Infant Baptism

[soren]

It is not incorrect.

An LDS baby blessing gives the baby an official church membership record. Now we can argue semantics all day long about members of record differ from real members or whatever--but since an LDS baby blessing generates an official church membership record, as does a Catholic infant baptism, I don't see where you can disagree with my comparison.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

Sounds like a baptismal certificate, doesn't it?

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/priesth...g_children.html

This very interesting, for it seems to me that the LDS practice of enrolling blessed children in their membership records violates their own scripture, as D&C 20:71 would preclude such an action, even though the mandate to bless children is found in the verse immediately preceding.

[saemo]

This very interesting, for it seems to me that the LDS practice of enrolling blessed children in their membership records violates their own scripture, as D&C 20:71 would preclude such an action, even though the mandate to bless children is found in the verse immediately preceding.

Perhaps a LDS member can clarify, but my understanding is that the child is a "child of record", not a member. ie, the membership record does not actually imply membership.

I have come to view it as a sort of catechumenate process. We believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, that a catechumen who dies before actually being baptized has a baptism of desire. Though the LDS church does not call it the same, the practice and belief is similar in that they consider the soul of an unbaptized child will be received into heaven the same as a person who has been baptized.

We also believe the same for an unbaptized infant who might die before being baptized. If the parents had desired the baptism (and can be extended to the godparents and Christian community), the child has received a baptism of desire.

[Servant]

Well, in defense of TOm--that's not what his point was. It was that both religions have specific conditions where another baptism may be necessary and you can't use Catholic guidelines to determine LDS situations and vice versa.

However, his comparison was still inadequate. His and the Ensign's defense that a re-baptism is simply "a restoration of the original ordinance" and not a redo when that original LDS baptism was revoked as is the claim when an LDS member leaves voluntarily or involuntarily is not even in the same universe as a conditional Catholic baptism.

I understand that...his original reply to me was that lds and catholic have similar baptism...which is NOT true... it is inadequate because he doesnt see or acknowledge what I told him about the difference or he ignored it.... which was this: a mormon baptized as a mormon who leaves the church and then comes back that person has to get baptized again...if a catholic who is baptized catholic and leaves the church but comes back that person doesnt have to get baptized again...

mormons believe that all baptism (except for their own) is not valid...so they baptize everybody who joins the church...

the catholics does acknowledge alot (not all but alot) of baptism and doesnt need to be baptized again...

to me the "similarties" are slim...

then he says this:

In fact, Vatican II moved Extreme Unction ever so slightly closer to the LDS practice by removing SOME of the practical restrictions that previously focused this practice toward being a ONE time END-OF-LIFE activity (called Last Rites) rather than a blessing and anointing by authority.

but cant back it up because a Catholic didnt state but it must be true because a non catholic stated this...if this is true then the Catholic Church can back up his claim....

but yet he says his "arguments" are strong...well if you cant back up what one says...then how is that strong?

[soren]

That is a fair and accurate statement. But it appears that non-Catholics hostile to the practise of infant baptism have been rooting around in the Augustinian corpus, who are incapable of making this distinction. So yes, even though no champion of the "anti-pedobaptists" has appeared to offer any evidence from St. Augustine, I can imagine there are probably sections of his writing that would at least seem to support this objectionable teaching proposed by Kartereo as the scheme from which pedobaptism springs. But it is one thing to teach that the effects of the original sin IS transferred through the conjugal embrace, and quite another to say that "the original sin of Adam and Eve was not partaking of the forbidden fruit, but acquiring carnal knowledge of one another." The first is acceptable and correct, the latter is neither.

You are correct that Augustine could easily be quoted-mined in a way that seems to support the OP. It is definitely the case that Augustine said original sin was passed down by procreation. Without proper context, one could easily construe this as an attribution of sin to sex. Augustine is among the most consistently misrepresented Church Fathers in LDS literature, and the claim in the OP are understandable to me, although it is thoroughly wrong.

I think it might be noteworthy to point out further that the circumcision of the male procreative member, from the times of Abraham, could be interpreted as symbolic of the fact that the seed of Adam, and thus the effects of his original sin, is passed on through all of his male descendants at least. I don't think I can speak with certainty to the questions raised by Tom about the Virginal Conception of an Immaculate Mother. But it would lend weight to the reason why in regard to circumcision, there was no parallel rite for females in the Abrahamic covenant if the female only has the "symptoms of original sin without carrying the virus", if you will permit such a way of expression. The Virginity of the Mother of the Saviour would be significant then mainly because it was necessary that the father of the Second Adam, not be a carrier of the First Adam's disease.

Aquinas thought that circumcision removed original sin, as represented by the removal of "superfluous flesh." His explanation for why circumcision is taken from that part of the body is simply because the covenant was to bless Abraham's seed, and so the organ of procreation was a fitting place for the mark of such a covenant.

Original sin, by the way is not a "virus." This term has been used metaphorically by a lot of people, but it is a poor metaphor. Original sin, lie evil itself, is a purely defective thing. It is the absence of any sanctifying grace or blessing above what man possesses by nature. Animals also lack such a blessing, but because man is ordered to a supernatural end, it is an evil for man to lack grace. I is worth pointing out that Mormonism, because it does not believe in the supernatural (not if one understands the word correctly) also believe that infants are born without supernatural grace; they simply do not acknowledge that that is an insufficient state for human happiness and beatitude. "Supernatural grace" does not exist in their theology.

I would make one further point. Our LDS friends seem to think it is a highly unjust economy which permits the children to partake of the sins of Adam. But do they not embrace just such an economy when they allow that with regard to the righteousness of the Second Adam, Christ, the children partake? Yes, they believe in the vicarious economy of justice when it is favorable unto them. It is certainly a convenient belief. But the basis of true justice is not convenience. I suggest that it is an unjust and imbalanced system which holds we may vicariously enjoy the benefits of Christ's atonement, but not partake vicariously of the fall of Adam. We can't approve a system of vicarious justice that is applicable when favorable but not applicable when unfavorable. If most Mormons can be taken at their word though, that appears to be the kind of confused system of divine justice in which they believe.

The antidote to this is a good reading of Romans 5 and the clear proportionality between Jesus and Adam. A lot of modern exegetes hold that Paul only believes that Adam is an archetype of sinful man, not that he actually brought sin into the world. This view is pleasing to historical-critical reductionism because it is consistent with most Rabbinical teaching, but it is totally out of line with the text:

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:19)

If there is a true proportion between Adam and Christ, and we want to say Christ merited salvation vicariously for us, then we have to take this verse, and the whole passage that contains it, at its word about Adam's correlative role.

[soren]

Perhaps a LDS member can clarify, but my understanding is that the child is a "child of record", not a member. ie, the membership record does not actually imply membership.

I have come to view it as a sort of catechumenate process. We believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, that a catechumen who dies before actually being baptized has a baptism of desire. Though the LDS church does not call it the same, the practice and belief is similar in that they consider the soul of an unbaptized child will be received into heaven the same as a person who has been baptized.

We also believe the same for an unbaptized infant who might die before being baptized. If the parents had desired the baptism (and can be extended to the godparents and Christian community), the child has received a baptism of desire.

Hmmm. Awaiting further clarification on this point, I will tentatively resume my previous stance that LDS infant blessings are not analogous to baptism, and that D&C 20:71 teaches an absurd eccesiology.

[LeSellers]

Perhaps a LDS member can clarify, but my understanding is that the child is a "child of record", not a member. ie, the membership record does not actually imply membership.

Not quite. The child is a member, but not a baptized member. There is no salvific significance attached to the blessing and naming of a child. I have never heard it done (as there is no particular reson to), but it should be possible to have a child's name written into the records of the Church without the ordinance.

I have come to view it as a sort of catechumenate process. We believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, that a catechumen who dies before actually being baptized has a baptism of desire. Though the LDS church does not call it the same, the practice and belief is similar in that they consider the soul of an unbaptized child will be received into heaven the same as a person who has been baptized.

I really do not understand this.

The salvation of children who have not reached accountability has no connection to any ordinance (real or imagined). It is assured through the Atonement of Christ, by reason that they are not accountable, not under condemnation. They are saved, period, into the Celestial Kingdom of God.

We also believe the same for an unbaptized infant who might die before being baptized. If the parents had desired the baptism (and can be extended to the godparents and Christian community), the child has received a baptism of desire.

But what if the child's guardians explicitly do not want the child baptized? There is no desire, rather the opposite.

Under the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that child is still saved. The actions or lack of same by his guradians has absolutely no effect on his salvation.

(In an odd way, this is the point our antagonists ought to be flailing against, for, in this matter, agency has no place. The child is saved. Of course, there is no ordinance, as with baptism for the dead, to protest â?? it just happens because of the mercy of God. But our belief in either case has exactly the same effect on those who do protest it. In either case, he who accepts baptism or the condition of the dead child is the same: he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ in heaven, whether they, the protesters like it or not. But how do you stop our believing it? That would be the issue.)

Lehi

[saemo]

Not quite. The child is a member, but not a baptized member. There is no salvific significance attached to the blessing and naming of a child. I have never heard it done (as there is no particular reson to), but it should be possible to have a child's name written into the records of the Church without the ordinance.

Something I don't understand then. My daughter was blessed, never baptized. From what I am told she will be removed from LDS membership records when she turns 18 yrs old. How does a member become a non-member by virtue of age?

I really do not understand this.

The salvation of children who have not reached accountability has no connection to any ordinance (real or imagined). It is assured through the Atonement of Christ, by reason that they are not accountable, not under condemnation. They are saved, period, into the Celestial Kingdom of God.

Well, something that I don't understand. Christ died for all, there isn't anything, anywhere, that indicates His Sacrifice is exclusively for those who have reached an arbitrary "age of accountability".

But what if the child's guardians explicitly do not want the child baptized? There is no desire, rather the opposite.

Then the soul of the child will find God's mercy. That has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church, even limbo, which was a highly misunderstood teaching, never was a condemnation to the hell of unrepentant sinners.

Thanks for the clarification on other points.

[soren]

Not quite. The child is a member, but not a baptized member. There is no salvific significance attached to the blessing and naming of a child. I have never heard it done (as there is no particular reson to), but it should be possible to have a child's name written into the records of the Church without the ordinance.

Then you're stuck with the problem of D&C 20:71 again, which makes no distinction between baptized/unbaptized members, and denies that children can "be received into the Church" immediately after giving instructions for their blessing. Even if there is no necessary connection between the blessing and enrolling the child's name, and even if they are not "baptized members," the act of counting them as members at all does not fit with the teaching of D&C.

It also creates a problem with D&C 20:68, which restricts reception into to Church to baptism. To justify the Mormon practice would require the two acts or stages of receiving a child into the Church occur. This is obviously foreign to the text, which draws the line absolutely at baptism.

[saemo]

I actually am a Social Trinitarian who does not include God the Mother in the Godhead,

Are there LDS who do include a "god the mother"? (I think you know how incredibly heretical this is.)

[LeSellers]

Something I don't understand then. My daughter was blessed, never baptized. From what I am told she will be removed from LDS membership records when she turns 18 yrs old. How does a member become a non-member by virtue of age?

Because she is not baptized, her name will be removed when she turns nine (9) (not 18) years old.

The how (or why) is rooted in the type of membership conferred by her being a child of record: it is not full membership, and must be validated by baptism when she reaches the age of accountability. If not, it simply "expires" as it were.

ell, something that I don't understand. Christ died for all, there isn't anything, anywhere, that indicates His Sacrifice is exclusively for those who have reached an arbitrary "age of accountability".

It's not "arbitrary". It's the age the Lord specified for most people. There are those who never reach the age of accountability due to mental or other physical limitations. They, too, are saved into the Celestial Kingdom with need of baptism.

Then the soul of the child will find God's mercy. That has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church, even limbo, which was a highly misunderstood teaching, never was a condemnation to the hell of unrepentant sinners.

Limbo, as I understood it, before it was removed from Catholic doctrine, was an intermediate place, neither heaven nor hell. No punishment, but no reward, either. Mercy, perhaps, but it sounded more like the Telestial kingdom than the Celestial. It is very different from the view we LDSs have: that child is not only unpunished, but he receives the highest reward from Father.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Then you're stuck with the problem of D&C 20:71 again, which makes no distinction between baptized/unbaptized members, and denies that children can "be received into the Church" immediately after giving instructions for their blessing. Even if there is no necessary connection between the blessing and enrolling the child's name, and even if they are not "baptized members," the act of counting them as members at all does not fit with the teaching of D&C.

You might start by allowing us to interpret our own scriptures.

But while the child of record is a member of the Church, he is not a baptized member, and this "provisional" membership is not permanent; it is "second class citizenship", if you will. It entitles him to certain, but far from all, rights and privileges in the Church. Without a "validating*" baptism before age 9, he will no longer be a member in any standing.

* There is no official term for this, and the concept itself is weak (I made it up for this discussion). Baptism is the official entrance into the Church and Kingdom of God. But a child of record who is baptized does not have his name removed from the one roster (child of record) and enscribed onto another (member). The membership rolls simply reflect, after the baptism, that he is now baptized. All the rights of baptized members now accrue to him.

Moreover, and this is both critical and easily misunderstood, his blessing does not remit sins (one of the two points of baptism), nor does it effect [the correct verb here] his salvation, as baptism does (when done correctly and not negated by future acts). The only thing* it does (and this may happen in other ways, if I understand it correctly) is place his name on the records of the church as a child of record. This sort of membership is different from that of a baptized member, as I have tried to explain.

*Aside from the blessing given, which varies from child to child.

It also creates a problem with D&C 20:68, which restricts reception into to Church to baptism. To justify the Mormon practice would require the two acts or stages of receiving a child into the Church occur. This is obviously foreign to the text, which draws the line absolutely at baptism.

Except, as I said, the child's membership is different from that of a baptized member. He receives "fellowship", for instance, but has no responsibilities. He cannot be, for instance, excommunicated, either, because his status doesn't recognize him as having the rights excommunication denies any former member of the Church.

And, as I have also said, it might be more prudent to allow us to interpret our doctrine and scriptures for ourselves.

Lehi

[Catholic Girl]

Limbo, as I understood it, before it was removed from Catholic doctrine, was an intermediate place, neither heaven nor hell. No punishment, but no reward, either. Mercy, perhaps, but it sounded more like the Telestial kingdom than the Celestial. It is very different from the view we LDSs have: that child is not only unpunished, but he receives the highest reward from Father.

CFR it was ever Catholic Doctrine.

HINT: We've already been quite clear that Limbo was never doctrine.

[LeSellers]

CFR it was ever Catholic Doctrine.

Perhaps a better word would have been "thought" or teachings".

It's been around since Augustine of Hippo (IV), that's a very long time; almost since the founding of the Catholic Church itself.

Lehi

[Calm]

From what I am told she will be removed from LDS membership records when she turns 18 yrs old

More than likely 9 years old.

Think of it as a member of a community, baptism is one way to enter the community, being a child of record is another but the choice to include that individual in the community has been made by another, thus the membership doesn't mean a personal commitment and does not carry the same significance of membership as baptism. And once a person reaches an age where they can make the decision for themselves to make that personal commitment (the commitment required for baptism), lack of action on making that commitment signals a lack of desire to be included in the community and that is indicated by removing the person as a child of record. Nor is there any future restoration of blessings if the individual later does get baptized---something which is an indication of whether or not s/he has been "received into" the Church, imo, which means to me becoming one with other members in the community....something that is not seen with children of record.

A child of record is given a membership record, imo, as a conditional member as opposed to a contributing member, one for whom the community desires to accept responsibility toward but does not expect the same back as does take place when the covenantal relationship is established through baptism. As LeSellers points out, there is no salvific signficance to the blessing. The child of record membership exists, imo, as a matter of function rather than a doctrinal statement.

Done a bit of searching and can't find anything yet that directly addresses this point. Will keep looking when I have time later for an official source.

[Catholic Girl]

Perhaps a better word would have been "thought" or teachings".

It's been around since Augustine of Hippo (IV), that's a very long time; almost since the founding of the Catholic Church itself.

Lehi

Yes, a "teaching" or "thought" or even "hypothesis" or "theory" would be more appropriate.

Limbo was never even a dogma.

There are heavy implications when one states that Catholic doctrine has been changed. The Catholic Church has never ever changed a doctrine. What was, still is.

Besides, even a pope has no authority to change a doctrine or proclaim a new doctrine. So that right there should make it clear that Limbo was never a doctrine.

[saemo]

Because she is not baptized, her name will be removed when she turns nine (9) (not 18) years old.

The how (or why) is rooted in the type of membership conferred by her being a child of record: it is not full membership, and must be validated by baptism when she reaches the age of accountability. If not, it simply "expires" as it were.

hmmm, then how is it that Mormon missionaries come around asking specifically for my daughter, by name? (Since she was about 10 years old.)

It's not "arbitrary". It's the age the Lord specified for most people. There are those who never reach the age of accountability due to mental or other physical limitations. They, too, are saved into the Celestial Kingdom with need of baptism.

Contradicts the NT, where it is clear that Christ died for all. By excluding children from baptism you are in effect claiming that Christ's Sacrifice was not meant for them.

Limbo, as I understood it, before it was removed from Catholic doctrine, was an intermediate place, neither heaven nor hell. No punishment, but no reward, either. Mercy, perhaps, but it sounded more like the Telestial kingdom than the Celestial. It is very different from the view we LDSs have: that child is not only unpunished, but he receives the highest reward from Father.

Never doctrine, and no, there is no such things as separate heavens.

[Calm]

Just to be clear on the idea of "rebaptism", is it agreed that the only real current difference of any significance is what is being debated about the restoration act of LDS baptism, not the idea that LDS baptize all who come into the church whether or not they've had some form of baptism take place in another denomination (this seems comparable to the Catholic practice of baptizing anyone who has not had what they consider a valid baptism even if that form of baptism was considered valid by another denomination) or the past practice of baptism for healing or a statement of reinvigorated commitment that once took place (since LDS believe in continuing revelation, I would suggest that past practices that have been altered due to revelation that has led to increased understanding of the significance of certain ordinances should not be used in explaining doctrinal meaning of the practice; requiring LDS to take into account how baptisms were performed in the past prior to revealed instruction would seem to require teachings about Limbo and other currently rejected--based on developed doctrinal understanding if that is the correct term--teachings ).

[soren]

You might start by allowing us to interpret our own scriptures.

I am not disallowing you to interpret your own scriptures. I believe that in every instance in which I use your scripture (or even my own) in argument against you, I carry the burden of proof. All I need is for you to provide a plausible explanation, with the highest possible amount of benefit of the doubt credited to you.

Besides, I find a lot of my own scripture cited in Mormon publications. Should I send memo to the BYU guys on this board and tell them to stop commenting on 2 Maccabees in their publications? Next time I meet some missionaries, should I tell them to stop claiming contradiction in Bible texts because I believe all those texts and opine that they do not contradict?

But while the child of record is a member of the Church, he is not a baptized member, and this "provisional" membership is not permanent; it is "second class citizenship", if you will. It entitles him to certain, but far from all, rights and privileges in the Church. Without a "validating*" baptism before age 9, he will no longer be a member in any standing.

* There is no official term for this, and the concept itself is weak (I made it up for this discussion). Baptism is the official entrance into the Church and Kingdom of God. But a child of record who is baptized does not have his name removed from the one roster (child of record) and enscribed onto another (member). The membership rolls simply reflect, after the baptism, that he is now baptized. All the rights of baptized members now accrue to him.

Moreover, and this is both critical and easily misunderstood, his blessing does not remit sins (one of the two points of baptism), nor does it effect [the correct verb here] his salvation, as baptism does (when done correctly and not negated by future acts). The only thing* it does (and this may happen in other ways, if I understand it correctly) is place his name on the records of the church as a child of record. This sort of membership is different from that of a baptized member, as I have tried to explain.

*Aside from the blessing given, which varies from child to child.

Except, as I said, the child's membership is different from that of a baptized member. He receives "fellowship", for instance, but has no responsibilities. He cannot be, for instance, excommunicated, either, because his status doesn't recognize him as having the rights excommunication denies any former member of the Church.

And, as I have also said, it might be more prudent to allow us to interpret our doctrine and scriptures for ourselves.

Lehi

None of this is any objection to the point I have made. I understand every point you have made here, but you have not shown how it fits with D&C 20, and have not even commented on that text. My claim is that D&C 20 draws a hard and fast line between members and non-members at the point of baptism. It does so in the context of its discussion of infant blessings and does not make any room for different types or degrees of membership. For you to respond that there is a distinction in types of members (already taken into account in my post) without addressing how that fits with the text I have used is a mere counter-assertion, not an actual reply. All you need to do is show that this point about different types of membership fits with the text, and I will withdraw the point, which I asserted only "tentatively" in an earlier post.

As it happens, my principle objection to D&C 20:71, which I mentioned earlier up on the thread, is not that it contradicts Mormon practice. That came up as a tangent from my initial objection that denying infants baptism contradicts Matt 19:14 which admits children into the Kingdom of God. The crucial premise for this argument has been admitted in your response when you say that "Baptism is the official entrance into the Church and Kingdom of God."

[Calm]

hmmm, then how is it that Mormon missionaries come around asking specifically for my daughter, by name? (Since she was about 10 years old.)

Probably due to either the time it took to find her or the time it took for a clerk to get around to clear her name from the records. They most likely came around to established whether there was any reason to pursue baptism at that time or not (usually done when a child reaches the age of nine without being baptized, it is not automatically removed by a computer program or swipe of a clerk's pen).

Contradicts the NT, where it is clear that Christ died for all. By excluding children from baptism you are in effect claiming that Christ's Sacrifice was not meant for them.

Never doctrine, and no, there is no such things as separate heavens.

No, it means the opposite--Christ's sacrifice is understood to automatically apply to children until they reach a point where they are capable of making the choice to accept him or not (as opposed to allowing parents or godparents, etc. to make that choice for them).

Moro 8: 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell....

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy....

20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption....

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

[Calm]

None of this is any objection to the point I have made. I understand every point you have made here, but you have not shown how it fits with D&C 20, and have not even commented on that text. My claim is that D&C 20 draws a hard and fast line between members and non-members at the point of baptism. It does so in the context of its discussion of infant blessings and does not make any room for different types or degrees of membership.

My opinion for what it's worth: membership records are created for children as a matter of convenience in keeping track of them, it is not a doctrinal statement. They are not members in the sense of 20:71, they are members in the sense that they participate in various community activities including being taught by the community and their parents (as is directed in the scriptures) and the community assumes a responsibility toward them.

They are referred to commonly as "children of record" in the literature, when adult members speak of children as being members they do not visualize them as members in the baptismal covenant, "received in the Church of Christ" in that manner. This takes place at the time of confirmation where we as a congregation accept them as members by the raising of hands. This acceptance is not done at the time of a blessing, rather the blessing merely brings the child before the congregation...there is no ordinance performed that receives a child into the Church until baptism takes place.

I understand why it is confusing because the term "member" is used for multiple circumstances, but LDS understand the differences in meaning and we do not equate the two.

[saemo]

No, it means the opposite--Christ's sacrifice is understood to automatically apply to children until they reach a point where they are capable of making the choice to accept him or not (as opposed to allowing parents or godparents, etc. to make that choice for them).

Then LDS here have no room to criticize churches who take the view that baptism is no required at all, for anyone.

[LeSellers]

... how is it that Mormon missionaries come around asking specifically for my daughter, by name? (Since she was about 10 years old.)

I don't know who these "Mormon missionaries" are. I know of no such church.

"About 10 years old" tells me they were checking on "expired" child of record names and found your daughter had not been baptized. LDS missionaries have the responsibility to follow up on these, to be sure they are baptized if that is their desire.

Well, something that I don't understand. Christ died for all, there isn't anything, anywhere, that indicates His Sacrifice is exclusively for those who have reached an arbitrary "age of accountability".

It's not "arbitrary". It's the age the Lord specified for most people. There are those who never reach the age of accountability due to mental or other physical limitations. They, too, are saved into the Celestial Kingdom with need of baptism.

Contradicts the NT, where it is clear that Christ died for all. By excluding children from baptism you are in effect claiming that Christ's Sacrifice was not meant for them.

How does saving children automatically (through the Atonement) into the Celestial Kingdom "contradict" the idea that Christ died to save all mankind? Your assertion itself is self-contradictory.

It's not that God "excludes" children from baptism; He decrees they do not need it, because they are not accountable, and are under no condemnation.

You, as a former LDS should remember, we do not believe in the extra-biblical concept of "original sin".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Then LDS here have no room to criticize churches who take the view that baptism is no required at all, for anyone.

Children (prior to the age of accountability) are under no condemnation precisely because they are unaccountable. Once past that threshold, all are accountable, and all must be baptized for the remission of sins.

Your logic is fallacious.

Lehi

[Calm]

Then LDS here have no room to criticize churches who take the view that baptism is no required at all, for anyone.

I think there is a difference between believing Christ atones for those who have no choice in the matter (and thus they do not require baptism) and believing that the Atonement does not cover those who have refused to establish the covenant with him (for which baptism is required).

Baptism is not required in LDS thought for all during mortality. There is no clear revelation, imo, what happens to the children once they reach an age of accountability in the next life. It is possible that they will undergo baptism much like those who have not had the chance in this life and desire it will have a chance, much like they will have the opportunity to be sealed to a spouse when that time comes for them.

What will not happen for sure to those children is they will not be damned for eternity, which is the direct message Moroni was teaching against.

[soren]

Nor is there any future restoration of blessings if the individual later does get baptized---something which is an indication of whether or not s/he has been "received into" the Church, imo, which means to me becoming one with other members in the community....something that is not seen with children of record.

I want to call attention to this particular point you make, as it is material to my principle, ecclesiological objection to D&C 20:71. If blessed infants are not one with other members in the community (per John 17:22-23) they are, in effect, excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven (contra Matt 19:14). It makes no sense to say someone is part of God's Kingdom but not admitted to the Church, because they are the same thing. It's like saying they are people but not humans.