LDS View of the Great Apostasy

[Arandur]

Not quite. Children under age eight are saved without baptism. Even in temples we do not do baptism for children who never reached the age of accountability. Past age eight a child is accountable and needs baptism to enter the kingdom of heaven.

You also said that you must be in the Covenant to enter the Kingdom of Heaven…and that it is only by Baptism that you enter the Covenant. See the problem?

You deny children entrance into the Covenant, even though it is “for you and your children,” as the Scripture says. You keep them out of the house.

As my brother says by way of analogy, leaving a child without baptism is like the parents setting the child outside the protection of the home, letting him play and wander in the field when there are known to be ravening wolves around. When he comes, frightened, to the door, they say “no, you can’t enter until you’re ready to make a choice, to really understand your actions.”

You want to wait until age 8 to take them into the protection of the Covenant, to convey that gift of Grace that bolsters a child, strengthens the spirit. You require the child to first sin and, by personal sin, lose even what grace of innocence he had, before letting him unite with the Body of Christ in the New and Everlasting (not interrupted for 1800 years) Covenant.

 

[Arandur]

Of course Christ validates the ordinance, but he does not perform it. Is God’s kingdom so disorganized that any person may perform a baptism by simply saying a few words? If a random citizen gave me a ticket for speeding I wouldn’t accept it as valid, even it was on the right form. If man in his imperfect state can recognize the need for authority here on Earth can God’s kingdom be more disorganized as this?

You want to trot this out after ignoring my comments earlier about how incredibly impractical your beliefs are to a Church meant for everyone?

Try operating in the tens of millions and billions, across the whole earth, with no modern conveniences, infrastructure, literacy, etc. as the Church had to do for most of its history. Joseph Smith’s ideas were incredibly anachronistic; his vision of a church could not have existed in earlier times. A common problem among Protestants, too, who can’t imagine a world without a literate populace and printing presses. Even some earlier ideas put forward here that it was “understandable” that the Church couldn’t hold together with the great distances and communication problems help to demonstrate the anachronistic thinking. God is not so stupid as to create a Church that can only operate and hold together with modern conveniences, no matter what restorationists imagine.

The Church says that, in extraordinary circumstances, anyone, even a non-baptized person, can perform a baptism for someone so wishing it, so long as they have the intent that the Church has when performing it, use whatever actual, physical water is at hand, and invoke the name of God with the Scriptural request, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Jesus and the receptive spirit of the recipient take care of the rest.

This is an extension of the authority of Christ, extended by Him through His Church (to which He gave binding and loosing authority). It was given because, as others have posted before, God desires that all men be saved, and that, like with Philip and the Eunuch, none need wait but may have baptism at the moment of true desire, not needing to understand anything fully. In such emergencies, no one aught be denied baptism, which we know as a sure means of salvation.

The ordinary means, of course, is through a ritual ceremony with an ordained priest or deacon, in the presence of at least one Godparent and usually many more witnesses to welcome the new Christian into the Family of God.

How anyone could call the Catholic Church “disorganized” is beyond me It truly requires a lack of knowledge to hold such a position.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is from my perspective and studies. I have not only studied from LDS sources but from Non LDS sources. I do not want to disrespect, and if I do I apologize first off.

The apostacy did not just occur after the death of the last apostle. It was taking place during the ministry of the apostles. When they would go to a city and convert jews to the gospel, they set up a organization there. But many times because of communications they were left to themselves with only the old law. There was not bible or New testiment to study and glean truths from. This is why Paul wrote letters of correction to the different cities. But you can imagine that Paul could not address all the concerns, and could not correct fast enough. So jewish traditions and outside influences crept in.

    When the apostles were killed off faster than they could replace them, the apostacy sped up. For a couple of hunderd years after the death of the last apostle, there was still not a combined book of the New Testament. You had parts of the written gospel here and there. I am not saying that those who in apostacy were evil doers, but that they were doing their best with what they had. The gosple message was so good, and so strong that even though I believe that it had started to be distorted and truths had been lost or replace that it still brought people together. It united people. It caused them to be better than they were. But because I believe that authority to act in Gods name left with the last of the apostles, the whole earth tumbled into the dark ages. For centuries little or no progress was made. Men in power desires were not to improve the people as a whole but only about them gaining more power and control. Under this setting came Constantine. A ruler with a problem of how to unite the people he had control over. He could see that Christianity was a great unifying force. And thus we have religion taking over the control of the people by this. Because of this, wars were started in the name of Christ. There was such a control over the people that if there were differing views about religion, they were either banned or killed. This was a great motivator follow oners leaders. 

    This is a very brief overview, and I am sure that you have heard this many times. This is my view.

I will address one of the views about why I believe Catholics believe there is a unbroken link. I will go to the first prophet of the church after the death of Christ. Peter. The scriptures teach that Christ was asking his disciples who men thought he was. Some said that he was Elijah, or an Elias, or some said he was John the Baptist. But Christ said who do you think it is I am… Peter stated that,“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Christ said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonah, For flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.

He is my understanding. Peter did not know that Jesus was the Christ because Jesus told him so. At that time Jesus was flesh and blood. And as much as someone can tell another truth, as someone here has said, they really do not know 100% that it is true. But Jesus said that through personal revelation from the Father that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ.

   Jesus then went on to say that "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" In my view Christ was not refering to Peter as the rock. But the rock that gave Peter the understanding that Jesus is the Christ. Christ would not build his church on the arm of the flesh, because we know not long after this Peter denied the very Christ and Savior of the world. Not once, but three times. Christ stated that the very gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Again my understanding is that the Gates of Hell are the gates that hold the dead in. Once the gospel has been accepted, and the resurrection has taken place, the gates that hold the dead will be open and make it possible that a reuniting of the spirits and bodies takes place.

That is my understanding of this.

Fatboy,

When I wanted to make a meatloaf, I went to the cookbook. The White House Cookbook, Joy of Cooking…and after much frustration…just asked my mom…

Hey mom, how do you make meatloaf…well here is a tried and true recipe that we have used for generations…books as you know have variations…so she told me, I made it…and now I can make meatloaf.

This entire LDS argument hinges on “Sola Scriptura”…people are not people of the book…only Protestants that say that they are people of the book and in fact they use other than the book…

This nonsense about copying…obviates me telling you, you telling a friend, your friend coming over with other friends and me telling them…without a book…

Does the Tea Party have a book?

Then you have to concede that Joseph Smith with the Protestant paradigm in his head…“Sola Scriptura”…the book is wrong…translated a book…and is the book the end of what it is LDS teach…no…then comes the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants…more books…

LDS propose that the book is wrong, we trust this one guy to produce a book, that isn’t sufficient and then we have these other books and writings…all falling into the camp of writing…

Forgetting that only Protestants are people of the book alone…Joseph goofed up man…just isn’t going to fly…

 

[TexanKnight]

Did you see what you did here. You were talking about baptism and then as if your position was to weak you took another path. If you want to talk about that fine, but stick to one topic, and quit trying to deflect of change the topic.

You mean like every post of of proof and questions I have made that you run from?

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormons reject the Sacred Scriptures of the Catholics but chose the Protestants’ versions.

If Jesus wanted us to follow Sola Scriptura…which is not even promoted by Sacred Scripture any way, He would have passed out Bibles way back then.

The problem with text is that it is open to personal interpretation.

The USA has the most shattered Christianity in the world.

 

[KathleenGee]

I pass by the Mormon temple several times a day and at night and there are cars there at all hours…people ‘earning’ their way to progression by proxy baptism…I sense something nefarious always…when I look over at the grounds with the cars.

It is so sad to see Mormons want to believe in the gnostic writings of Joseph Smith and his followers but deny the great historical, verifiable and documented history of the Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree with you that only those who are aware of the need for baptism and reject it have sinned.

Yes, however, you then go on to say those who have not been baptized have sinned. As it is sin that keeps us from the Kingdom of God.

However, at some point, whether in this life or the next, all will hear the gospel message. All must eventually decide. There are no fence sitters.

This is believed by no one but Mormons.

Jesus has said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”(John 3:5).
And again, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep…by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” (John 10:7,9)

Belief is still required, and belief requires being taught IN THIS LIFE. Jesus never taught the Mormon innovations of the cares of this life continuing into the next. What would be the point?

I still think you should have proxy excommunications.

 

[twopekinguys]

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)

So, based on your answer, the number 8 was picked out of thin air. There is no Biblical reference saying it should be 8. You all just made it up is what you’re saying.

Kids mature at different rates. Girls faster than boys. (I’m sure you’ve heard that before) Developmentally disabled may never mature to that age, etc. ect.

Bottom line, you have a non scriptural and arbitrary process going on there, which is another reason your baptisms are not valid.

Again, “vast majority” is not a number. Vast majority is subjective, and could mean anything from 51% up. You stated a number, give us proof, or retract it.

Simple as that.

BTW, I gave you two specific examples of changes that were doctrinal in nature, and not typographical etc, and you stated they were not doctrinal changes. Please explain how changing from “Mary, the mother of God”, to “the mother of the son of God” is not a doctrinal change?

Just saying it isn’t doesn’t work I’m afraid.

 

[Janderich]

Yes, however, you then go on to say those who have not been baptized have sinned. As it is sin that keeps us from the Kingdom of God.

I have never said not being baptized is a sin. Those are your words not mine. However, it is clear that not being baptized certainly can keep us from the kingdom of God as Jesus plainly taught in John 3.

RebeccaJ:

Belief is still required, and belief requires being taught IN THIS LIFE. Jesus never taught the Mormon innovations of the cares of this life continuing into the next. What would be the point?

Rebecca, if at least some of the cares of this life are not carried into the spirit world then why did Christ go preach to the spirits in prison?

For Peter says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18-20). So he not only went to the spirit world, but he felt it necessary to preach to the individuals there. Would Christ preach to them if they could not improve their condition?

This then is the point, individuals in the spirit world can change. They can accept the gospel. They can receive the ordinances of salvation and still be saved in the kingdom of God.

 

[Janderich]

You also said that you must be in the Covenant to enter the Kingdom of Heaven…and that it is only by Baptism that you enter the Covenant. See the problem?

LITTLE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY SAVED IN CHRIST AND NEED NO BAPTISM! Must I scream it from the roof tops and shout it in the streets? Children are not responsible for Adam’s transgression nor are they required to be baptized in order to free themselves from fallen nature. They do not need the covenant for they are not accountable for their sins.

Arandur:

You deny children entrance into the Covenant, even though it is “for you and your children,” as the Scripture says. You keep them out of the house.

As my brother says by way of analogy, leaving a child without baptism is like the parents setting the child outside the protection of the home, letting him play and wander in the field when there are known to be ravening wolves around. When he comes, frightened, to the door, they say “no, you can’t enter until you’re ready to make a choice, to really understand your actions.”

You want to wait until age 8 to take them into the protection of the Covenant, to convey that gift of Grace that bolsters a child, strengthens the spirit. You require the child to first sin and, by personal sin, lose even what grace of innocence he had, before letting him unite with the Body of Christ in the New and Everlasting (not interrupted for 1800 years) Covenant.

The supposed requirement that little children must be baptized seeks to limit God’s grace, not expand it! It requires that a child must be baptized in order to be saved. Argue with me that Mormons are too liberal with God’s grace, that we believe him to be too kind if you must, but do not say we deny God’s grace! Such a statement is completely and utterly wrong. We believe ALL little children are saved in the kingdom of heaven.

And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! (Moroni 8:9-12, emphasis added)

Children are not accountable, therefore they do not need to repent. Because they do not need to repent they do not need the covenant, they are saved without baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

The supposed requirement that little children must be baptized seeks to limit God’s grace, not expand it! It requires that a child must be baptized in order to be saved

This is not a correct explication of Catholic teaching on baptism, Janderich.

We proclaim that baptism is the normative means by which we are saved through Christ. We don’t claim that it is “required”, as in an absolute.

Were you aware that we have a feast day celebrating the tiny folks we memorialize as being in heaven who were never baptized? It’s in December and it is called the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

 

[Z_Ninja]

You would think that if Mary was perfect, that it would say she was, born without original sin. Of course I believe she was born without original sin because I believe there is no such thing as original sin. But you do, and you believe that Mary was perfect in order to have the Son of God. But if Mary was perfect and we know Heavenly Father was perfect then how could Christ desend below all things in order to rise above all things?

It does not say she was “perfect” no… but it does say she was “full of grace”.
grace defined by Webster

a : unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b : a virtue coming from God
c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace

so through God’s divinity, she was already freed from sin.

I also believe there were many important writtings left out of the bible that were written by some of the apostles and others. So they didn’t get it all right. But I accept what we do have.

Why accept it if you think it’s wrong? What specifically was so important that was left out?

 

[Porknpie]

LITTLE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY SAVED IN CHRIST AND NEED NO BAPTISM!

That is not based on a scripture…“all households were baptised” which includes infants by defintion.

No where in the bible does it say that children should wait until the age of 8.

The old covenantal sign, circumcision, occured on the 8th day of life…

The early church fathers …who received their teachings through apostolic succession, all spoke of infant baptism.

No screaming allowed. Sometime’s it’s better to whisper.

 

[Z_Ninja]

After he has passed on, we will perform a proxy baptism for him in the temple and in the spirit world he will be able to recieve all the same blessings as one who was baptized while living.

would you perform a proxy baptism for him, even if he had no relatives that were LDS or any that requested there be a proxy baptism performed for him? sorry, a little off topic, but just had to ask.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons believe that everyone is born without original sin, so to them, Mary is not exceptional. They teach she was an ordinary woman given an extraordinary job.

But they think they are gods, just haven’t earned the merit badges yet to get the power and glory. All things of a higher and extraordinary nature are made lower in Mormonism. “Earthy” is a good term.

 

[twopekinguys]

LITTLE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY SAVED IN CHRIST AND NEED NO BAPTISM!

Do you have proof for your assertion? Book, chapter, and verse in the Bible will suffice.

If you cannot provide it, then your premise simply fails.

Maybe you can help Fatboys out with showing us a reference (Biblical) for waiting until age 8.

Also, if, and I mean if, children are already saved, then why baptize them at age 8? Are they considered adults then?

Big contradiction you got going on there wouldn’t you say?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I have asked Mormons before, what happens at age 8 that causes everyone to be kicked out of heaven.

Still waiting.

My opinion is, they worship a cruel God.

 

[Z_Ninja]

"Fatboys:

We do not believe in the original sin. We believe that Adam transfer mortality to all because of disobedience.

then you say

Sin is the deliberate disobedience of Gods laws.

sounds like Original Sin…

 

[Janderich]

This is not a correct explication of Catholic teaching on baptism, Janderich.

We proclaim that baptism is the normative means by which we are saved through Christ. We don’t claim that it is “required”, as in an absolute.

Were you aware that we have a feast day celebrating the tiny folks we memorialize as being in heaven who were never baptized? It’s in December and it is called the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

Sorry for the misrepresentation. It seems this sometimes goes both ways…

If baptism is only “normative” what of the scripture, “Except a man be born or water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”?

 

[twopekinguys]

then you say

sounds like Original Sin…

Bingo!!

One thing you have to be careful about when dealing with mormons is the definition of a word being used.

Mainstream Christianity will use one definition, but mormons use another. It may sound like you are all on the same page, but, in actuality, you are worlds apart,.