Mothers Day: Report from a Mormon ward (parish)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prince_Hal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is not the LDS position. LDS teaches that baptism must be preceded by genuine repentance before it can be of any effect (“He that repenteth and is baptized shall be saved”); and infanct cannot repent until they arrive at the age of accountability.
This why I believe when a Church baptizes is telling about what they believe about ‘the fall.’ Infant Baptism Churches seem to understand baptism as “fixing” mankind’s separation from God. While the reformation -Age of reason- Churches seem to understand baptism as fixing personal sin which separates them from God; therefore ‘the fall’ has little to no meaning for them.
 
Mary did not really do anything extra-ordinary as a mother.

So while Eve did not do anything special herself, she did have a lot of children.

So Eve beats Mary by Quantity.
 
Mormon baptism is the only baptism that counts, because it is the only one that has legitimate authority from God! 😃

zerinus
This is nonsense. You simply have no proof that Joseph Smith received authority from anyone. There is no line of authority which one can follow back to Christ in Mormonism. For example, early Mormon witness David Whitmer had never even heard of an ordination by John the Baptist until between 1834-1836:
Concerning the journey from Harmony to Fayette, Whitmer related at least one other incident. He told Zenas Gurley in a January 1885 interview that Joseph and Oliver talked freely about baptizing each other but said nothing about an angel ordaining them. It was not until 1834–36 that Whitmer learned an angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood. Perhaps the two men believed that it was not the proper time nor place to convey such knowledge to Whitmer.
Here is the entire article from FARMS:

farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=270

The appeal to authority from angelic messengers seems not to have been known by early church members. The visitations of angelic messengers who ordained Joseph Smith seems to have been invented later on to bolster Joseph’s claim to authority. The whole Mormon religion simply evolved from one new claim to another until it completely went off the tracks and denied the Triune God and ex nihilo creation.
 
This is nonsense. You simply have no proof that Joseph Smith received authority from anyone. There is no line of authority which one can follow back to Christ in Mormonism. For example, early Mormon witness David Whitmer had never even heard of an ordination by John the Baptist until between 1834-1836:

Here is the entire article from FARMS:

farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=270

The appeal to authority from angelic messengers seems not to have been known by early church members. The visitations of angelic messengers who ordained Joseph Smith seems to have been invented later on to bolster Joseph’s claim to authority. The whole Mormon religion simply evolved from one new claim to another until it completely went off the tracks and denied the Triune God and ex nihilo creation.
My thoughts exactly. mormonism started off as a small local con game that got out of hand. Joseph Smith saw his fantasy as an escape from poverty and grabbed it. He didn’t have any “visions” and never got “ordained” by anybody, but it helped the con game to move along.
 
I would suggest that many Catholics who were baptized as infants have as many of those isms as any Mormon. Very few parents seem to be able to transmit the faith in such a way that children avoid materialism, etc. especially since many Catholic parents have these shortcomings. My wife’s family were all baptized as infants as Catholics, but none of them seem to follow the Catholic religion very well at this point. I am not denying there is grace in infant baptism, but am simply pointing out that we need to be humble in our criticism of those who don’t practice infant baptism.
i agree and find it discouraging that so many catholics seem to place religious education completely in the hands of the parish or (worse) only send their kids through the mandatory sacramental prep classes to get first communion and confirmation. we need to do a better job of catechizing our children. AND (as you point out) we have to strengthen that foundation by living the faith.
 
This [is] why I believe when a Church baptizes,] is telling [us] about what they believe about ‘the fall.’ Infant Baptism Churches seem to understand baptism as “fixing” mankind’s separation from God. While the reformation -Age of reason- Churches seem to understand baptism as fixing personal sin which separates them from God; therefore ‘the fall’ has little to no meaning for them.
Some truths mixed with errors. First of all, I can’t speak for other churches. They must speak for themselves. Martin Luther, who started the Reformation, accepted infant baptism; so we are not exactly following Protestantism to reject it. Secondly, you are right in saying that we don’t believe that baptism “fixes what went wrong at the Fall”. What went wrong at the Fall is automatically fixed by the Atonement. Just as the Fall (and its consequences) did not come about as a result of any voluntary action or decision on our part; God also does not expect us to do anything to fix it. It is automatically taken care of by the Atonement. Baptism only fixes what we put wrong ourselves—hence it is not applicable to infants. The Bible makes it clear that baptism is unto repentance for the remission of sins:

Matthew 3:

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, . . .

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13:

24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 22:

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Common sense would tell you that infants cannot repent, therefore baptism is meaningless for them. There is no instance of baptism being given to infants in the Bible. Baptism is only given to adults, after faith and repentance, and for the remission of sins. None of these apply to infants, therefore there are no infant baptisms.

These are all clear signs of the Apostasy of course. When the church apostatizes, then all kinds of things start going wrong with it, both in its doctrines as well as in its practices.

zerinus
 
The Mormon God is the only God. If you don’t believe in the Mormon God, then you don’t believe in God at all! 😃

zerinus
That’s BS. mormons believe in an exalted man of flesh and bone. Only one of many gods, not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses. Might as well believe in Zeus or Mithras for all the good it does.
 
The Mormon God is the only God. If you don’t believe in the Mormon God, then you don’t believe in God at all! 😃

zerinus
zerinus…
I find that truly offensive. Two can play your game if you wish.

The mormon god is only one god that the mormons believe in. Thankfully, the God in which I believe is the redeemer and the one and only true God—without begining or end. AMEN!
 
Some truths mixed with errors. First of all, I can’t speak for other churches. They must speak for themselves. Martin Luther, who started the Reformation, accepted infant baptism; so we are not exactly following Protestantism to reject it. Secondly, you are right in saying that we don’t believe that baptism “fixes what went wrong at the Fall”. What went wrong at the Fall is automatically fixed by the Atonement. Just as the Fall (and its consequences) did not come about as a result of any voluntary action or decision on our part; God also does not expect us to do anything to fix it. It is automatically taken care of by the Atonement. Baptism only fixes what we put wrong ourselves—hence it is not applicable to infants. The Bible makes it clear that baptism is unto repentance for the remission of sins:

Matthew 3:

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, . . .

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13:

24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 22:

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Common sense would tell you that infants cannot repent, therefore baptism is meaningless for them. There is no instance of baptism being given to infants in the Bible. Baptism is only given to adults, after faith and repentance, and for the remission of sins. None of these apply to infants, therefore there are no infant baptisms.

These are all clear signs of the Apostasy of course. When the church apostatizes, then all kinds of things start going wrong with it, both in its doctrines as well as in its practices.

zerinus
And of course none of this has any bearing on whether infants can be baptized. Even after baptism people have to continue to repent so the age at which they are baptized is meaninglesss in the long run. It is better to let them be baptized as infants so they can benefit from the graces which come from the sacrament rather than deny them from coming to Jesus.
 
zerinus IS following protestantism on this as Luther was the one who STARTED it!
 
Some truths mixed with errors. First of all, I can’t speak for other churches. They must speak for themselves. Martin Luther, who started the Reformation, accepted infant baptism; so we are not exactly following Protestantism to reject it. Secondly, you are right in saying that we don’t believe that baptism “fixes what went wrong at the Fall”. What went wrong at the Fall is automatically fixed by the Atonement. Just as the Fall (and its consequences) did not come about as a result of any voluntary action or decision on our part; God also does not expect us to do anything to fix it. It is automatically taken care of by the Atonement. Baptism only fixes what we put wrong ourselves—hence it is not applicable to infants. The Bible makes it clear that baptism is unto repentance for the remission of sins:

Matthew 3:

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, . . .

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13:

24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 22:

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Common sense would tell you that infants cannot repent, therefore baptism is meaningless for them. There is no instance of baptism being given to infants in the Bible. Baptism is only given to adults, after faith and repentance, and for the remission of sins. None of these apply to infants, therefore there are no infant baptisms.

These are all clear signs of the Apostasy of course. When the church apostatizes, then all kinds of things start going wrong with it, both in its doctrines as well as in its practices.
Thanks for helping prove my case.
 
Why not? Sex between man and wife is not a sinful thing. It is a beautiful thing. The idea that sinfulness had to exist for people to have the ability to make children is an extremely bizarre one to me. It’s just yet another Mormon belief that makes me feel bad and wrong, like I am reading the worst kind of blasphemy.
I agree. Wasn’t it St. Thomas Aquinas who speculated that if man had never fallen, sex would be even better than it is now?

Anyway, God also commanded the animals to be fruitful and multiply, and animals aren’t capable of sinning. God never gave them the admonition to avoid the tree of knowledge. So, how were they supposed to obey God’s command to be fruitful and multiply if they couldn’t sin in order to obey this commandment?
 
Why did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden at all? Why did He allow the devil to tempt them to partake of it?

zerinus
The same reason he invented alcohol, coffee, and tea, I guess. 😛 😉

Drink up!
 
I don’t attack people. I do point out the absence of evidence or the lack of reasoned explanation. It’s unfortunate if you cannot discern the difference.

I’ll make it easier on you. I’ll put you on “ignore” and I’ll no longer respond to your posts. Have a nice life.
…right…

cya at the pearly gates
 
I’m still waiting to hear a response from teancum79, or any other other LDS, as to how Mormons can possibly believe that God gave Adam and Eve two conflicting commandments and thereby forced them to choose to obey one and disobey the other. What kind of god is that? Do you really think that God plays those kinds of games with us?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top