LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[Stephen168]

dianaiad;6391370:

AtticusFinch;6384659:

What is more likely? Why, that they would not have children. Then, as anow, “household’ means 'those who dwell in one house.” Only very wealthy households would have the incredibly large numbers of people you are assuming,

That is not true. Even now, poor families have a lot of extended family living with them. eEven in Honduras, where I served my mission, a lot of POOR families had a lot of extended families living with them

y’know…and if there IS extended family, the odds then, as now, indicate that the extra people would be parents, not extra children.

That is also not true. Odds are there are babies. Odds are, there are young children. That is one reason families live together: to take care of children.

Since we do not have any information as to whether THESE two households had children or not, one has to go to other information in the scriptures as to whether they did…that is, according to scriptures, would infants have been baptised?

You are going at this backwards.

No. I am going at this logically. You are going at this trying to make your doctrine work by forcing illogical assumptions into truth. It does not work.

You are assuming that these households had very young children in them. Dumb assumption, since it could go either way…

No. What is dumb is someone assuming that the only two times households were mentioned in a place where birth control was rarely, if ever, used, the households had no hcildren.

In fact, according to everything I’ve read about life back then, it was slightly more likely that they did not than that they did.

No, if you were being intellectually honest, you would know that you are wrong. Everything I have read back then, and in discussions I have had with Jewish Scholars, households would have included children.

You are using a baseless assumption to overthrow actual written scripture because, well, you want to. Not the most logical approach to take.

No, you are using an idiotic assumption to fit your square dosctrine inbto round truth. That is a dangerous approach.

And you claim to have been a Mormon!

I never claimed it. I stated it as fact. Your attempt to doubt it it not surprising since you continue to fight against truth.

Come on, Atticus…as a former Mormon you know better than this, or you should. We don’t believe what you claim…not even close. We do not baptise children under the age of eight, not because we don’t want them to 'come unto Jesus," but because, as HE said, they are already THERE.

No, He never said that. In fact, as I showed, He said that ALL must be baptized. He did NOT say, “except those under 8”. Now, if you show me in the Bible where Jesus said THAT, I will listen. Until then, to us, WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS and ALL includes children. To you, they don’t.

…and for you to present our beliefs as you are doing tells me that you never were a Mormon.

There you go again. You simply cannot fight truth at every corner. If you dislike truth, you say it is not truth. That explains your approach to this whole Baptism thing.

It seems to me that whether or not babies were in households does nothing for or against the biblical teaching of baptism. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6372309&postcount=562

 

[sablouwho]

Sablouwho,
This is a good point, which may be true.

I would surely be interested to know whether those who don’t consider it literal history think there was a “fall of Adam and Eve” and if not, do they believe in the idea of “original sin” anyway? (Perhaps you have occasion to know of these kinds of issues?)

Hi Parker~

Only have a few moments right now–with daylight savings time, I have less time than usual this morning and have to leave shortly for mass.

My “quick” answer is that “it depends”. Mainly, on whether the people in question are Jewish or Christian. Jews don’t embrace the doctrine of original sin, and once when I was talking to an observant Jew (just around the time I was developing faith in Jesus) I was gently “corrected” for using the term “fall”. Of course, I used the term loosely–it’s a term I picked up in art history classes in college since that is where I was first exposed to Christian ideas and New Testament stories.

I will try and remember to come back and answer more of your question later…I do have more thoughts on this subject (as someone who doesn’t believe in Genesis as literal history) but I gotta leave NOW or I will be late for church.

Feel free to PM me and remind me to come back and answer your question if I forget to do so!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sablouwho,
This is a good point, which may be true.

I would surely be interested to know whether those who don’t consider it literal history think there was a “fall of Adam and Eve” and if not, do they believe in the idea of “original sin” anyway? (Perhaps you have occasion to know of these kinds of issues?)

It’s plainly taught in the NT. And plain to see every moment of every day.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia

The Fall.
Adam in paradise had angels (agathodæmons or serpents) to wait upon and dance before him (Sanh. 59b, B. B. 75a, Pirḳe R. El. xii.). He ate “angel’s bread” (compare Ps. lxxiii. 26; Yoma, 75b; Vita Adæ et Evæ, § 4). All creation bowed before him in awe. He was the light of the world (Yer. Shab. ii. 5b); but sin deprived him of all glory. The earth and the heavenly bodies lost their brightness, which will come back only in the Messianic time (Gen. R. xii.; Vita Adæ et Evæ, § 21; Philo, “Creation of the World,” p. 60; Zohar, iii. 83b). Death came upon Adam and all creation. God’s day being a thousand years (Ps. xc. 4), Adam was permitted to live 930 years—threescore and ten less than one thousand (Book of Jubilees, iv. 28, and Gen. R. xix.), so that the statement “in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” might be fulfilled. The brutes no longer stood in awe of man as their ruler; instead, they attacked him. But while sin was of fatal consequence, and the effect of the poison of the serpent is still felt by all following generations, unless they should be released from it by the covenant of Sinai ('Ab. Zarah, 22b; IV Book of Esdras; Apoc. Mosis, xx.;

 

[dianaiad]

What is more likely? Why, that they would not have children. Then, as anow, “household’ means 'those who dwell in one house.” Only very wealthy households would have the incredibly large numbers of people you are assuming,

That is not true. Even now, poor families have a lot of extended family living with them. eEven in Honduras, where I served my mission, a lot of POOR families had a lot of extended families living with them

Conflating the lifestyles of first century Israel with modern Honduras is a little problematic, Atticus. While parents often lived with married children, or married children sometimes live with parents, their family make up was a lot closer to modern USA standards than to huge extended family Honduras standards. Married children were encouraged to get their own households as soon as possible, and very few families had servants. They would live in an almost ‘commune’ style neighborhood, where the women would do their daily chores together, but their ‘households’ did not include the neighbors.

y’know…and if there IS extended family, the odds then, as now, indicate that the extra people would be parents, not extra children.

That is also not true. Odds are there are babies. Odds are, there are young children. That is one reason families live together: to take care of children.

There needs to be something a little more concrete than ‘odds are…’ Atticus, especially as a reason for a doctrine as all encompasing as this one is. In fact, using these two households as the basis for infant baptism reminds me of the old joke: If I had some ham, I could have ham and eggs, if I had eggs…"

You are assuming something that cannot be assumed, and then treating that assumption as fact…then using that ‘fact’ to overrule every other scripture about baptism there is.

The FACT is, there is no reason to assume that those two specific households had small children. There’s no reason not to assume that, either, but one CANNOT use a 50/50 chance of something as the basis for something this religion shaking.

Since we do not have any information as to whether THESE two households had children or not, one has to go to other information in the scriptures as to whether they did…that is, according to scriptures, would infants have been baptised?

You are going at this backwards.

No. I am going at this logically. You are going at this trying to make your doctrine work by forcing illogical assumptions into truth. It does not work.

No, Atticus, I’m not the one using an unsafe assumption about those two households to prove a vital theological point. That would be you. There is an important logical process going on here: “lack of proof is not proof of lack…” In your case, lack of proof that there were no small children in those two households is not proof that there were small children in those two households.

What you are doing here is like…

Suppose an orchard keeper has two groves; one of apples and one of oranges. He sells his produce to several different clients; some want only apples. Some want only oranges. Some want a mix of both, so he packs his crates accordingly. Some have only oranges, some only apples, and some have a mix.

Now, three clients come to the orchard: A wants apples, B wants oranges, and C wants both. You let them go choose their own crates, and they are charged per crate; the price for a crate of oranges is the same as the charge for a crate of apples, is the same as the charge for a mixed crate.

The only thing you are going to see on the records is that A, B, and C each got a whole crate.

If you already know that A wants only apples, are you going to assume that the crate he picked has oranges in it? Would you assume that B’s crate has apples in it?

That would be pretty silly…but that’s exactly what you are doing when you use those verses to support your claim. We understand from OTHER verses in the NT that children didn’t require baptism, and don’t require it. There is no verse in the scriptures that says that children and infants require it. None…the OTHER verse you allude to specifically states that children and infants already ARE of the 'Kingdom of Heaven…" they need nothing done to or for them to put them there. Christ’s rebuke wasn’t to the children. It was to those who had the same view of them you do–that children are not worthy of Him unless they get baptized. He wasn’t telling them to push them at Him. He was telling them to get out of their way.

Cont. on next post

 

[dianaiad]

cont. from previous post;

[You are assuming that these households had very young children in them. Dumb assumption, since it could go either way…

[COLOR=“Blue”]No. What is dumb is someone assuming that the only two times households were mentioned in a place where birth control was rarely, if ever, used, the households had no hcildren.

Lack of proof is not proof of lack…or in your case, lack of proof that there were NOT children does not equal proof that there were. You have too look at the other evidence in the bible and then apply THAT evidence to those two households. You are making unproven assumptions about those two households and forcing the rest of written scripture to conform to your assumption.

In fact, according to everything I’ve read about life back then, it was slightly more likely that they did not than that they did.

No, if you were being intellectually honest, you would know that you are wrong. Everything I have read back then, and in discussions I have had with Jewish Scholars, households would have included children.

You are using a baseless assumption to overthrow actual written scripture because, well, you want to. Not the most logical approach to take.

No, you are using an idiotic assumption to fit your square dosctrine inbto round truth. That is a dangerous approach.

And you claim to have been a Mormon!

I never claimed it. I stated it as fact. Your attempt to doubt it it not surprising since you continue to fight against truth.

As you so helpfully included my reasons for doubting your membership…or at least your understanding of our beliefs while you WERE LDS, I’ll let my reason stand here:

Come on, Atticus…as a former Mormon you know better than this, or you should. We don’t believe what you claim…not even close. We do not baptise children under the age of eight, not because we don’t want them to 'come unto Jesus," but because, as HE said, they are already THERE.

No, He never said that. In fact, as I showed, He said that ALL must be baptized. He did NOT say, “except those under 8”. Now, if you show me in the Bible where Jesus said THAT, I will listen. Until then, to us, WHOLE HOUSEHOLDS and ALL includes children. To you, they don’t.

I don’t know about you, but "suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven is saying precisely that, Atticus, and as a former Mormon, if you ever went to Primary, or took any missionary lessons, or had any training at all in the faith you claimed to hold, you’d KNOW that this is what we believe. You may not agree with us any more, but just as I do you the courtesy of accepting that you believe what you say you do and for the reasons you say you do, I expect the same in return. For you to claim that WE believe tiny children and infants are somehow unworthy, or not welcome—that is beyond dishonest and dishonorable. We do not baptise infants and children because they don’t NEED it. They are all, each and every one of them, closer to Him than they may ever be again once they become accountable for their own sins; of such ARE the Kingdom of Heaven. Frankly, my own personal opinion is that this attitude of thinking they need it is devaluing them, devaluing Christ, and most certainly devaluing His sacrifice and the Atonement.

Please notice: at that incident, Christ did not tell the folks around Him to dunk or sprinkle the kids and THEN let them come to Him. He said “Suffer them” (allow them…don’t get in their way) and let them come, because they are already with Him; of such are the Kingdom of Heaven.

…and for you to present our beliefs as you are doing tells me that you never were a Mormon.

There you go again. You simply cannot fight truth at every corner. If you dislike truth, you say it is not truth. That explains your approach to this whole Baptism thing.

You are the one who is presenting our beliefs as they never were, are not, and never will be–and you are presenting them as if what you say about what we believe is fact. I’m simply straightening you out.

 

[paul_c]

Dianaiad,
While it is absolutely true that scripture does not show definitively that infants were baptized, it is equally true that it never says they were not. In fact, the scriptural evidence leans more to the former than the latter because:

Whole households were baptized in Acts
in Acts 2: 38-39 Peter says:
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
and of course Jesus when the people were coming with their children for Jesus to bless, Jesus allowed it

Furthermore, infant baptism has always been part of Catholic tradition and is witnessed by the early church fathers. This makes perfect sense in Catholic theology, because

a) we believe that you need to be cleansed of original sin
b) we believe that baptism makes you a member of the church and by baptizing their children, the parents signify that they will be raised in the chruch.
c) we believe that geting baptized bestows the individual with grace enough to be saved.

Further, we couple infant baptism with confirmation done in the teens so that the children having reached a reasonable level of maturity can personally can confirm that they want to be part of the church.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad,
While it is absolutely true that scripture does not show definitively that infants were baptized, it is equally true that it never says they were not. In fact, the scriptural evidence leans more to the former than the latter because:

Whole households were baptized in Acts

Yes. Two specific households…there is no reason to assume that either one of these two specific households had small children in them. No reason (outside of the context of the scriptures, that is) to assume not, either–but assumptions either way are NOT enough to base a doctrine as far reaching as this one is! In fact, we should determine the probability of the lower age limit of these households by what is said about baptism elsewhere in the scriptures, not assume that since there MIGHT have been small children in them then OF COURSE infants were supposed to be baptised. That is illogical thinking.

in Acts 2: 38-39 Peter says:
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Interesting choice of words here…if Paul separates the folks he was talking to from their children, which he most certainly DID in v. 39, then he wasn’t talking to the children in verse 38, was he? In fact, he made quite a point of separating the people to whom he was speaking in v. 38 from the others “your children” and “all those far off…” If he was including the children with the ‘you’ in verse 38, then he wouldn’t have separated them in v. 39. He might have used different wording, as was common…'generations…" or ‘your house…’ or many other ways of saying this, but he did make it clear that he was speaking to adults, and that children would recieve the promise—but were not necessarily included in the call to be baptised right there and then.

and of course Jesus when the people were coming with their children for Jesus to bless, Jesus allowed it

Also addressed…actually,it was His followers who were a little chary of letting the kids come to get a blessing from Jesus. He’s the one Who told them to get out of the way, because 'of such is the kingdom of heaven." And notice; HE didn’t baptise them. He blessed them. That’s a very different thing—and a thing that we do for our infants, as well. We bring our infants up during Sacrament Meeting, and a bunch of very big men stand around this tiny small being to give him or her a ‘name and a blessing." They are officially given a name (and it isn’t as pro-forma as you might think; it doesn’t happen often, but I’ve seen a kids’ name come back from this experience somewhat different from the one everybody thought he’d have coming up! Causes some interesting paperwork when it happens, too. )After the official naming, the infant is given a blessing from the father’s heart …and it usually is the father or the grandfather doing this.

Baptism is not needed, for these children ALREADY are of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus didn’t tell the people to ‘fix it so the children can come." He didn’t tell them to “baptise them…” or “enable them…” He said “suffer them.” Interesting word, "suffer,’ in this context. It means, almost literally, “put up with it and get out of their way.” you don’t have to do anything to get them here; they’re SUPPOSED to be here. They belong here. It’s YOU that has to go jump through hoops–or at least into the waters of baptism–to get here. These little ones are already 'of the Kingdom of Heaven."

Furthermore, infant baptism has always been part of Catholic tradition and is witnessed by the early church fathers.

This makes perfect sense in Catholic theology, because

a) we believe that you need to be cleansed of original sin
b) we believe that baptism makes you a member of the church and by baptizing their children, the parents signify that they will be raised in the chruch.
c) we believe that geting baptized bestows the individual with grace enough to be saved.

Further, we couple infant baptism with confirmation done in the teens so that the children having reached a reasonable level of maturity can personally can confirm that they want to be part of the church.

a: we believe that Christ’s Atonement took care of that original sin thing for everybody. You know, “for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive?” (1st Corinthians 15:22) You know. all that "Christ is the first fruits of them that slept, and "for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead…that group of verses.

Therefore, infants and children, not being burdened with the sins of any but their own choices, and not being ABLE to sin themselves, are thus utterly innocent and in no need whatsoever of baptism.

b: I understand that this is what you believe, and if it were only that…as our naming and blessing of infants is absolutely and exactly that…then it wouldn’t be a problem so much. However, there is this ‘indelible mark’ thing to get over.

c: that would also be nice…but it doesn’t matter if a teen decides to be confirmed or not, does it? He or she has still been baptised, will he, nill she. It’s not a decision THEY made, is it? Still, it sticks…and we do believe that the grace required to be saved is there for everyone. It is a free gift to all, there for the accepting, for any and everyone of us. The ball is now in our court. Do we accept? That acceptance is OUR choice,and part of that choice is OUR decision to be baptised…when we are old enough to be accountable for our choices.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Conflating the lifestyles of first century Israel with modern Honduras is a little problematic, Atticus.

lol…when you compared it to present day US, it was fine, but comparing a third-world country from back then with one now is suddenly problematic?

While parents often lived with married children, or married children sometimes live with parents, their family make up was a lot closer to modern USA standards than to huge extended family Honduras standards.

Not true. In fact, the living then was a lot like the living in Honduras is now. Families stayed closer, livied together longer, and incorporated extended families.

There needs to be something a little more concrete than ‘odds are…’

Yet YOU base you doctrine on “odds are there weren’t”. Seems you only think odds are good measure when it is YOU.

Atticus, especially as a reason for a doctrine as all encompasing as this one is. In fact, using these two households as the basis for infant baptism reminds me of the old joke: If I had some ham, I could have ham and eggs, if I had eggs…"

And your NEED to believe there were no children reminds me of the old joke, "what do you get when you have man with a libido problem who needs to be able to have lots of women legally? a polygamy doctrine…

You are assuming something that cannot be assumed, and then treating that assumption as fact…then using that ‘fact’ to overrule every other scripture about baptism there is.

No, YOU are. I am saying that Jesus never made an exception to baptism, and coupled with WHOLE families being baptized, children are included. YOU are the one who does not want children in your household

No, Atticus, I’m not the one using an unsafe assumption about those two households to prove a vital theological point.

Yes, you are. An illogical one, even

What you are doing here is like…

Suppose you were in an apple orchard and a guy says, “we spray the whole orchard for insects” and you believe that there must not be any young apples so young apples never need to be sprayed.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Yes. Two specific households…there is no reason to assume that either one of these two specific households had small children in them. No reason (outside of the context of the scriptures, that is) to assume not, either–but assumptions either way are NOT enough to base a doctrine as far reaching as this one is! In fact, we should determine the probability of the lower age limit of these households by what is said about baptism elsewhere in the scriptures, not assume that since there MIGHT have been small children in them then OF COURSE infants were supposed to be baptised. That is illogical thinking…

Since we are speaking about Christ here, let me say this. It may seem to be out of context…is it? If you don’t get right as to who Jesus is you will never understand Christianity, infant baptism, the Mass, Confession, communion of saints, the crucifix in a home, suffering, dying to self, atonement on the Cross, original sin, eucharist… etc…

In Christianity Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega as spoken of in the Scriptures. He is our Creator as spoken of in the Scriptures, all things were created through Him, for Him.

Jesus is our Lord God and Creator

I am not mixing words here, no grey areas. 1 Creator – us being Created, His creation

We can do nothing of worth without Jesus. He is our goodness. There is nothing good about us after the fall of mankind, we all choose to be a god apart from God. This is everyone’s sin……Catholic or Mormon.

The Catholic Church has taught me this well. I have been gifted to Christ. He is our goal, our very life. Without Jesus nothing would exist. Not even nothing.

I became Catholic because I found Jesus, I can see myself clearly, especially in Confession. My LDS grandmother used to make us all feel very special. I now can see this as sin. She should have insisted that only Jesus is special and that we are special because of His love for us. It may sound harsh but the joy can not be contained, its un containable when you figure this one out.

When you ask your spouse who do you love the most?..The answer should be Jesus
When a parent is asked who do you love the most, your children or Jesus?
The answer should be Jesus!

Without Jesus love would not exist. He is love itself, creation can not make this claim, or posses such love as if it was their own.

Can the moon put forth light? We are as the moon, Jesus is as the Sun. The moon can only reflect the Suns light even though it has a dark side. Yet the Son has no dark side as it is the light.

As a Christian, you can make a sincere judgment upon yourself, see yourself for what you really are in this world, and then lay it all at Jesus’ feet, upon His Cross. This is where life begins, when yours is ending. Its all about Jesus, its all for Jesus and we are gifted a share in him, in His life. Because He is loved by His father, in Him we are loved as well.

 

[dianaiad]

<snip to.
Suppose you were in an apple orchard and a guy says, “we spray the whole orchard for insects” and you believe that there must not be any young apples so young apples never need to be sprayed.

Atticus, please show me where Jesus said that infants need baptising, or where he did anything at all with small children except bless them–and use then as examples of what adults should strive for, because tiny children are already with Him?

I suppose, though, that everything is explained by your language. You say 'we spray the whole orchard for insects…" as if the apples concerned have no more say in the matter than, well, apples.

What the scriptures say is “repent, and be baptised every one of you…” which of course can only refer to those who A: know what is being said, B: have something of which to repent, and B: physically can obey.

That sort of leaves infants out on all three counts. .

 

[AMDGtoo]

Dianaiad, we’ve been through this before about infant Baptism. Baptism was commanded by Jesus. Jesus also said “let the little children come to me” (I said that I actually prefer the Luke account because it does indicate “infants”.) It’s not about saying that the infants have no personal sin. (You see, we believe that too.) Original Sin is just a concept that says that Adam lost for us the grace that God intended for us and Baptism gives us that grace back. (Baptism also forgives personal sin if the convert is an adult and has personal sin.)

Just as it was said, it would be illogical to think that whole households were Baptised yet somehow that did not include babies. (Gee, I must have missed that Scripture where Jesus must have said that all need to be Baptised except the babies you have–they aren’t allowed to even be considered part of God’s family.)

Baptism (the New Covenant) is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It’s supposed to be better. In the Old Covenant, the “Chosen People” had the sign of circumcision (on the 8th day) of their little ones being part of the “Chosen People”. So naturally, the Chosen would want to “confer” that same sense of being a part of God’s People when they converted to the New Covenant. Can’t you see the shock (I certainly can) if the “better” covenant (the New Covenant) refused to allow the people’s babies to also become part of the New Covenant? I’m sure the parents would be thinking “This is better?”

 

[sablouwho]

As a Jew, having grow up with the ritual of circumcision as something that is deeply ingrained, I gotta say, what AMDGtoo is sayin’ regarding baptism below makes sense to me. It just resonates on a deep level, even despite Jews not believing in original sin in the same way that Christian do, and even despite my own baptism which was a believers baptism.

Dianaiad, we’ve been through this before about infant Baptism. Baptism was commanded by Jesus. Jesus also said “let the little children come to me” (I said that I actually prefer the Luke account because it does indicate “infants”.) It’s not about saying that the infants have no personal sin. (You see, we believe that too.) Original Sin is just a concept that says that Adam lost for us the grace that God intended for us and Baptism gives us that grace back. (Baptism also forgives personal sin if the convert is an adult and has personal sin.)

Just as it was said, it would be illogical to think that whole households were Baptised yet somehow that did not include babies. (Gee, I must have missed that Scripture where Jesus must have said that all need to be Baptised except the babies you have–they aren’t allowed to even be considered part of God’s family.)

Baptism (the New Covenant) is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. It’s supposed to be better. In the Old Covenant, the “Chosen People” had the sign of circumcision (on the 8th day) of their little ones being part of the “Chosen People”. So naturally, the Chosen would want to “confer” that same sense of being a part of God’s People when they converted to the New Covenant. Can’t you see the shock (I certainly can) if the “better” covenant (the New Covenant) refused to allow the people’s babies to also become part of the New Covenant? I’m sure the parents would be thinking “This is better?”

 

[Proallen]

I find it curious that members of the LDS (Mormon) church are constantly on this website trying to convert Catholics. So my question to the LDS proseltizers here is this: Why do you think you need to convert Catholics? What do you think we lack in terms of salvation that the chruch of the LDS offers?

You see, the Catholic Church offers the Apostolic truths AND the grace giving sacraments that Jesus initiated. Its practicing members love God by pray regularly, read scripture, partake of the sacraments, go to mass at least weekly and love thier neighbors through works of mercy and charity. The most devoted among us become preists and religious, giving up their lives to serve God and their fellow man, with vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

So what are we missing that you could provide through the Mormon church? What do we need to do that we don’t do already?

If you flip the question and ask me what you members of the LDS need to do that you don’t do already, I would say that you must partake of the sacraments as Jesus told us. Be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins and to gain the graces to be saved (John 3, Matthew 28, and many other scriptural references). Partake of the eucharist, because those that don’t eat his body and drink his blood will have no life within them (John 6, the last supper discourses, and 1corinthians 10, 11). When you fall through sin, reconcile with God through the sacrament of reconciliation, because we know that Jesus gave the apostles and their successors the right to forgive sins.

So lets discuss both ends of this>

1. What do you think Catholics don’t do that they need to do to be saved
2. Why you think you don’t need the sacraments?

This is just another thread where someone tries to convince themselves (with the help of other alike minds) that they are correct.

 

[Googooberry]

I go to a non-denominational church called “The Church for All” and I was just wondering how any church where the priests molested little boys could be good to get involved with…just a thought I had.

 

[paul_c]

Yes. Two specific households…there is no reason to assume that either one of these two specific households had small children in them. No reason (outside of the context of the scriptures, that is) to assume not, either–but assumptions either way are NOT enough to base a doctrine as far reaching as this one is! In fact, we should determine the probability of the lower age limit of these households by what is said about baptism elsewhere in the scriptures, not assume that since there MIGHT have been small children in them then OF COURSE infants were supposed to be baptised. That is illogical thinking.

The doctrine of Infant baptism is based on tradition, not on these scriptural readings.

Interesting choice of words here…if Paul separates the folks he was talking to from their children, which he most certainly DID in v. 39, then he wasn’t talking to the children in verse 38, was he? In fact, he made quite a point of separating the people to whom he was speaking in v. 38 from the others “your children” and “all those far off…” If he was including the children with the ‘you’ in verse 38, then he wouldn’t have separated them in v. 39. He might have used different wording, as was common…'generations…" or ‘your house…’ or many other ways of saying this, but he did make it clear that he was speaking to adults, and that children would recieve the promise—but were not necessarily included in the call to be baptised right there and then.

In verse 38, he is addressing those that asked him explicitly, what they needed to do. He said they needed to be baptized and then added in verse 39 that baptism wasn’t only for them, but for their children and those far off.

Also addressed…actually,it was His followers who were a little chary of letting the kids come to get a blessing from Jesus. He’s the one Who told them to get out of the way, because 'of such is the kingdom of heaven." And notice; HE didn’t baptise them. He blessed them. That’s a very different thing—and a thing that we do for our infants, as well. We bring our infants up during Sacrament Meeting, and a bunch of very big men stand around this tiny small being to give him or her a ‘name and a blessing." They are officially given a name (and it isn’t as pro-forma as you might think; it doesn’t happen often, but I’ve seen a kids’ name come back from this experience somewhat different from the one everybody thought he’d have coming up! Causes some interesting paperwork when it happens, too. )After the official naming, the infant is given a blessing from the father’s heart …and it usually is the father or the grandfather doing this.

Jesus we are told, never baptized anyone, only his disciples did. And the baptism of grace in the name of the father, son and holy spirit wasn’t in effect until after Pentecost.

Baptism is not needed, for these children ALREADY are of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus didn’t tell the people to ‘fix it so the children can come." He didn’t tell them to “baptise them…” or “enable them…” He said “suffer them.” Interesting word, "suffer,’ in this context. It means, almost literally, “put up with it and get out of their way.” you don’t have to do anything to get them here; they’re SUPPOSED to be here. They belong here. It’s YOU that has to go jump through hoops–or at least into the waters of baptism–to get here. These little ones are already 'of the Kingdom of Heaven."

Diana, if the children are already of the Kingdom of Heaven at birth, what happens to them that requires baptism by age 8?

a: we believe that Christ’s Atonement took care of that original sin thing for everybody. You know, “for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive?” (1st Corinthians 15:22) You know. all that "Christ is the first fruits of them that slept, and "for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead…that group of verses.

Therefore, infants and children, not being burdened with the sins of any but their own choices, and not being ABLE to sin themselves, are thus utterly innocent and in no need whatsoever of baptism.

This isn’t quite correct, now is it. Christ’s atonement took care of original sin for those that request it through baptism. In the case of infants, their parents stand in as proxies for them.

b: I understand that this is what you believe, and if it were only that…as our naming and blessing of infants is absolutely and exactly that…then it wouldn’t be a problem so much. However, there is this ‘indelible mark’ thing to get over.

c: that would also be nice…but it doesn’t matter if a teen decides to be confirmed or not, does it? He or she has still been baptised, will he, nill she. It’s not a decision THEY made, is it? Still, it sticks…and we do believe that the grace required to be saved is there for everyone. It is a free gift to all, there for the accepting, for any and everyone of us. The ball is now in our court. Do we accept? That acceptance is OUR choice,and part of that choice is OUR decision to be baptised…when we are old enough to be accountable for our choices.

When you baptize for the dead, they don’t have a choice on whether to be baptized either. The fact is, even if you are marked by baptism, in the Catholic church you must persevere in grace until the end to be saved.

 

[twopekinguys]

I go to a non-denominational church called “The Church for All” and I was just wondering how any church where the priests molested little boys could be good to get involved with…just a thought I had.

This is your first post here, and this is all you could come up with?

Why on this thread in particular?

You realize of course, there is sexual scandal in all churches right? If not, maybe you should check out this information.

reformation.com/

I will say this with all the charity I can muster. If this is all that you can, or are willing to bring to this forum, I see your days here numbered at best.

 

[lax16]

I go to a non-denominational church called “The Church for All” and I was just wondering how any church where the priests molested little boys could be good to get involved with…just a thought I had.

This can be extremely difficult to understand.

One thing I know for sure, the gates of hell are trying to prevail…and as Jesus promised, they won’t.

 

[dianaiad]

I go to a non-denominational church called “The Church for All” and I was just wondering how any church where the priests molested little boys could be good to get involved with…just a thought I had.

WEll, Googooberry, there has never been a church on the planet that had a perfect set of leaders; only the Son of God led a perfect life. I’m afraid that every belief system around has people in it that do horrific things. You can’t blame the belief system for the actions of those who break the rules.

In the case of the Catholic clergy, you have things backwards. It’s not that Catholic priests molest little boys. It’s that child molesters see the sort of dedication and lifestyles that Catholic priests live, and that because they are, 90% and better, the LEAST likely to harm children of any men on the planet, they enter the priesthood organization, literally like wolves in sheep’s clothing, to prey on the innocent. They are not, in other words, priests who abuse children. They are child abusers who take the semblance of priests in order to continue their rapacious actions.

…and it happens to all belief systems, even yours.

Now, lest you think that oh, here’s another Catholic who is just trying to defend Catholic priest pedophiles…please look at my religious affiliation. I"m a Mormon…and I’ve been called 'anti-Catholic" a LOT more than once.

Perhaps you should take your hit and run snipe and do something productive?

 

[dianaiad]

The doctrine of Infant baptism is based on tradition, not on these scriptural readings.

That’s fine, in explaining why YOU believe in it, Paul. Not so fine if you are trying to prove to ME that it’s OK, though. It would be a little like me asking you to accept BoM scriptures as prooftexts for a reason YOU have to believe something. M’just sayin’…

In verse 38, he is addressing those that asked him explicitly, what they needed to do. He said they needed to be baptized and then added in verse 39 that baptism wasn’t only for them, but for their children and those far off.

Jesus we are told, never baptized anyone, only his disciples did. And the baptism of grace in the name of the father, son and holy spirit wasn’t in effect until after Pentecost.

Diana, if the children are already of the Kingdom of Heaven at birth, what happens to them that requires baptism by age 8?

OK, there you have me in the same place you were a few seconds ago. We count 8 as the ‘age of accountability’ because of a verse in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 68, verse 27: And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and recieve the laying on of the hands.

The idea is that a childs needs to be old enough to recognize the difference between right and wrong, and to choose one over the other, deliberately; old enough to personally sin, in other words. Eight may be arbitrary, but it’s about right…at least it was about right for my kids. There is a loss of…there’s no other way to put this…innocence in their actions at about that time. My 5, 6 and 7 year olds might know not to take candy from the store shelves because “Mommy won’t let me keep it and she’ll make me give it back,” or “I’ll get into trouble,” but it’s not until they were between 7 and 9 that they got “It’s wrong to take this candy because it hurts the store owner.” part.

This isn’t quite correct, now is it

Well, we think it is. those verses about resurrection don’t mention baptism as a requirement FOR resurrection. It might make a difference in the order, or into what state, one is resurrected or ‘made alive,’ but in the end everybody is ‘made alive,’ that is, resurrected. Remember, our view of original sin isn’t quite the same as yours, perhaps. There is a very literal and basic reality to the second most important of our Articles of Faith (the one right after “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”); You know, the one that goes: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

We don’t mean 'only those baptised." We mean all of us. NONE of us are responsible for what Adam did, or what he brought into the world. Christ’s atonement took care of that.

. Christ’s atonement took care of original sin for those that request it through baptism. In the case of infants, their parents stand in as proxies for them.

Ah, Conditional atonement. I wasn’t aware that Catholics believed in that. Thanks.

We don’t, y’know.

When you baptize for the dead, they don’t have a choice on whether to be baptized either.

Oh, yes, they do…and the point is, we not only believe they do, we SAY they do; without their willing acceptance of that proxy work, it is absolutely worthless. Doesn’t count. Null and void. Never happened. The only thing a record HERE means is that they won’t be offered it again. But you know this, Paul.

The fact is, even if you are marked by baptism, in the Catholic church you must persevere in grace until the end to be saved.

You are still, however, 'marked by baptism." There is no ‘never happened’ with Catholic baptism, whether the recipient had a clue what was happening, or had any (name removed by moderator)ut, or not…and no matter what he or she chooses in later life, there is no undoing it, or making it 'not have happened," is there?

But with us, that’s the thing; if what we do is not welcomed, then…it really never happened.

 

[AMDGtoo]

because of a verse in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 68, verse 27: And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and recieve the laying on of the hands.

You mean that one minute they are “of the Kingdom of Heaven” (that is without sin) and then magically at a certain birthday, the child becomes sinful (and no longer is God’s child)? So this sin “came out of the blue” and landed squarely on the shoulders of a child who happened to be older than 7 years 59 seconds?