That might might be where the problem is…we believe the Catholic Church has the other as do other Protestant religions…we don’t recognize Mormon baptisms as Christian.
I am quite aware of that, Stormy. We don’t return the favor, though. True, we don’t recognise Catholic baptisms, but we don’t kick you out of the Christian fellowship or declare that y’ll aren’t Christians.
Ok, I understand that but why would you do proxy work for a devout Catholic, they have made their choice…isn’t it a bit of a waste of time…
Our time to waste.
Infant baptism began way back when, when many infants died and died quickly…and age 8 is not the age of reason either…8 yr olds don’t understand what is happening…many protestant churches wait until 14 or 15, my Presbyterian Church did…and even then I think that’s young for confirmation into any faith…
It’s old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. …and remember, we believe that infants are born utterly innocent and free of any sin. Therefore infants and children who die before the ‘age of accountability,’ we believe, go immediately to heaven to be with God and His Son.
A permanent mark on their soul? I don’t understand that…what kind of mark does it leave except what Jesus told us to do…baptised by water…
Don’t ask me, it’s your doctrine…and yes, it really is. The phrase ‘permanent mark’ is also Catholic doctrine. Actually, the catechism uses ‘indelible mark.’ From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1272: *Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated. *
This phrase is used several times in the catechism, and trust me, I wouldn’t be using the phrase myself if it were not only confirmed by the catechism, but also by almost every Catholic I have ever met.
There in lies the problem…living family should have that choice…I don’t want proxy work done for myself or my family…it shouldn’t be done…but I do realize that is your religious belief and you sure are entitled to your beliefs…
I guess that, given that y’all see absolutely no problem with baptising infants without consulting them (resulting in that ‘indelible mark,’) then I can see how you would think that the "family’ might have more ‘say’ about what members of that family do and think, religiously. It’s a paradigm shift that totally escapes me, though–and it is ironic. WE, after all, are the folks who think that families are forever, and y’all who think that all formal bonds are disolved at death; that salvation is strictly an individual thing.
Yet it is we who believe that the person whose salvation is at stake is the only one who has the right to make this decision, and y’all who seem to believe that you have the right to make that decision for your family members. It’s backwards.
Now if they decide they want this…what happens then? I know from having been a Mormon what the living must do…but what about those baptised by proxy? What do they have to do to reach the Celestial Kingdon…are they eligible for this?
Of course.
Only if dead people can talk could they say no…and we don’t know if they can.
…you don’t believe in an after life?
I think this might of been more effective before information was readily available about all religions not just LDS…but now people can look up and learn for themselves…
Yes, and I do wish that more people would do that, instead of relying on one’s cousin’s aunt’s brother’s pastor—or information from people whose entire purpose in diseminating such information is to defeat us. Wouldn’t you rather people like me got our information regarding Catholicism from the Catechism, rather than Jack Chick?
