Mormonism; there are many ways of proving it wrong.

[cthulhubryan]

Thank you. I raised them Mormon. (ducking…)

Be that as it may, you did raise them right. Mormons are not exempt from bad behavior. Right now a mormon is beating his wife and child, so is a catholic, methodist, baptist, muslim, etc.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Really think about it, and explain in your opinion how you would administer the “figuring out” process for each and every child, since you apparently don’t think their age has anything to do with it.

The Holy Spirit, working in the heart of each child. The teaching and encouragement of parents, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. The child knows when they are ready. For a Catholic, the commitment is made at Confirmation. There is no set age, however, children are taught and encouraged and are Confirmed between the ages of 7-14.

For both faiths, I think there are children who are baptized LDS, or Confirmed in the Catholic Church, because “that is what you do”. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, just, I think ascribing some astounding spiritual witness to every child’s LDS baptism or Catholic Confirmation, is not reality.

 

[ParkerD]

The Holy Spirit, working in the heart of each child. The teaching and encouragement of parents, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. The child knows when they are ready. For a Catholic, the commitment is made at Confirmation. There is no set age, however, children are taught and encouraged and are Confirmed between the ages of 7-14.

For both faiths, I think there are children who are baptized LDS, or Confirmed in the Catholic Church, because “that is what you do”. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, just, I think ascribing some astounding spiritual witness to every child’s LDS baptism or Catholic Confirmation, is not reality.

Rebecca J,
I think this is a good answer, and I appreciate it. I would be OK with the approach you describe in paragraph one. I am also comfortable with age 8 being a “goal” for the parents to have taught their child and for the child to have learned cognition, independence, faith, unselfishness and awareness of others, and genuine love for God. I think either way works, as far as letting the child express “when they are ready”. (I also agree with your other paragraph.)

 

[Jerusha]

Eight is a nice average age for conscience development to be advanced enough to handle Confirmation, Reconciliation and First Communion, or for Mormons, baptism. There is no hard and fast rule.

I did question First Communion for a deaf child with no language, though.

And I have the right to use irony, satire, and hyperbole, illustrating LDS logical fallacies. Some of the nuttier ones do a better job at refuting Mormonism than I could ever do.

 

[dianaiad]

Be that as it may, you did raise them right. Mormons are not exempt from bad behavior. Right now a mormon is beating his wife and child, so is a catholic, methodist, baptist, muslim, etc.

I wish you weren’t right about that.

 

[ricko]

Here are some more things wrong with “the most correct book ever written” .

Bible: Isaiah 14:19 “But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain…”

Book of Mormon: II Nephi 24:19 “But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and the remnant of those that are slain…”

Raiment is clothing, so the clothing of the slain. Remnant on the other hand would in this case refer to the flesh and bones of the slain, their remains. Joseph Smith must of just read it wrong, or maybe just didn’t know what it meant.

 

[ParkerD]

Here are some more things wrong with “the most correct book ever written” .

Bible: Isaiah 14:19 “But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain…”

Book of Mormon: II Nephi 24:19 “But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and the remnant of those that are slain…”

Raiment is clothing, so the clothing of the slain. Remnant on the other hand would in this case refer to the flesh and bones of the slain, their remains. Joseph Smith must of just read it wrong, or maybe just didn’t know what it meant.

Rick,
The word “remnant” in every case in Isaiah has to do with the “remnant” of a family or an heritage, such as the remnant of the house of Israel or in the case of Isaiah 14, the remnant of “those that are slain” meaning those who let themselves be “slain” by the cunning of Lucifer (v. 12).

Isaiah nearly always repeats a message in two different ways within a chapter or several verses. This is so here, in Isaiah 14, with the word “remnant” and the message about it. Verse 22 has the repeated thought:

“For I will rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the Lord.”

Joseph Smith got it right. However, “raiment” could also work if one remembers that the coat of many colors of Joseph became symbolic of a “raiment” that represented a “remnant” of part of the house of Israel. The brothers took a torn part of the coat of many colors to their father, Jacob (Israel), to show him what had “happened” to Joseph.

So if you want to use “raiment” in that verse, I think it would be well to remember that coat of many colors and that in the case of Lucifer, he will have been dismissed and those who followed him as their leader will have become “cut off from Babylon”, or in other words become an “abominable branch” that has no support or in other words “as a carcase trodden under foot.”

 

[Stephen168]

There is not a Biblical reference,….

So baptizing at eight is not biblical.

but I think it is logical that God would expect humankind to be able to determine……

Yes, Christ established the Catholic Church to determine many things

determine at what age a child has cognitive development and independent thinking to the extent of being able to make independent choices and be held accountable to a certain extent for those choices.

But what does any of this have to do with the Mormon theological reasons for baptism (forgive sin and enter the covenant)? The Jews entered the covenant at eight days old. Forgiveness of sin can take place at anytime.

 

[ParkerD]

But what does any of this have to do with the Mormon theological reasons for baptism (forgive sin and enter the covenant)? The Jews entered the covenant at eight days old. Forgiveness of sin can take place at anytime.

Stephen,
It is true that the Jews (assuming we both mean the entire house of Israel) were a covenant people, and that they had the law of circumcision. But that was not their method of showing that God had forgiven the sins of anyone. Their method of showing how God forgives humankind, was the law of sacrifice with its careful procedures. The law of sacrifice pointed, of course, to Jesus Christ as the great and last sacrifice.

Isaiah wrote, 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

He also wrote, in Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”

An infant does not, acting of their own accord, “make his soul an offering for sin.” The forgiveness comes as a result of having acknowledged Christ’s intercession and asked for forgiveness, and each person does that on their own. (An infant is pure and has no need of forgiveness.)

As I had written before, the words “forgiveness” and “remission” are not absolutely “like” words. Each has different connotations, and the remitting is done by Christ after the person has sought forgiveness of their own accord.

Baptism is for the remission of sins, because Christ has a bigger reason than just forgiveness for someone to enter into the covenant gospel. He wants them to commit to follow Him so He can change their hearts and change their lives. He wants them to become purified, as He is pure. He wants them to make an eternal covenant which they are determined to keep. He absolutely promises to keep His part of the covenant.

 

[Stephen168]

It is true that the Jews (assuming we both mean the entire house of Israel) were a covenant people, and that they had the law of circumcision. But that was not their method of showing that God had forgiven the sins of anyone. Their method of showing how God forgives humankind, was the law of sacrifice with its careful procedures. The law of sacrifice pointed, of course, to Jesus Christ as the great and last sacrifice.

Circumcision was how they entered the covenant and they entered the covenant at eight days old, so you have twisted Jewish believe and practice.

An infant does not, acting of their own accord, “make his soul an offering for sin.” The forgiveness comes as a result of having acknowledged Christ’s intercession and asked for forgiveness, and each person does that on their own. (An infant is pure and has no need of forgiveness.)

I was not asking about infants, I was asking why eight years old? But you do provoke another question: If baptism is for remission of sin, does the eight year have to knowingly commit a sin so they can be forgiven for it at baptism? If so, could they commit a sin at six years old and get baptized then?

 

[ParkerD]

Circumcision was how they entered the covenant and they entered the covenant at eight days old, so you have twisted Jewish believe and practice.

I was not asking about infants, I was asking why eight years old? But you do provoke another question: If baptism is for remission of sin, does the eight year have to knowingly commit a sin so they can be forgiven for it at baptism? If so, could they commit a sin at six years old and get baptized then?

Stephen,
A practicing Jew would not say they enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ by being circumcised, nor would they say that they are circumcised to show that their sins have been forgiven.

As I had explained (or tried to), baptism is for the remission of sins including the continuing need to repent and receive forgiveness for sins committed throughout life. Continuing repentance will be needed for continuing forgiveness, and Christ is the remitter so that the just penalty has been paid for sins that have been committed.

A child at age 8 has just begun to be accountable for their actions and decisions as independent decision-makers within the level of their cognitive reasoning. Up until age 8, they would be considered innocent before God, and therefore have no sin to repent of. They don’t need to “knowingly commit a sin so they can be forgiven of it at baptism”, though I can see why you might ask that. Their baptism does not represent an act of receiving forgiveness. It represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit as they go through life, so they will need to repent of those sins when they do wrong things. One who is baptized as an older person, as happened in most cases in the New Testament, truly needs to have repented of their sins which they have indeed committed, before they would be baptized and receive a remission of those sins plus of the future sins they will commit during their lives as they continue to repent.

The “goal” is to progress, grow, become better, become less sinful, always recognizing that we are all going to fall very short of perfection and that Christ’s grace lifts us up even in the midst of our imperfections. He does that as we repent and seek to keep our gospel covenant.

 

[Stephen168]

A practicing Jew would not say they enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ by being circumcised,

No they are Jewish.

nor would they say that they are circumcised to show that their sins have been forgiven.

No, they are circumcised as an outward sign to show their participation in Israel’s covenant with God (join the church).

As I had explained (or tried to), baptism is for the remission of sins including the continuing need to repent and receive forgiveness for sins committed throughout life. Continuing repentance will be needed for continuing forgiveness, and Christ is the remitter so that the just penalty has been paid for sins that have been committed.

A child at age 8 has just begun to be accountable for their actions and decisions as independent decision-makers within the level of their cognitive reasoning. Up until age 8, they would be considered innocent before God, and therefore have no sin to repent of. They don’t need to “knowingly commit a sin so they can be forgiven of it at baptism”, though I can see why you might ask that. Their baptism does not represent an act of receiving forgiveness. It represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit as they go through life, so they will need to repent of those sins when they do wrong things.

What you mean is: Join the Church and your future sins can be forgiven.

One who is baptized as an older person, as happened in most cases in the New Testament, truly needs to have repented of their sins which they have indeed committed, before they would be baptized and receive a remission of those sins plus of the future sins they will commit during their lives as they continue to repent.

When are they forgiven: after repenting or after baptism? From some of my other reading it is after baptism.

 

[Religio71]

Their baptism does not represent an act of receiving forgiveness. It represents an act of receiving the remission of sins they will commit as they go through life, so they will need to repent of those sins when they do wrong things.

I’m sorry, I don’t see why this cannot be done during infancy as well if this is the only purpose of baptism. Except of course that the Book of Mormon denounces it.

 

[ParkerD]

No they are Jewish.
No, they are circumcised as an outward sign to show their participation in Israel’s covenant with God (join the church). THE OLD COVENANT.

What you mean is: Join the Church and your future sins can be forgiven. (NOT QUITE TRUE)

When are they forgiven: after repenting or after baptism? From some of my other reading it is after baptism.

Stephen,
Baptism is far, far more than a step to “join the Church.” The covenant part of baptism is absolutely essential. The covenant relationship means that one doesn’t consider their sins as “independent events”. If person A says to himself, “I am not going to be baptized right now, but I’ll just repent and seek forgiveness as I go along in life,” then based on Christ’s teachings, they haven’t sincerely and completely repented because repentance means seeking a total change of heart, and putting one’s devotion and faith in the power and grace of the Savior, and to do that one absolutely must be baptized and then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is the single way to enter the gate into the path that leads to eternal life. Baptism “seals” the covenant of the follower of Christ.

 

[why_me]

I’m sorry, I don’t see why this cannot be done during infancy as well if this is the only purpose of baptism. Except of course that the Book of Mormon denounces it.

In the catholic faith, if you go back in time, what would happen to a baby who died before there was a baptism or a christening? I remember that it wasn’t good at all. But for mormons, those babies or children who die before the age of accountablity will be blessed by god. So there is a difference in intent.

Unbaptized infants
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here.** The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.** This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

 

[Religio71]

In the catholic faith, if you go back in time, what would happen to a baby who died before there was a baptism or a christening? I remember that it wasn’t good at all. But for mormons, those babies or children who die before the age of accountablity will be blessed by god. So there is a difference in intent.

Unbaptized infants
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here.** The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.** This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

 

[why_me]

Religio71:
I know Religio that you are a convert to the catholic church. I was born in the catholic church. It does not matter to me if you respond to my posts. But what I linked to is correct and many mothers who lost their babies before baptism suffered because of it: not just because they lost their baby but because of their baby’s soul. I am not saying that the catholic teaching is wrong, but infant baptism allows those babies to see god if (god forbid) they die young.

By the way, your pasting and posting is not very christian in spirit. Maybe you should discover the catholic faith in little ways: develop the spirit of mother theresa or saint therese or even at the catholic worker on east third street.

It all starts with giving a human being his or her dignity.

 

[Religio71]

I know Religio that you are a convert to the catholic church. I was born in the catholic church. It does not matter to me if you respond to my posts**. But what I linked to is correct and many mothers who lost their babies before baptism suffered because of it**: not just because they lost their baby but because of their baby’s soul.** I am not saying that the catholic teaching is wrong**, but infant baptism allows those babies to see god if (god forbid) they die young.

By the way, your pasting and posting is not very christian in spirit. Maybe you should discover the catholic faith in little ways: develop the spirit of mother theresa or saint therese or even at the catholic worker on east third street.

It all starts with giving a human being his or her dignity.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m sorry, I don’t see why this cannot be done during infancy as well if this is the only purpose of baptism. Except of course that the Book of Mormon denounces it.

I think you are correct. Catholic baptism is the new circumcision into **the New Covenant for the forgiveness of the sin **of Adam. The only theological difference between the purpose of Catholic baptism and the purpose of Mormon baptism is which sins are forgiven. We believe it is for original and personal sin and Mormons believe it is for personal sin. Both Churches believe sin can be forgiven after baptism, so why not enter the covenant with Christ and all his graces as soon as possible?

Historically Mormonism came out of the Restoration/Primitivism movement. The Restoration movement held to the 16th century invention of a believer’s baptism. Joseph Smith held on to the ancient purpose of baptism but also adopted the restoration movement’s rejection of infant baptism. So Smith rejected infant baptism with no theological reason for doing so.

At least ParkerD is still defending Mormonism; an anti-catholic (like Whyme) would start attacking Catholics in ignorant frustration without making any attempt at defending the Mormon position.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I wish you weren’t right about that.

So do I.