Does God Appreciate Baptism in Other Churches

[jimbob]

As it says in Mosiah 4:29, "I cannot tell you all the things [or circumstances] whereby ye may commit sin [by attending a baptism]; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." But I can discern for myself, when opportunities arise, which baptismal events to avoid and which to attend, and how to behave at those which I attend.

Even a single example of each would be helpful to my understanding from where you are coming.

[Anijen]

Simon Magus wanted power (the priesthood), he was willing to pay for it. It does not come in that manner.

Saul/Paul was sent to be baptized by the hand of Ananias because Ananias held the priesthood. Later the jailer and all his house were baptized by Paul who at this time now had the authority to baptize.

[Obiwan]

Read Mark 9.....

Christ makes clear that other believers who are not "with us" are "also his" and shall not loose their reward. This is why mormons don't have "ministry's" against other Faiths, is because all who follow the Light no matter how dim are of the Light. There are of course other scriptures on this subject, but Mark 9 is one of my favorites because it makes clear that those who engage in Anti-mormonism are going to suffer for it.

[zeezrom]

Its not the "priesthood line" that gives authority its bearing the priesthood in itself that gives authority.

The line of authority is just that a history of an individuals priesthood pedigree to the Lord.

I was reading about how the tribe of Levi did not have a piece of the land of Israel like the other tribes did. Because of this, Levites were given priestly duties. So it was descendants of Levi that would work in the temple while no others were allowed in the temple because they were from a different tribe. Did I read this correctly? If so, why are you now telling me lineage is not important in priesthood authority for that is how it was done anciently.

I also read in Hebrews that Christ is our High Priest and now our connection to the divine is through this high priest not the tribe of Levi. Did I get that right? if so, would you say a belief in Christ can give us the authority we need to act in his name?

[zeezrom]

An 8-year old is sufficiently informed to make the correct decision...

I'm going to look this up. I have my doubts that 8-yr olds have developed enough to make informed decisions like this.

[Ceeboo]

I am at one end of my line. Who is at the other?

SpongeBob????

Peace,

Ceeboo

[zeezrom]

Regarding a child's ability to make the decision to be baptized:

PIAGET'S STAGES OF MORAL JUDGMENT

Piaget studied many aspects of moral judgment, but most of his findings fit into a two-stage theory. Children younger than 10 or 11 years think about moral dilemmas one way; older children consider them differently. As we have seen, younger children regard rules as fixed and absolute. They believe that rules are handed down by adults or by God and that one cannot change them. The older child's view is more relativistic. He or she understands that it is permissible to change rules if everyone agrees. Rules are not sacred and absolute but are devices which humans use to get along cooperatively.

At approximately the same time--10 or 11 years--children's moral thinking undergoes other shifts. In particular, younger children base their moral judgments more on consequences, whereas older children base their judgments on intentions. When, for example, the young child hears about one boy who broke 15 cups trying to help his mother and another boy who broke only one cup trying to steal cookies, the young child thinks that the first boy did worse. The child primarily considers the amount of damage--the consequences--whereas the older child is more likely to judge wrongness in terms of the motives underlying the act (Piaget, 1932, p. 137).

There are many more details to Piaget's work on moral judgment, but he essentially found a series of changes that occur between the ages of 10 and 12, just when the child begins to enter the general stage of formal operations.

Intellectual development, however, does not stop at this point. This is just the beginning of formal operations, which continue to develop at least until age 16. Accordingly, one might expect thinking about moral issues to continue to develop throughout adolescence. Kohlberg therefore interviewed both children and adolescents about moral dilemmas, and he did find stages that go well beyond Piaget's. He uncovered six stages, only the first three of which share many features with Piaget's stages.

**************************************************************

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b).

Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinz

[David T]

Here are my questions on this subject:

1. What is the difference between baptizing an infant and baptizing an 8-yr old child? Is the child really making an informed, important decision? Would you consider an 8-yr old a "little child"?

I have a 7 year old brother in law. In a few short months, he'll be turning 8, and will be baptized. He participates in family scripture study, asks real questions, and gives thought out answers when asked. He has had spiritual experiences, and shared his testimony of them in the best way that he can. He knows what he's doing.

[David T]

I was reading about how the tribe of Levi did not have a piece of the land of Israel like the other tribes did. Because of this, Levites were given priestly duties.

According to the existing scriptural record, you have reversed the sequence of events.

So it was descendants of Levi that would work in the temple while no others were allowed in the temple because they were from a different tribe. Did I read this correctly?

According to what most likely happened historically, it's a far more complicated issue between the priesthood representative authority vested in the Davidic Kings (the 'Melchizedek' Priesthood), and that held by the Temple Workers (the Aaronides, or Levites)

I also read in Hebrews that Christ is our High Priest and now our connection to the divine is through this high priest not the tribe of Levi. Did I get that right? if so, would you say a belief in Christ can give us the authority we need to act in his name?

My belief in the legal authority of the Government doesn't mean I can legally drive without going through the proper channels and being certified, and obtaining the licence. A belief in Christ recognizes that all authority is vested in Him, and he can delegate it to whom He desires, in the way He desires. I believe that He has established his ecclesiastical government on the Earth, and has vested his authority on earth in an organized manner through that establishment He set up. For one to obtain the rights and privileges of that Kingdom, the authority of that Kingdom needs to be recognized and invoked.

[thesometimesaint]

jimbob:

When the Apostle found that some were baptized by John the Baptist they were re-baptized by them.

John (Acts 19:1-10)

[CV75]

Even a single example of each would be helpful to my understanding from where you are coming.

Using your example:

Let

[David T]

And as my understanding of the OP:

Before I knew anything about the LDS Church, I was baptized in another, as a public profession of my belief in Christ and willingness to serve him. While it had no Covenant significance, and wasn't associated with specific rights and privileges in the Kingdom of God, I strongly believe the Lord was pleased with my action based on the knowledge that I had, and was valid as an expression of faith.

Based on what I knew, I knew the Lord had requested Baptism, and as far as I knew, this was a proper way to do it. The Lord honors his children's desires to be obedient, according to the light and knowledge they have.

[cinepro]

I've said it before, but if the LDS Church's claims are true, then the only inspiration God should be giving to anyone in other churches is "Find the nearest LDS Church and join it".

The idea that anyone performing a baptism in another faith might somehow feel "the Spirit" or some form of divine endorsement of the act is preposterous.

The more involved and convicted people become in non-LDS churches, the less likely it is they will ever find and accept the true Gospel and authority to be exalted. Thus, it is Satan who would benefit most from people's involvement and energies in non-LDS churches, not God.

Certainly, during the dark ages or in places without an LDS presence there would be some benefit to any sort of Christianity. But once the Gospel has been restored and found a local presence, everything changes.

[Ceeboo]

Without question, some of the most bizarre responses I have ever read on a single young thread on any forum.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Anijen]

I was reading about how the tribe of Levi did not have a piece of the land of Israel like the other tribes did. Because of this, Levites were given priestly duties. So it was descendants of Levi that would work in the temple while no others were allowed in the temple because they were from a different tribe. Did I read this correctly?

Yes you get the basic gist of the matter, with some exceptions. Not just linage but worthiness too. the Melchizedek Priesthood was nonlineal.

If so, why are you now telling me lineage is not important in priesthood authority for that is how it was done anciently.

I never told you it was not important. The ancient lineal way was done away with when the Law of Moses was fulfilled. Although the restriction of linage is no longer, the condition of worthiness is still a requirement and Aaronic Priesthood keys still can rightly be held by the firstborn of the seed of Abraham. having said all that the comparing of today with how it was done anciently are apples and oranges.

I also read in Hebrews that Christ is our High Priest and now our connection to the divine is through this high priest not the tribe of Levi. Did I get that right?

Christ was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. The Aaronic priesthood is a lesser portion of the higher priesthood (see D&C 84:18-28).

if so, would you say a belief in Christ can give us the authority we need to act in his name?

No I would not. A belief in Christ or faith in Christ is part of the first principal of the gospel but the belief in him only without the priesthood does not give one the right or authority to perform the saving ordinances.

[HiJolly]

I'm going to look this up. I have my doubts that 8-yr olds have developed enough to make informed decisions like this.

According to whom?

If an 8-year-old believes they are "developed enough" to be baptized, by what criteria would this be invalidated? Who sets the necessarily subjective standard for this?

Is such a 'standard' validated, or invalidated, by personal, anecdotal experience? Should it be?

I remember my baptism at the age of 8. I wanted to show that I really believed in Christ; I wanted to make a covenant with Him. And while the hair on my head was still wet, God confirmed to me that I had done well, by immersing me in living fire. I thought I was ready for this commitment, and God confirmed it.

Decades later as I was studying baptism, I found an account given by a 30-something woman in Colorado who felt compelled by Christ to get baptized by immersion. She went to a nearby non-denominational church (whether by design or by convenience, she didn't say) and she and the pastor went up into the mountains and she was baptized by immersion.

She then experienced the exact same thing I had, the baptism of fire. I knew she was speaking the truth, by how she described the experience.

So I think not only is being baptized at the age of eight potentially OK, but I also accept that those who enter the waters of baptism sincerely and for the right reasons, are accepted of God for their act of faith.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I've said it before, but if the LDS Church's claims are true, then the only inspiration God should be giving to anyone in other churches is "Find the nearest LDS Church and join it".

The idea that anyone performing a baptism in another faith might somehow feel "the Spirit" or some form of divine endorsement of the act is preposterous.

The more involved and convicted people become in non-LDS churches, the less likely it is they will ever find and accept the true Gospel and authority to be exalted. Thus, it is Satan who would benefit most from people's involvement and energies in non-LDS churches, not God.

Certainly, during the dark ages or in places without an LDS presence there would be some benefit to any sort of Christianity. But once the Gospel has been restored and found a local presence, everything changes.

Cinepro, I have never disagreed with any comment of yours as strongly and completely as I do with this post.

HiJolly

[zeezrom]

According to whom?

If an 8-year-old believes they are "developed enough" to be baptized, by what criteria would this be invalidated? Who sets the necessarily subjective standard for this?

The Mormon standard on baptism is not earth shattering for me. I was baptized at 8 as well and don't feel like I was violated in any way. I recall it was a nice experience. I did it because I was told to or it was expected of me. I don't remember ever making a decision about it.

It is more of a time to be with family and feel special.

Conversion comes later.

Should baptism involve conversion for every member?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Mormon standard on baptism is not earth shattering for me. I was baptized at 8 as well and don't feel like I was violated in any way. I recall it was a nice experience. I did it because I was told to or it was expected of me. I don't remember ever making a decision about it.

It is more of a time to be with family and feel special.

Conversion comes later.

Should baptism involve conversion for every member?

Hmm I remember very distinctly that I made the choice on my own. No one told me that I must be baptized at 8. The church doesn't even teach that. And of course my parents expected me to do it. You act as if you had no choice in teh matter.

[David T]

Should baptism involve conversion for every member?

Conversion isn't a requirement for Baptism, even for adults. Neither technically is a Testimony, although it is highly encouraged. Simply, To be baptized, you acknowledge your belief in the Atonement of the Savior, and express your desire to enter into a covenant to dedicate your life to serve Him and be obedient to Him, and you acknowledge your belief that He has delegated proper authority to the Church to act in His name and to express His will. You also express your desire and willingness to serve others.

[frankenstein]

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Manchester, New York, April 1830. HC 1: 79

[HiJolly]

The Mormon standard on baptism is not earth shattering for me. I was baptized at 8 as well and don't feel like I was violated in any way. I recall it was a nice experience. I did it because I was told to or it was expected of me. I don't remember ever making a decision about it.

I made the choice. No doubt about it.

It is more of a time to be with family and feel special.

Conversion comes later.

Should baptism involve conversion for every member?

Yes. No question in my mind.

HiJolly

[cinepro]

Cinepro, I have never disagreed with any comment of yours as strongly and completely as I do with this post.

HiJolly

So, under what circumstances do you think God might encourage someone to join, attend (or even start) a non-LDS Church?

[Ahab]

It might help if some people understood the fact that the word "abomination" refers to a corrupted use or perversion of something which God approves of when done correctly.

For example, marriage between a man and a woman is meant to be among the most beautiful of relationships, but a marriage between a man and another man, or between a woman and another woman, is an abomination, by definition, because that's not what God approves of as the correct form of marriage.

An abomination is the taking of something good and making something bad out of it by not doing it in a way that is acceptable to God.

Good intentions aren't enough for God to consider something to be good. The intentions may be good, but the results are always an abomination if the actions do not result in something that is actually good.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, under what circumstances do you think God might encourage someone to join, attend (or even start) a non-LDS Church?

THere are probably several. Perhaps the person is not ready for membership in teh LDS church and another church would suite his needs first. Then later he might be ready. Perhaps he is not humble yet. Perhaps he is not.... pick any number of things.