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

[dianaiad]

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?

That’s quite a straw windmill you are tilting at, AMD.

This is a fairly accurate standard of child development, y’know. (shrug) Actually, I wasn’t baptised until I was 8 and a half years old. I turned 8 in August, but had the measles. It was thought unwise to expose everybody to my germs. By the time I was well enough, the water was too cold, so I had to wait for spring, along with everybody else who had been born in the winter.

We all looked forward to it very much. Nobody was all that worried that I was going to hell because they couldn’t dunk me for six months, and that is also codified in our beliefs. When WE cannot be flexible, God certainly can be, and is.

One young boy was nearly 10; being developmentally disabled, he hadn’t reached his personal age of accountability until then. As I have already mentioned, eight years old may seem arbitrary…though as a general rule it isn’t all THAT arbitrary considering what a child must be able to understand–but we don’t think that he is 'of the Kingdom of Heaven" until the precise minute and second eight year anniversary from his or her exit from the birth canal, and hell bound unless he or she is baptised the following second.

As do Catholics, we understand that God is merciful in these matters. However, I’m going to be very blunt, here. In all my dealings with Catholics and other Christians, not a single one of them has been able to show me in thier doctrines and dogma that God will have mercy on unbaptised infants. The most hyper Calvinist ALMOST do that, in their conviction that because of absolute predestination it doesn’t matter whether you baptise an infant or not; if that infant is predestined to be saved, it will be saved whether it dies after it’s first breath or not. However, if it is predestined for hell, no baptism, prayer, hope or tears will keep it from burning eternally. As shudderingly awful as that concept sounds to me, it is at least honest. Everybody ELSE runs into that wall of unbaptized babies not going to heaven, but in the absence of anything scriptural to support hope, they simply hope. I believe, of course, that this hope is justified, but where do THEY get that justification?

We also ‘hope.’ The difference is that our hope IS codified in our doctrines and beliefs. For us it’s not a case of “God didn’t actually tell us how He was going to solve this one in the face of what we think scriptures say about it, but we have faith that He is not what we think the scriptures say He is, and that our infant dead will be fine.” For us, it’s a case of “God DID tell us, and this is what He said; infants, small children and those who are not accountable for their own actions are already of the Kingdom of Heaven and don’t need baptism until they ARE personally accountable.” We believe that pretty much everybody is by the time they are eight, so that’s when we place the baptism date. Right around then. Please note: right AROUND then.

 

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch;6405045:

Atticus, please show me where Jesus said that infants need baptising

Sure. It says ALL must be baptized. Now, suppose you show me in the Bible where jesus said “all does not mean children”. Or “All means children only after their 8th Birthday”.

We have already seen where Mormons do not believe children are part of their households…now you are saying that “all” does not include children, either? Geez, kids don;t have much of a chance in an LDS family…

, or where he did anything at all with small children except bless them

Using that theory, short people do not need to be baptized, because jesus only blessed them (Zacheeus), or tax collectors do not need to be baptized, because Jesus always blessed them, and never said ANYTHING about baptising tax collectors. Your argument is silly and not supported by the Bible, the facts, or even logic.

 

[AMDGtoo]

, not a single one of them has been able to show me in thier doctrines and dogma that God will have mercy on unbaptised infants.

Wow! Not a single one. Well then let me be the first of my Catholic brethern to cite 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church and was published under Pope John Paul II.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed the great mercy of God who desires that all men should e saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them” (footnote: Mark 10:14; cf 1 Timothy 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Oh before you jump and say “ah see! it’s talking about Baptism of the Dead”, let me remind you that it is not. We believe that once a person dies, it’s over–he/she has “run the race”–after death there is judging and we then get what is deserved. And before you say “how?”, let me inform you that we believe that although we need to follow what God has laid out for us (and avail ourselves of the gift He wants to give us), God is great and is not bound those gifts/rules. (It’s just like a parent isn’t bound to the rules and restrictions he/she gives his/her children.)

BTW, I hope you find out what a strawman really is and is not. A strawman is a “setup” that can be easily refuted. I wondered how you LDS could call a child “without sin” at 7 years 59 seconds and then think that he is so sinful that he has to be baptized (since the LDS only recognize baptism as a way of forgiving sins and not of giving grace) in the next second. It has nothing to do with the “age of reason or accountability”. Oh, just so you know, we too use the “age of reason or accountability” when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (also known as the Sacrament of Confession) that is normally used should a person have personal sins.

 

[ParkerD]

Wow! Not a single one. Well then let me be the first of my Catholic brethern to cite 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church and was published under Pope John Paul II.

Oh before you jump and say “ah see! it’s talking about Baptism of the Dead”, let me remind you that it is not. We believe that once a person dies, it’s over–he/she has “run the race”–after death there is judging and we then get what is deserved. And before you say “how?”, let me inform you that we believe that although we need to follow what God has laid out for us (and avail ourselves of the gift He wants to give us), God is great and is not bound those gifts/rules. (It’s just like a parent isn’t bound to the rules and restrictions he/she gives his/her children.)

BTW, I hope you find out what a strawman really is and is not. A strawman is a “setup” that can be easily refuted. I wondered how you LDS could call a child “without sin” at 7 years 59 seconds and then think that he is so sinful that he has to be baptized (since the LDS only recognize baptism as a way of forgiving sins and not of giving grace) in the next second. It has nothing to do with the “age of reason or accountability”. Oh, just so you know, we too use the “age of reason or accountability” when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (also known as the Sacrament of Confession) that is normally used should a person have personal sins.

AMDGtoo,
I think you have not understood, even though Dianaiad explained to you about LDS baptism of children at age eight.

First, how good to know that those Catholic mothers who have ever worried that their unbaptized infant who died might not go to heaven, given what Pope John Paul II wrote to clarify about God’s mercy to little children, need not worry and should totally believe that their infant would definitely and absolutely and without question go to heaven.

As to LDS baptism of an eight year old child, this is not to gain “forgiveness” for sins, nor have they somehow begun to sin at precisely their eighth birthday whereas the day before they were “free” from sin. Sin is an act based on knowledge of the sinner. God will be forgiving of children who sin, period, and especially of children who sin without having been taught well by their parents. Supposing a nine-year-old who hadn’t been baptized tells a lie to their parent. That child needs to learn to be truthful, yes, but if that child were to die at age nine without baptism, it is completely to be expected that He who is the judge of the hearts of all humankind, will compassionately judge that child and that child will receive mercy through their repentance in the spirit world.

The eight-year-old LDS child who is baptized continues partaking of the communion each Sunday as a remembrance of their baptismal covenant, and thus they are reminded that they need to repent of their sins as they live their life. They receive the gift of the Holy Spirit so that they have a guiding influence in their life to help them make right choices as they listen to the impressions to choose good actions and good thoughts.

Their baptism was to enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ to follow Him and to always remember Him. It was a covenant to show faith in Him by repenting of wrong-doings that happen during life, both past and future. The act of repenting uses the baptismal covenant as the binding ordinance that seals the efficacy of the repentance of that child throughout their life. Thus that child, as they continue to repent during their life, can be “baptized by fire and by the Holy Ghost” and be sanctified by the Spirit.

 

[AMDGtoo]

how good to know that those Catholic mothers who have ever worried that their unbaptized infant who died might not go to heaven, given what Pope John Paul II wrote to clarify about God’s mercy to little children, need not worry and should totally believe that their infant would definitely and absolutely and without question go to heaven.

Yes, it is good to know since I, as a grandmother of my convert to LDS daughter’s babies, also worry about my loves who through no fault of their own are denied the gift that God intended for them.

 

[TheosisM]

Just to clarify the Catholic position on what happens to unbaptized infants, as per the Catechism.

The Catechism states that the belief in the mercy of God leads the Church to “hope” that there is a way of salvation for unbaptized infants. It is not definitively saying that unbaptized infants are saved, since there has not been a revelation on that issue. It is similar to baptism of desire, where the belief is that God can act outside of the sacraments, especially for those who were unable to be baptized through no fault of their own. This is why the Catechism ends the paragraph with “All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”, since it is not definitive that unbaptized infants go to Heaven (hence why the concept of limbo was speculated on).

The International Theological Commission (part of the Roman Curia) has an article called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The final paragraphs are important, imo:

3.6. Hope
102. Within the hope that the church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism? We have carefully reconsidered this complex question with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the church through the ages and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel.

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).

1. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.135 Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, it is good to know since I, as a grandmother of my convert to LDS daughter’s babies, also worry about my loves who through no fault of their own are denied the gift that God intended for them.

AMDGtoo,
I would think that as a grandmother with faith in Christ and His mercy, one in your position would fully believe that “baptism of desire” is completely applicable if that were necessary (though it is not necessary in the case of infants and toddlers and youngsters, but if the belief in baptism of desire helps one not to worry, then why not accept it and be content?)

Why not celebrate their lives, their goodness and kindness, the ways they follow Christ in their actions every day? Children do this, and the light of Christ is in their eyes. It is as Wordworth wrote: “Heaven lies about us in our infancy.”

TheosisM,
Thanks for clarifying the full belief.

Have a good day.

 

[Stephen168]

Wow! Not a single one. Well then let me be the first of my Catholic brethern to cite 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church and was published under Pope John Paul II.

Oh before you jump and say “ah see! it’s talking about Baptism of the Dead”, let me remind you that it is not. We believe that once a person dies, it’s over–he/she has “run the race”–after death there is judging and we then get what is deserved. And before you say “how?”, let me inform you that we believe that although we need to follow what God has laid out for us (and avail ourselves of the gift He wants to give us), God is great and is not bound those gifts/rules. (It’s just like a parent isn’t bound to the rules and restrictions he/she gives his/her children.)

BTW, I hope you find out what a strawman really is and is not. A strawman is a “setup” that can be easily refuted. I wondered how you LDS could call a child “without sin” at 7 years 59 seconds and then think that he is so sinful that he has to be baptized (since the LDS only recognize baptism as a way of forgiving sins and not of giving grace) in the next second. It has nothing to do with the “age of reason or accountability”. Oh, just so you know, we too use the “age of reason or accountability” when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (also known as the Sacrament of Confession) that is normally used should a person have personal sins.

Because of the theft on the cross, the Catholic Church has always known there may be other ways to salvation than just baptism.

But the real purpose of post #668 is so she will no longer have to deal with the obvious irrationality of the Mormon Church’s rejection of infant baptism.

 

[Stephen168]

Supposing a nine-year-old who hadn’t been baptized tells a lie to their parent. That child needs to learn to be truthful, yes, but if that child were to die at age nine without baptism, it is completely to be expected that He who is the judge of the hearts of all humankind, will compassionately judge that child and that child will receive mercy through their repentance in the spirit world.

If one can be forgiven in the spirit world without baptism, then it seems there is no reason for Mormons to baptize at all.

The eight-year-old LDS child who is baptized continues partaking of the communion each Sunday as a remembrance of their baptismal covenant, and thus they are reminded that they need to repent of their sins as they live their life. They receive the gift of the Holy Spirit so that they have a guiding influence in their life to help them make right choices as they listen to the impressions to choose good actions and good thoughts.

Their baptism was to enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ to follow Him and to always remember Him. It was a covenant to show faith in Him by repenting of wrong-doings that happen during life, both past and future. The act of repenting uses the baptismal covenant as the binding ordinance that seals the efficacy of the repentance of that child throughout their life. Thus that child, as they continue to repent during their life, can be “baptized by fire and by the Holy Ghost” and be sanctified by the Spirit.

None of your reasoning here explains why you cannot baptize an infant.

 

[Stephen168]

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?

It appears that as soon as a Mormon child learns about sin they become sinful and impure. They are pure—they learn about sin----they are full of sin and need baptism. And Mormons still can not explain why that happens. I also think Mormons don’t think about baptism ontologically, so they probably don’t understand the question.

 

[ParkerD]

If one can be forgiven in the spirit world without baptism, then it seems there is no reason for Mormons to baptize at all.

None of your reasoning here explains why you cannot baptize an infant.

Stephen168,
You will recall that I was writing specifically about a hypothetical example of a nine-year-old who happened to die and happened to not have been baptized and happened to have lied to their parent at some point. I was writing that Christ offers mercy, including mercy to such a nine-year-old.

I also wrote that sin is related to the knowledge of the person, meaning that a nine-year-old has less likelihood of understanding the full importance of being truthful than, say, a twenty-six-year old. Therefore, Christ will be more merciful to a nine-year-old in such a hypothetical case than to a twenty-six-year-old who lies to their parent.

There is the side issue of “baptism for the dead”, of course as you probably are aware, that may occur at some point in behalf of a nine-year-old who had died and would not be done for a seven-year-old who had died. But even if not, then I think a child age nine who had died is going to be viewed mercifully by the Savior and treated with such love and kindness that that child will feel the full power of repentance in the spirit world and will be forgiven for their sins committed during their young life on earth.

An important aspect of the example of a nine-year-old is that such a child would be in a position as a spirit in the spirit world to choose what they want, whether they want to make a covenant with Christ or not and whether they want to be sanctified by the Spirit or not. What would matter is what is the desire of their heart, and their faith in Christ.

The baptizing of an infant takes the decision-making away from the person as to the making of a covenant with Christ, although I am fully aware that the youth is expected and encouraged to make a decision where they “accept” their baptism at an age when they decide it is right. Those who were baptized in New Testament times were making a decision on their own to make and keep a covenant. I think it is a decision well worth making and a covenant well worth keeping after the person has made their own decision to be “born of water and of the Spirit.”

As to the comment I was responding to about a grandmother worrying about her grandchildren, that would seem to have a slightly negative impact on a sweet relationship that she can have with them with not the tiniest bit of worry about any supposed “danger” that they are in, at all–not the tiniest bit of danger from not having been baptized until age eight. They as tiny children are already saved, already redeemed, already “little children” who have been “forbidden not” “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Nor would such a grandmother need to worry if their grandchild had not been baptized at age eight, and instead that happens at age eight-and-a-half or age nine or even later. That was my earlier point, and that was Dianaiad’s point.

I will give a personal example. I have a daughter with a tracheotomy. The doctors advised against baptizing her by immersion at age eight, because there was worry about water getting into her trachea and lungs. We waited until she was nearly nine, and that was totally fine with us (she is one of the sweetest children in the world, anyway). No one in the world “worried” about whether she had been baptized or not between age eight and age nine when she was baptized. Even if there had not been an extenuating health circumstance, we would not have worried in the tiniest bit, even if (hypothetically) she had become seriously ill during that time.

I hope this helps in understanding that the LDS view of baptism is different than the Catholic view, and that age eight is not some critical age where “sin” begins to be viewed as a fearful circumstance for a child if they hadn’t yet been baptized. (However, to lighten things up, I was baptized on my birthday at age eight since it happened to be a Saturday, so I have the benefit of being able to remember my baptismal date easily.)

 

[AMDGtoo]

Nor would such a grandmother need to worry if their grandchild had not been baptized at age eight, and instead that happens at age eight-and-a-half or age nine or even later.

If you are talking about me (I did mention that Catholic teaching of trusting Jesus is a comfort to me too since I am a grandma who is concerned about my loves being denied God’s gift of Baptism by their LDS mom) you have to realize that I know the children will not be validly Baptized at age 8. I will need to wait until they choose a Trinitarian Baptism, most likely years from now. An absolute trust in God is necessary. It’s hard. In comparison, your “baptism for the dead” seems like you have no trust in God at all–you want to take things into “your own hands”.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow! Not a single one. Well then let me be the first of my Catholic brethern to cite 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church and was published under Pope John Paul II.

the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed the great mercy of God who desires that all men should e saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them” (footnote: Mark 10:14; cf 1 Timothy 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I’m quite aware that it is not. What it is ALSO ‘not,’ is proof that someone actually can point to official doctrine telling us what happens to unbaptized infants. In fact, this quote is a blanket admission that what I said is true. More than that, it’s a straight on REPETITION of what I claimed was true; you don’t HAVE such a doctrine, so you simply “entrust them to the mercy of God,” and use as your reason the same verse in precisely the same way that we do; that because children are already of the Kingdom of Heaven, they’ll be ok. Really. Just trust God.

But there is nothing in the catechism to explain WHY, is there? (well, except for that verse…that you were using to prove that infants require baptism, but that we use to show where they do not…and your own leaders use to show that it might be OK to hope that God really didn’t mean it when you thought He said that baptism was essential for everybody ever born.)

We believe that once a person dies, it’s over–he/she has “run the race”–after death there is judging and we then get what is deserved. And before you say “how?”, let me inform you that we believe that although we need to follow what God has laid out for us (and avail ourselves of the gift He wants to give us), God is great and is not bound those gifts/rules. (It’s just like a parent isn’t bound to the rules and restrictions he/she gives his/her children.)

BTW, I hope you find out what a strawman really is and is not. A strawman is a “setup” that can be easily refuted. I wondered how you LDS could call a child “without sin” at 7 years 59 seconds and then think that he is so sinful that he has to be baptized (since the LDS only recognize baptism as a way of forgiving sins and not of giving grace) in the next second. It has nothing to do with the “age of reason or accountability”. Oh, just so you know, we too use the “age of reason or accountability” when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (also known as the Sacrament of Confession) that is normally used should a person have personal sins.

The strawman you are using is this idea that our standard is the instant a child turns eight by the calendar. It’s not. It is the point at which a child becomes aware of, and is thus accountable, for his own sins. That could be 8. It could be younger, but that is the youngest age at which God has told us that a child COULD be held accountable. I think that the vast majority of eight year olds understand this concept, so eight is fine. Some don’t reach that age of accountability for awhile longer…and they don’t need baptism until they reach it. Some people never do, but live their entire lives innocent before God.

One of the reasons children are interviewed by their bishops before they are baptised is to determine if that age of accountability has been reached.

The difference between us, AMD, is that we don’t have hope that God will take care of and love our children if they die before they are baptised, as the quote you gave us from the catachism states. We KNOW He does, and what’s more, the reason for our belief is codified in our doctrine. For us there is no uncertainty or need to wait to understand it, because it’s been explained how, what, and why.

I’m very glad that most Catholics have come to have such hope for infants, and that this hope is in the catechism, because this hope is reality. However, don’t mistake this; for Catholics and others who believe in infant baptism, it is hope only. Their stated beliefs and doctrines about what baptism is for and the absolute necesity that EVERYBODY be baptised or go to hell in thier doctrine are set in concrete against this hope—the hope is correct, but again, you can’t tell me WHY you think that hope is correct.

Especially since in order to use that hope you have to admit that I’m right about how that ‘suffer the little children to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven’ is REALLY supposed to be interpreted.

 

[ParkerD]

If you are talking about me (I did mention that Catholic teaching of trusting Jesus is a comfort to me too since I am a grandma who is concerned about my loves being denied God’s gift of Baptism by their LDS mom) you have to realize that I know the children will not be validly Baptized at age 8. I will need to wait until they choose a Trinitarian Baptism, most likely years from now. An absolute trust in God is necessary. It’s hard. In comparison, your “baptism for the dead” seems like you have no trust in God at all–you want to take things into “your own hands”.

AMDGtoo,
We do differ as you noted in that an LDS baptism is “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” and we believe that They are Three Separate Persons with One divine purpose and one divine will.

We also differ in that we believe that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and that Jesus knew exactly what He was talking about when He said those words, and said exactly what He meant. We also differ in that we believe that covenant making can happen in the spirit world, for those such as were described in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6 who had not been baptized during their lives on earth.

We also differ in that we believe that truly what is bound on earth is bound in heaven when the priesthood has been authorized to perform an ordinance such as baptism, and that baptism is a necessary ordinance for those who make a covenant with Jesus Christ when they are of an age to make such a covenant or when they learn about that opportunity in the spirit world and desire to make such a covenant, using their own personal choice but using the opportunity that is offered to them through the means of keeping the standard set by Christ–being “born of water and of the Spirit”.

 

[dianaiad]

If you are talking about me (I did mention that Catholic teaching of trusting Jesus is a comfort to me too since I am a grandma who is concerned about my loves being denied God’s gift of Baptism by their LDS mom) you have to realize that I know the children will not be validly Baptized at age 8. I will need to wait until they choose a Trinitarian Baptism, most likely years from now. An absolute trust in God is necessary. It’s hard. In comparison, your “baptism for the dead” seems like you have no trust in God at all–you want to take things into “your own hands”.

No, that would be you, AMD, with baptising infants who have no (name removed by moderator)ut or control or understanding, and with praying for God to do to the dead things that you want Him to do to and for them, in spite of the fact that you really have no clue what they want.

Our proxy baptism puts the choice entirely where it belongs: in the hands of those for whom it is done, and for those whose choice it is to make.

And you really do NOT have to worry about your grandchildren. They will be fine. I’m sure you raised your daughter to be a good mom, and she will raise her children to be good people…

and someday, many many many years from now, after you have lived a long, healthy, active and religiously fullfilling life, those children (or their descendants further down the line) will do proxy baptism for you…and the choice whether to accept it or not will be, then as it is now, entirely yours to make.

NOT something you can say about your daughter, who (I assume) was baptised Catholic shortly after her birth. She’s a Mormon now; has obviously chosen to be so. She doesn’t want to be a Catholic, didn’t chose to be baptised Catholic (whether she was confirmed later or not…) but according to your beliefs, that ‘indelible mark’ remains upon her soul no matter WHAT she chooses to do with her life now, or what she believes. You might even take some comfort in that; I don’t know.

She doesn’t want it. She had no control over getting it. She wasn’t involved in it. She’s stuck with it for eternity.

…and no matter what WE do for you, AMD, you will never be able to say that we forced you to do something you didn’t want to do. The choice is now, and forever will be, entirely yours.

 

[TheosisM]

Their stated beliefs and doctrines about what baptism is for and the absolute necesity that EVERYBODY be baptised or go to hell in thier doctrine are set in concrete against this hope—the hope is correct, but again, you can’t tell me WHY you think that hope is correct.

Just to clarify a little: Catholics may not necessarily believe that an unbaptized infant goes to Hell. Someone goes to Hell if they die in a state of mortal sin. Original sin is not a mortal sin, since a mortal sin is something that one does with full knowledge (it is a personal sin that they are guilty of). This is why the theory of limbo of infants came into existence, because of that belief in the necessity of baptism for sanctifying grace and Heaven, and the necessity of a personal mortal sin to send one to Hell. Some may believe that Limbo was/is on the “edge” of Hell, which may be implied by the Ecumenical Council of Florence, which states that those that die in original sin alone or mortal sin go to Hell, but with different penalties (again implying that one could not be punished for something they are not responsible for, since original sin is not a mortal sin).

Also, check out the Vatican article I linked to earlier. It’s long, but it goes over where this “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants through the mercy of God came from (the “why”). As the article states,* “Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).”*, which I believe you already realized.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[dianaiad]

Just to clarify a little: Catholics may not necessarily believe that an unbaptized infant goes to Hell. Someone goes to Hell if they die in a state of mortal sin. Original sin is not a mortal sin, since a mortal sin is something that one does with full knowledge (it is a personal sin that they are guilty of). This is why the theory of limbo of infants came into existence, because of that belief in the necessity of baptism for sanctifying grace and Heaven, and the necessity of a personal mortal sin to send one to Hell. Some may believe that Limbo was/is on the “edge” of Hell, which may be implied by the Ecumenical Council of Florence, which states that those that die in original sin alone or mortal sin go to Hell, but with different penalties (again implying that one could not be punished for something they are not responsible for, since original sin is not a mortal sin).

Also, check out the Vatican article I linked to earlier. It’s long, but it goes over where this “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants through the mercy of God came from (the “why”). As the article states,* “Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).”*, which I believe you already realized.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Thanks for the clarification, Theosis.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Thank you Theosis.

It’s really hard to try to explain something (infant Baptism) over and over and over and over again to people who not only refuse to listen, but think that only they suffer, of course then they refuse to realize that their actions (as well as words) have caused deep wounds in others. The LDS shouldn’t go around patting themselves on the back and thinking that they are so “squeaky clean” and so perfect because they are not.

 

[sablouwho]

Also, check out the Vatican article I linked to earlier. It’s long, but it goes over where this “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants through the mercy of God came from (the “why”). As the article states,* “Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ*, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).”, which I believe you already realized.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

I believe that the text I have bolded above reflects an important difference between Catholic and LDS ways of thinking and “doing” belief. In particular, there is this idea of “sure knowledge”–which (some) LDS who I know personally, claim that they have, and for which they use the term “know”.

However, I (as well as an LDS friend who has much training in theology) would argue that in terms of epistemology, that they really do not “know” certain theological things that they claim to know, despite using the word “know” to describe their sense of certainty. Instead, it appears (again, taking epistemology into account) to actually be a strong belief, and not “sure knowledge.”

To be fair, I would apply the same thinking/definitions to my OWN faith situation. Despite a St. Paul on the road to Damascus-like conversion experience, which included some supernatural stuff, I do not, epistemologically speaking, “know” that Jesus is the real deal despite the fact that I have at some times been imprecise with my language and used the word “know”, when what I in fact meant, was that I have a VERY strong belief in Jesus being the real thing, while at the same time having it be something that I cannot empirically prove (and therefore, cannot “know” for certain the same way I know that right now I am typing on a keyboard).

 

[Stephen168]

In all my dealings with Catholics and other Christians, not a single one of them has been able to show me in thier doctrines and dogma that God will have mercy on unbaptised infants.

Wow! Not a single one. Well then let me be the first of my Catholic brethern to cite 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church and was published under Pope John Paul II.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God,

as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed the great mercy of God who desires that all men should e saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them” (footnote: Mark 10:14; cf 1 Timothy 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

………. **you don’t HAVE such a doctrine, so you simply “entrust them to the mercy of God,”………. **

AMDGtoo,
There you have it; Catholic doctrine not Doctrine. At least we are not talking about Mormon baptism anymore.

Because of the theft on the cross, the Catholic Church has always known there may be other ways to salvation than just baptism.

But the real purpose of post #668 is so she will no longer have to deal with the obvious irrationality of the Mormon Church’s rejection of infant baptism.