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

[sablouwho]

I understand why Mormons have no NEED to baptize infants but their rejection of infant baptism is just irrational anti-Catholicism. I think it is interesting that they believe a child is born without any sin but some how at the age of eight; they now have sin and must be baptized.

You know, your post made me realize something. For those that don’t believe in infant baptism (a PoV which I can at least understand although I am not convinced by it), my initial impression is that the believers baptism makes more sense than baptizing at age 8. I mean, if you are going to delay baptism and NOT do it as an infant, why not wait till the person has a more “adult” faith that has had time to develop instead of being a young child who is still (in many, but not all cases) likely just doing what their parents expect. Just a thought…I don’t expect an answer.

(By the way…I had a believer’s baptism4 years ago, but that is because I was raised Jewish so obviously infant baptism was never an option for me.)

 

[zerinus]

I understand why Mormons have no NEED to baptize infants but their rejection of infant baptism is just irrational anti-Catholicism.

How did you come to that conclusion? That is utterly false of course. Mormon baptisms has nothing to do with anti-Catholicism.

I think it is interesting that they believe a child is born without any sin . . .

So do you (or anybody) believe that a child is born with sin? How? When did an infant who is one minute old sin?

. . . but some how at the age of eight; they now have sin and must be baptized.

Wrong! Mormon rejection of infant baptisms does not mean that children before the age of eight cannot sin. They can sin, but they are not held accountable before God for their sins. We baptize them at the age of eight because we believe that at that age they begin to become accountable for their sins.

I mean, if you are going to delay baptism and NOT do it as an infant, why not wait till the person has a more “adult” faith that has had time to develop instead of being a young child who is still (in many, but not all cases) likely just doing what their parents expect.

So what age do you recommend? Did you have a specific age in mind when you think they should be baptized? Can you tell us what is your preferred age is and why?

 

[paul_c]

AMDGtoo,
If one such as myself says they do not believe in the concept of “Original Sin”, then if you’re saying I “don’t understand the difference” I can honestly say, “Yes, I do.”

Adam was received back into a state of “grace” when he obeyed God’s commandments (actually including being baptized, since he was an accountable person); and babies are born into a state of “grace”. They do not need baptism to be placed into a state of “grace”. Christ already placed them in a state of “grace” through His atonement. They were “pre-rescued,” with nothing having needed to be done on their part or on the priest’s part or on the part of their parents.

Christ has that power. His atoning grace has that power over mortality and the mortal body.

Maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand it as well as you think. When Adam fell from Grace, he was evicted from the Garden of Eden as were all of mankind that followed. With that eviction came the suffering and death that all men share and Adam’s sinful nature was transmitted to all his progeny. It is only through Baptism that we regain God’s grace which allows us to overcome this nature.

Now as for the statement that Adam was baptized and regained the state of Grace, where does that come from? Saving baptism only became possible after Christ was resurrected. Is Adam’s baptism your own private revelation or is this a core LDS teaching?

Babies are not born in the state of grace, they have the same human nature within them that will show up later in life. Sure, they haven’t personally sinned because they haven’t had the opportunity to do so, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether they will sin without recieving God’s grace. I think we all know the answer to that and that’s why you have baptism at age 8.

Now as for infant baptism. The parent’s are the proxy for their children, just as they are on all other matters. By having their children baptized, they act in love, doing what is in the best interest of the their children, and promising to raise them in the faith. The children will ultimately confirm their parents decision sacramentally when they come of age. Until then, they are protected by their parents’ decision, as you would expect.

Finally, grace through Jesus’ atonement is available to all, but only if they ask for it. That is what baptism is, asking for grace.

 

[sablouwho]

So what age do you recommend? Did you have a specific age in mind when you think they should be baptized? Can you tell us what is your preferred age is and why?

Z–I think you perhaps misunderstood what I was writing about, or maybe you aren’t familiar with believer’s baptisms? The whole point of what I was saying is that I don’t recommend an age. Believer’s baptisms are done when the individual wants to get baptized rather than at a set age. I think that if baptism is going to be delayed (not done in infancy), it makes more sense, at least to me, that each individual would determine when they are ready rather than set a specific age.

That said, if I was going to be forced to pick an age, I would pick somewhere in the teen years. This probably reflects my Jewish background/influence since bar/bat mitzvahs are done at age 13 and confirmations are done sometime in high school. By this time critical thinking skills have had a chance to develop and I think a person is more actively able to know what they are saying “yes” to than they are at age 8.

 

[zerinus]

Z–I think you perhaps misunderstood what I was writing about, or maybe you aren’t familiar with believer’s baptisms? The whole point of what I was saying is that I don’t recommend an age. Believer’s baptisms are done when the individual wants to get baptized rather than at a set age. I think that if baptism is going to be delayed (not done in infancy), it makes more sense, at least to me, that each individual would determine when they are ready rather than set a specific age.

The age of eight is a “believer’s” baptism according to your definition. We don’t force people to be baptized at the age of eight. We allow them to make their own decisions. Nobody is obliged to be baptized at any age.

That said, if I was going to be forced to pick an age, I would pick somewhere in the teen years. This probably reflects my Jewish background/influence since bar/bat mitzvahs are done at age 13 and confirmations are done sometime in high school. By this time critical thinking skills have had a chance to develop and I think a person is more actively able to know what they are saying “yes” to than they are at age 8.

So you can’t recommend a definitive age? That is a pity, because we can! We think it is eight. Don’t forget that Mormonism is a revealed religion. We don’t make its rules. The Lord does. We just do what He says. And He has told us that eight is the right age.

 

[RebeccaJ]

LDS consider their children who are under 8 as being LDS. Baptism is one of many expected steps a LDS takes in their lives. All 8 year olds are prepared for baptism in primary and Sunday school. It is preparation, not a course on how to make a decision on whether or not to be baptized. On, or very shortly after their 8th birthday they are expected to be baptized.

If a LDS child is not baptized in their 8th year, they are required to take LDS missionary lessons before being baptized. ie, if a child turns 9 years old and they have not been baptized, they are then considered to be non-LDS.

I have known one LDS my entire life who was given the choice to get baptized or not as an 8 year old. He waited until he was 12 years old. All others, including myself, were doing what we were expected to do by our parents. Did we want to? Well of course, it is all we knew! It isn’t like other choices are laid out, including a choice of not getting baptized. No one ever said to me I had the option to say no. If I had, I still would have said yes. Hello, I was 8 years old. It is funny to hear LDS try and make believe that an 8 year old in those circumstances is aware of, taught, or would make any other choice.

 

[Stephen168]

You know, your post made me realize something. For those that don’t believe in infant baptism (a PoV which I can at least understand although I am not convinced by it), my initial impression is that the believers baptism makes more sense than baptizing at age 8. I mean, if you are going to delay baptism and NOT do it as an infant, why not wait till the person has a more “adult” faith that has had time to develop instead of being a young child who is still (in many, but not all cases) likely just doing what their parents expect. Just a thought…I don’t expect an answer.

(By the way…I had a believer’s baptism4 years ago, but that is because I was raised Jewish so obviously infant baptism was never an option for me.)

Yes, I believe the ‘believer’s baptism’ idea is rational; not biblical but rational. The ancient Christian position of Catholicism is rational; biblical and rational. But when Joseph Smith tries to blend the two he got something kind of irrational. Not irrational as to when they baptize but irrational in their rejection of infant baptism; the baptism of ancient Christianity.

 

[Stephen168]

It is funny to hear LDS try and make believe that an 8 year old in those circumstances is aware of, taught, or would make any other choice.

I thought the same thing when my Mormon friends told me that same thing in high school, but I thought about when I received by first communion and confession at age 8. I did what was expected by my Mother, and I assumed Mormon eight years had no choice either.

 

[ParkerD]

LDS consider their children who are under 8 as being LDS. Baptism is one of many expected steps a LDS takes in their lives. All 8 year olds are prepared for baptism in primary and Sunday school. It is preparation, not a course on how to make a decision on whether or not to be baptized. On, or very shortly after their 8th birthday they are expected to be baptized.

If a LDS child is not baptized in their 8th year, they are required to take LDS missionary lessons before being baptized. ie, if a child turns 9 years old and they have not been baptized, they are then considered to be non-LDS.

I have known one LDS my entire life who was given the choice to get baptized or not as an 8 year old. He waited until he was 12 years old. All others, including myself, were doing what we were expected to do by our parents. Did we want to? Well of course, it is all we knew! It isn’t like other choices are laid out, including a choice of not getting baptized. No one ever said to me I had the option to say no. If I had, I still would have said yes. Hello, I was 8 years old. It is funny to hear LDS try and make believe that an 8 year old in those circumstances is aware of, taught, or would make any other choice.

RebeccaJ,
I don’t know if this is saying that 8 years old is too young to make a decision about being baptized? Is this saying that parents should make every decision in the life of their eight-year-old child, or just the important ones which their child “obviously” can’t make on their own?

The bishop meets with the child, and asks the child about their feelings. He doesn’t meet with the parents apart from the child, and ask the parent if the child can be baptized or if the child is “ready”. He asks the child, and waits for an honest response. Children do that–they give honest responses, when asked. They also have a simple faith in Jesus Christ, and feel His love in their lives, usually. So it is in every way an honest decision, or at least should be if they have been allowed to express their feelings within their home and have been “heard” when they did express those feelings.

To trust an eight-year-old in a decision is to grant an important freedom, and allow growth of the child. This is not news to anyone. Just because they choose to be baptized, does not show “they were obliged to do it, and did it out of obligation.” Every one of my children has sincerely, honestly, genuinely wanted to be baptized at age eight, and have not regretted that decision honestly made.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I thought the same thing when my Mormon friends told me that same thing in high school, but I thought about when I received by first communion and confession at age 8. I did what was expected by my Mother, and I assumed Mormon eight years had no choice either.

I have heard more than one Catholic say the same about their first communion.

The true choice for myself was made later, when I was around 16-18 or so. Which statistically speaking 18-24 yrs old, is when most people leave the religion they were raised in (for those who leave).

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
I don’t know if this is saying that 8 years old is too young to make a decision about being baptized? Is this saying that parents should make every decision in the life of their eight-year-old child, or just the important ones which their child “obviously” can’t make on their own?

The bishop meets with the child, and asks the child about their feelings. He doesn’t meet with the parents apart from the child, and ask the parent if the child can be baptized or if the child is “ready”. He asks the child, and waits for an honest response. Children do that–they give honest responses, when asked. They also have a simple faith in Jesus Christ, and feel His love in their lives, usually. So it is in every way an honest decision, or at least should be if they have been allowed to express their feelings within their home and have been “heard” when they did express those feelings.

To trust an eight-year-old in a decision is to grant an important freedom, and allow growth of the child. This is not news to anyone. Just because they choose to be baptized, does not show “they were obliged to do it, and did it out of obligation.” Every one of my children has sincerely, honestly, genuinely wanted to be baptized at age eight, and have not regretted that decision honestly made.

I’m not saying they aren’t giving you the “right” answer. I’m saying they are unaware of any other options.

The one person I know who waited, his father made it clear that there was an option to wait if he felt he was not ready. No bishop says this to any 8 year old.

I don’t regret my LDS baptism. It is a part of my life. And one of the few times I remember my dad giving me something personal.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m not saying they aren’t giving you the “right” answer. I’m saying they are unaware of any other options.

The one person I know who waited, his father made it clear that there was an option to wait if he felt he was not ready. No bishop says this to any 8 year old.

I don’t regret my LDS baptism. It is a part of my life. And one of the few times I remember my dad giving me something personal.

RebeccaJ,
Thank you for this glimpse into your childhood life, and this sharing of a feeling between child and dad. I really do appreciate this.

I agree that a child may not have thought to themselves “I have other options here–I could wait” or “perhaps I should wait.” But the bishop really does give the child the open-ended question of whether they “want” to be baptized. I think they can feel the sincerity of the question being asked of them, and that they can answer honestly without feeling threatened about making the “wrong” answer. I think they choose out of the goodness of their own heart and their own experience in life. I have taught seven-year-olds and eight-year-olds, and their purity of heart and their delight in life is a treasure to behold.

Again, thanks for that glimpse you shared.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
they can answer honestly without feeling threatened about making the “wrong” answer.

When dad and bishop are the same person, there is only one answer. The “right” one.

But, I honestly don’t remember a bishop’s interview. Probably because my dad asking me questions is my dad asking me questions. I do remember him asking if I wanted to be baptized, but this was asked at home, like any other normal thing he might ask me.

 

[sablouwho]

The age of eight is a “believer’s” baptism according to your definition. We don’t force people to be baptized at the age of eight. We allow them to make their own decisions. Nobody is obliged to be baptized at any age.

No, it is not, because the way LDS baptize at age 8 (most of the time) is outside of what I believe the definition to be at its core. If most people are getting baptized when they reach the same age, it is not a believer’s baptism in my opinion, given *my *understanding of what a believer’s baptism is.

As an aside, in the future, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me what I believe and how I understand my own comments. I thank you in advance for respecting my free agency to believe what I believe, and not what someone else says that I believe. I have no issue with you having a different interpretation, but I do expect that others not tell me what my own opinion actually is on a particular subject.

So you can’t recommend a definitive age? That is a pity, because we can! We think it is eight. Don’t forget that Mormonism is a revealed religion. We don’t make its rules. The Lord does. We just do what He says. And He has told us that eight is the right age.

I have already stated my opinion on this, and I think you understood it quite well the first time. I had stated above that somewhere in the teen years seemed a bit more appropriate if someone was twisting my arm and MAKING me choose, but that I believe not having a set age is preferable.

Of course, my ideal age would be “shortly after birth”, IOW, when one is an infant. But that is a different kind of baptism than a believer’s baptism. And it is not something with which I have a problem. Though I do understand that others do not like that, which is their choice.

Where I do have a problem, though, is that your question here seems to me to be disingenuous, and merely phrased as an opportunity to profess what you believe, rather than genuinely asking for clarification. I already know what LDS believe on this subject, and I am pretty sure that you were aware of this. There was no need for you to restate it for my benefit, except, apparently, to be snarky. IF that is the choice you have made, I am sorry for it. I have never purposefully spoken that way to you, and if I have, I apologize for it. Thus it would be refreshing to be shown the same courtesy.

If I am wrong and you have genuinely not understood something I have written, however, feel free to let me know and I will try to clarify.

 

[ParkerD]

When dad and bishop are the same person, there is only one answer. The “right” one.

But, I honestly don’t remember a bishop’s interview. Probably because my dad asking me questions is my dad asking me questions. I do remember him asking if I wanted to be baptized, but this was asked at home, like any other normal thing he might ask me.

RebeccaJ,
That’s a hard thing–a kind of regrettable thing to have happened in that way, rather than him having had you come to his “office” at the church building into a formal setting where you might feel differently about his role and the question being asked.

So, yeah, maybe that was a pretty imperfect process for you in how it was handled. (Not saying your dad was wrong, but maybe there was a better way to have done things.)

I honestly had never thought about this kind of situation and the ramifications, so thank you for sharing this, again. It was a very good point to bring up.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I honestly had never thought about this kind of situation and the ramifications, so thank you for sharing this, again. It was a very good point to bring up.

My dad is a no nonsense guy. I like that about him. Interviewing his own children in an office would just be a plain weird thing for him to do. I couldn’t imagine it.

 

[zerinus]

No, it is not, because the way LDS baptize at age 8 (most of the time) is outside of what I believe the definition to be at its core. If most people are getting baptized when they reach the same age, it is not a believer’s baptism in my opinion, given *my *understanding of what a believer’s baptism is.

You are free to disagree, but we believe that the age of eight is an age in which one can freely decide if they would like to be baptized or not. There is no coercion. It is not true that their parents force them to be baptized. It is not a doctrine of the Church that they should. It is true that they are taught the gospel at an early age; but the Church does not encourage, advise, or expect parents to coerce their children to be baptized. The emphasis is in allowing them to freely make their own decisions. As Parker pointed out, before they are admitted for baptism they are interviewed privately by their bishops in the absence of their parents, and they are asked to freely express their feelings about wanting to be baptized. If they show any sign that they are not sincerely desire to be baptized, they will not be.

As an aside, in the future, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me what I believe and how I understand my own comments. I thank you in advance for respecting my free agency to believe what I believe, and not what someone else says that I believe. I have no issue with you having a different interpretation, but I do expect that others not tell me what my own opinion actually is on a particular subject.

When did I tell you “what you believe”? Can you give me direct quote and a link so I know what you are talking about?

 

[sablouwho]

When did I tell you “what you believe”? Can you give me direct quote and a link so I know what you are talking about?

When you replied to me that…

The age of eight is a “believer’s” baptism according to your definition.

… I felt that words were being put in my mouth, that you were telling me what I believed, when I had already made a distinction between a) having a baptisms as a predetermined age as the norm, and b) what I consider to be a believers baptism (with NOT having a set age being one of the criterion for the the latter.)

Perhaps I read your words in a different way than you intended, but that is what I thought when I read your post replying to my comments.

 

[zerinus]

When you replied to me that…

,

… I felt that words were being put in my mouth, that you were telling me what I believed, when I had already made a distinction between a) having a baptisms as a predetermined age as the norm, and b) what I consider to be a believers baptism (with NOT having a set age being one of the criterion for the the latter.)

Perhaps I read you words in a different way than you intended, but that is what I thought when I read your post replying to my comments.

What I meant was that the age of eight is a “believers baptism” according to how you understand that term.

 

[sablouwho]

What I meant was that the age of eight is a “believers baptism” according to how you understand that term.

Yes, that is what I thought you meant. It seemed like you were telling me what I believed, when I do not believe as you state that I do.

If this is how you are interpreting what I wrote, then you misunderstand me and/or I have not been clear enough in expressing my understanding of what a believer’s baptism actually is–I don’t consider the LDS baptism to be the same as the “believer’s baptisms” as it is practiced in some Protestant movements. Believer’s baptisms are specifically a Protestant thing–and LDS do not consider themselves Protestant. In the latter’s practice, having a set age for baptism is specifically left out. For me, the presence of a normative age for baptisms to occur is NOT what I consider to be a believer’s baptism.

It isn’t that I think that the 8 year old LDS children don’t have some sort of belief. I am sure that many do. The term “believer” in front of the word baptism may be causing problems here. When I use that in above posts, it refers to Protestant praxis and all of the dogma that goes along with it.