Mormonism and infant baptism

[JamesCollins]

I’ve heard this as well, though I can’t confirm. I don’t think they’ve ever developed the speculation of the Limbo of Infants because of the difference in understanding original sin. Perhaps these links will be helpful:

orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin
aidanorthodox.co.uk/Theology/salvation1a.htm

Also, Eastern Orthodox (and I assume Eastern Catholics) baptize, confirm, and give the Eucharist to infants. The separation of baptism in infancy and confirmation in adolescence is more of a Western practice (I think the Catechism mentions this as well, off the top of my head).

Having perused those articles I would say Mormonism and Eastern Orthodoxy are extremely close if not exactly the same in their attitudes towards Adam’s sin.

 

[JamesCollins]

I believe the people of Israel passing through the cloud is another type of baptism as well:

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ. (1 Cor 10, 1-4).

It cannot be denied that there were little children in the people of Israel.

Very good comment.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Having perused those articles I would say Mormonism and Eastern Orthodoxy are extremely close if not exactly the same in their attitudes towards Adam’s sin.

I respectfully disagree. The Orthodox view is that the first sin caused all of mankind, including a newborn, to have a sinful nature, which is remedied with baptism. Mormons believe, essentially, that ALL of mankind have immaculate conceptions. LDS believe that Adam’s sin was desired by God and necessary to their God’s plan of salvation. They hold no belief that anyone other than Adam and Eve know the negative consequences of the first sin. Loss of inheritance of original grace, is lost on Mormons.

 

[iepuras]

I respectfully disagree. The Orthodox view is that the first sin caused all of mankind, including a newborn, to have a sinful nature, which is remedied with baptism. Mormons believe, essentially, that ALL of mankind have immaculate conceptions. LDS believe that Adam’s sin was desired by God and necessary to their God’s plan of salvation. They hold no belief that anyone other than Adam and Eve know the negative consequences of the first sin. Loss of inheritance of original grace, is lost on Mormons.

I agree. While the Eastern view of original/ancestral sin may appear to be similar to LDS views, it only appears to be so on the surface. Remember, the LDS reject the entire concept of original or ancestral sin. LDS do not believe that Adam and Eve even sinned in the Garden of Eden. They merely transgressed. LDS believe that Adam and Eve were given two commandments that were contradictory.

1. Multiply and replenish the earth (i.e., have babies)
2. Don’t partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

LDS also believe that Adam and Eve could not procreate prior to the Fall, so in order to keep one commandment, they had to break the other. It was a catch 22. But it was all necessary and part of the plan of salvation. In the LDS view of the Fall, it was a “fall forward”. Adam and Eve essentially gained an inheritance to be like Heavenly Father, as opposed to the Eastern view that they lost their inheritance of original grace.

 

[michaeldean]

Would I let them assume that households included everyone? and that things were different back then back there than they are now?

Yep.

That’s not the assumption they’re saying you’re making. It’s the same as when old texts use the convention of saying “men” to mean “all humans”. They may have meant specifically adult males, but it’s likely it’s just shorthand as used in the time.

 

[TexanKnight]

That’s not the assumption they’re saying you’re making. It’s the same as when old texts use the convention of saying “men” to mean “all humans”. They may have meant specifically adult males, but it’s likely it’s just shorthand as used in the time.

not true. Households were households.

 

[jadamo]

Of their 4 standard works, doesn’t the Bible rank as the lowest to be studied b/c “plain and precious” truths were removed, and what is left could’ve been changed? So even if scriptures say whole housedholds were baptized, would they even give those scriptures proper acknowldegment? Or would they refer to JS teachings on infant baptism and throw out any reference to babies being baptized? Texan Knight, you were once LDS, right? In an LDS mindset, what would they most likely do?

 

[TexanKnight]

Of their 4 standard works, doesn’t the Bible rank as the lowest to be studied b/c “plain and precious” truths were removed, and what is left could’ve been changed? So even if scriptures say whole housedholds were baptized, would they even give those scriptures proper acknowldegment? Or would they refer to JS teachings on infant baptism and throw out any reference to babies being baptized? Texan Knight, you were once LDS, right? In an LDS mindset, what would they most likely do?

the problem is, what js says trumps the Bible…until what js says does not make sense, then he can be ignored.

 

[iepuras]

Of their 4 standard works, doesn’t the Bible rank as the lowest to be studied b/c “plain and precious” truths were removed, and what is left could’ve been changed? So even if scriptures say whole housedholds were baptized, would they even give those scriptures proper acknowldegment? Or would they refer to JS teachings on infant baptism and throw out any reference to babies being baptized? Texan Knight, you were once LDS, right? In an LDS mindset, what would they most likely do?

Basically. The LDS church encourages reading the Book of Mormon over the other “standard works”. In all my years in the LDS church, I never had been challenged or encouraged to read the Bible. We were frequently encouraged and challenged to read the Book of Mormon. It was almost constant.

Any discussion of the events described in the Book of Acts is rare in LDS meetings/classes, so the idea of baptizing entire households and what that really means is never really considered or discussed.

Because LDS only believe the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly”, the Bible always loses if there are any contradictions between the Bible and Book of Mormon or LDS prophets. Teachings against infant baptism in the BOM always trumps the Bible. But when the BOM contradicts teachings of Joseph Smith or any of the other LDS prophets, the prophets trump BOM. Also, living prophets trump dead ones.

 

[truthsilence]

The question I have is, how could Mormon, supposedly writing an epistle to his son Moroni, have even known anything about infant baptisms?

Apparently the Nephites were baptizing whole household’s too. Why?

Answer: There were no Nephites.

lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng