this time is ridiculous… Just kidding. about ridiculous

Also, besides the point, which is, whether or not you believe these spurious teachings were doctrine, or not, they aren’t necessary for your salvation. right?

right.

 

[Porknpie]

Fatboys -

The Jews circumcised their infants at 8 days old.

Christians likewise bapitized infants as Baptism replaced circumcision in the New Covenant. “All households” were baptised which includes infants. No asterisks needed. No where does the bible limit baptism to children at the age of reason. To believe this is to read something that is not in the text. The early church fathers are clear in regards to infant baptism.

Below are a few ECF quotes…there are more.

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

**“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” **Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…**And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” **Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

LDS believe - implicitly or explicitly - that the Catholic Church infallibly selected that the 66 books in your KJV bible. If we got the 66 right out of nearly 300 (remember though a printing company removed 7 from God’s Word in your KJV), you’d have to think we could get this baptism thing right too. Infant baptism as a doctrine came into being when Christ was still on earth or at least with his 12 apostles. The books of the bible did not get canonized until 397AD.

You trust the books of the bible to be infallible selected 350 years after Christ’s death but you believe the Church got it wrong on Infant Bapitsm?

Pork

 

[TexanKnight]

Immersion vs pouring.

STILL waiting for you to show a Biblical verse where immersion was commanded or even MENTIONED. You keep dodging. Why is it you dodge this?

The fall of Adam

And?

, not sinning but transgression with the same result, but mortality vs original sin.

Are you saying we were all born into the garden of Eden and not in the cruel world?

Believing that infants can sin.

And yet you believe that no one can sin until 8? You must have never had children

A belief in the sinnless nature of Mary,

Ah…so you believe God allowed HIS son to be born in a sin-infested womb? How odd

celibacy,

So you ignore Paul?

what goes on during mass,

You mean the Bible readings and prayers to God? Hmmmmm

with the priest dressed as he is,

and how is that important to you? Does the Bible say to wear expensive suits like they do in the LDS Church?

with the incense,

which is mentioned in the Bible…remember?

the repititions of prayers

And that is a problem why?

, the belief that the bread and wine literally turns into flesh and blood of Christ

You you never read John 6 and the accounts of the last supper? odd

So, the things you disagree with are the Bible. That seems strange. But lets stay on this topic. I know you will dodge my questions…you always do, but I will ask the anyway.

Show me in the Bible where it says to use regular bread and water? Show me in the Bible where it says anything about Stakes…or First Counselors. or Second counselors. Show me where it talks in the Bible about Wards. Show me in the New Testament where God says polygamy is ok. Show me any of those. You can.t THOSE teachings are the Apostasy.

 

[Porknpie]

Sounds nice, **but biblically only those who held the authority were the only ones to be able to administer in the functions of the church. Such as casting out devils healings and baptism. **I could be wrong, but I believe that not everone can baptise in the bible. And there is a reason to withhold baptism from infants if they do not need it.

Fatboys -

This person was clearly not a Priest nor Deacon.

“And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy Name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My Name, that can lightly speak evil of Me. For he that is not against us is on our part.” (Mark 9:38-40 KJV)

(FYI I just got done reading a book on Exorcisms…An Exorcist: More Stories by Gabriele Amoth …is/was the Vatican head Exorcist)

 

[Janderich]

Stephen168,
First I would ask for clarity on this point. Don’t Catholics believe that a child is under the curse of original sin? Do Catholics believe in a “hereditary stain”? And exactly what form does this take?

At any rate, we do not believe there is a “hereditary stain”. Of course there is a spiritual and temporal death but Christ redeems little children from both without the need for baptism. “Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me." (Moroni 8:8)

Catholics also believe children have to reach the age of accountability to sin.

So Christ sacrificed only for children under 8 years old but not for people over 8 years old.
Why do you baptize sinless 8 yr olds?

Catholic believe Christ sacrificed himself for all of humanity not just people over the age of 8.

I see no discrepancy at eight years old as you imply. Baptism allows one to enter the covenant not just to be washed clean. Before the age of eight one is cleansed through the atonement after eight, one is cleansed through the atonement by obedience to the covenant. Baptism does not just apply to a person once and once only.

After the age of eight a person is accountable and subject to spiritual death, unless they repent. Because of this, a person must needs enter the covenant of baptism. The covenant is twofold. First the individual promises to take Christ’s name upon him, keep his commandments, and always remember him. Next, the Lord promises him the companionship of the Holy Ghost and the remission of sins. Through this covenant a person may continue to avail themselves of the atonement.

Now the question I have is: If, as you say, a child is not accountable, why would they need to be covered under the covenant as an infant? Must they be baptized to receive the atonement?

 

[KathleenGee]

Fatboys…going back to your post to me…so it all gets down to whether one is baptized by pouring or immersion???

The reality is the person is being baptized with water…and what or how was Jesus baptized …by immersion or pouring?..

So this is the essence of the what makes the apostasy…how incredulous.

What about the use of extraordinary or fable like means disregarding the day to day natural elements God used in the Old Testament as signs of His presence…burning bush, wind, fire, water…

We are looking at the essentials…and recall at Christ’s beginning of His ministry…there was a theophany…God the Father already defining Christ as His beloved Son with the Dove of the Holy Spirit over Christ.

It is the baptizing waters through the Holy Spirit that we are incorporated into Jesus Christ, and after His glorification in heaven, our reunion with the Heavenly Father. This was all accomplished by Pentecost, the beginning of the Church.

Sorry, Christ’s Church was established at Pentecost…no golden plates, polygamy, strange doctrines or ever changing fables, invalidation of Gospel 1800 years later in America…

The ever changing image of Mormonism…vs God the Unmoved Mover.

 

[Janderich]

I don’t see how anyone could say that baptism does not require authority. When the chief priests ask Jesus how he got his authority he says, “I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” (Matt 21:24-25) The chief priests fearing either answer said they could not tell. Why would Christ ask them about John’s authority to baptize if it was not required? Moreover, why would the chief priests question what to answer if authority did not matter?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Is God so impractical? Jesus’s own Universal Church is eminently practical, so that it can be easily preserved and transmitted to everyone–since God so dearly wants everyone to be saved.

Precisely.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

To be a Mormon (or a Protestant) you have to be either ignorant or believe that God doesn’t keep His promises or follow His own will.

 

[Stephen168]

If, as you say, a child is not accountable, why would they need to be covered under the covenant as an infant? Must they be baptized to receive the atonement?
Janderich;9978858:

Baptism allows one to enter the covenant not just to be washed clean.

Why would you wait until the devil has his hooks in a child (through sin) before passing on this free gift of Grace that God wants to give? How monstrous!

Yes, Mormons seem to believe the same thing happens at baptism that Catholics do, but prefer to put their children’s soul at risk.

At any rate, we do not believe there is a “hereditary stain”.

40 years ago you did. That was the reason Blacks were unworthy of the priesthood. But like all things Mormon, your god seems to have changed his mind.

 

[Fatboys]

Where did the age of 8 come from?

Why not 9, or 7, or 6 3/4?

Who picked the number 8 out of a hat, and decided that’s when children are accountable?

Any reference at all for this?

Still waiting on that reference for the 99% comment you made before by the way.

How many souls were saved when the earth was baptized? How old were babies when they were to be circumsized?

By the time a child reaches age eight, they begin to recongize the difference between good and bad and the consequences that come with disobedience. But they are old enough to be baptized as Jesus was baptized.

From Fairs.

Question:

1. If the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, why have the Mormons changed it? (There have been over 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, exclusive of punctuation changes)

FAIR’s analysis:

Members of the Church do not believe in a “one and only true text” of any scripture. The vast majority of changes made to the Book of Mormon are issues of grammar, spelling, and typographical errors. The few other changes in wording were not made by “Mormons,” but by Joseph Smith, the translator and prophet.
No change affects the meaning of the Book of Mormon text; Mormons can quite happily use the first edition of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the changes made in the 1981 edition brought the published text closer to the original manuscripts then available.
Christians should be careful with such attacks. If they don’t want to have a double standard, they’d have to realize that there are more differences in Biblical manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament! Yet, Latter-day Saints and other Christians still believe the Bible.
For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon textual changes and Biblical textual