Lds-Authored Attacks

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

Where's the "dislike" feature?

Protestants most certainly do have a concept of the true church. The true church is the fellowship of all genuine believers in Jesus Christ united by the Holy Spirit as God the Father's adopted children.

I'm not sure Catholics and Protestants agree on what the "true" church is.

I'm not sure the Protestants agree among themselves what the "true" church is, either.

I'm not sure they even have a concept of a "true" church, except that whatever it is, it cannot

under any circumstances by the Mormon Church.

Bernard

[TAO]

Oh, I think there has been books we authored which attacked other churches... but I don't think they are near as virulent or as critical of other churches as other church's are of us. In other words, our attacks are to a much more milder degree. So much, that most of the time, you can't really consider them attacks.

I rarely see Church books target a specific denomination. They focus on the whole. Which helps keep in mind =).

Those are my opinions, I guess. Feel free to take a stab at them =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Mike Richards]

Right...so it seems there aren't any really good books to recommend, but there are a few that might work. I seems though that something else has been brought up at least a couple times that might be worth considering: how do you delineate between preaching your own religion and attacking another's?

Not having thought about it more than just a few minutes today, I would say that at least one distinguishing characteristic is the intended audience. An attack, the way I see it, would have believers of the faith being attacked and members of the author's own faith as intended audiences. I suspect that those who produce anti-whatever literature don't really care about whether the rest of humanity hears the attack. His motivation it seems is to destroy the faith of the target and prevent the conversion from his own faith to the target faith. I suppose if he is really motivated by hate for the group (and not by concern for his own group), he would also want to ensure the rest of humanity didn't convert to the hated group, even if they retained their own false (from his perspective) faith. Perhaps this last element could be used as a method for distinguishing real motives (that is to say, is he motivated by love/concern for his own faith or simply hatred of the target faith).

[Mike Richards]

Oh, I think there has been books we authored which attacked other churches... but I don't think they are near as virulent or as critical of other churches as other church's are of us. In other words, our attacks are to a much more milder degree. So much, that most of the time, you can't really consider them attacks.

I rarely see Church books target a specific denomination. They focus on the whole. Which helps keep in mind =).

Those are my opinions, I guess. Feel free to take a stab at them =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

I agree, TAO, and I think that's why I wasn't able to (and it seems in that nobody else has) recommend one.

Interestingly, though, it seems that you might have added a thought to my just asked question before you saw it. From what you are say, can I conclude that you would support a statement like: One of the distinguishing characteristics of an attack is that it targets a specific denomination (group/sub-group/etc)?

[TAO]

I agree, TAO, and I think that's why I wasn't able to (and it seems in that nobody else has) recommend one.

Interestingly, though, it seems that you might have added a thought to my just asked question before you saw it. From what you are say, can I conclude that you would support a statement like: One of the distinguishing characteristics of an attack is that it targets a specific denomination (group/sub-group/etc)?

Well... attacks don't need to target a specific denomination... it's just that they are much worse imo when they do. The smaller a group you target, the more careful you should be about harsh words... actually, you should be careful about harsh words with everyone... but hard feelings tend to arise much easier when you target a small group.

Often, I try to look at the point, the objective of a statement to determine if it is an attack. Is it to build people up? If so, it is not an attack. Is it to tear people down? If so, it is an attack. Sometimes attacks are needed though, sometimes criticisms are valid, but there is a right, and a wrong way to do it, I think =).

Best Wishes,

TAO =D

[3DOP]

Barry Bickmore wrote a book, the title of which escapes me, something like "Restoring the Ancient Landmarks???" (that's not it though) that in my opinion tended to lump all non-LDS Christianity together. I think anyone can agree that "non-LDS Christianity" is NOT the one true church and couldn't possibly be. I can remember him making a generalization about how with non-LDS Christians, that prophetic and miraculous gifts of the Spirit have ceased and thinking how Pentecostals and Catholics needed to be considered separately. If anything, Catholics fall under criticism for believing in too much "extra curricular" acts of the Spirit with claimed miracles and visions that no one else accepts.

The problem I see with this book and LDS approaches to other forms of Christianity is that they frequently consist of generalizations against a non-existent conglomeration identified as "Traditional Christianity", "Orthodox Christianity", or even "Evs" as though those are the other games in town that could possibly compete for the title of being, either the one true church, or at least a church that God inspired to exist. I couldn't possibly defend mongrelized Christianity against LDS claims. For me, it is the Orthodox Presbyterians, the Missouri or Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, the Presbyterian Church in America, the Southern Baptists or Baptist Bible Fellowship, the Assemblies of God, and the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches that might have counter-claims to those of the Restored Church. I named a few of the places that I have considered during my faith journey. There are many others. I will always welcome a clear and distinct of comparison of one church with another church, even the claims of Wisconsins vs. Missouris or Orthodox vs. Catholic. Mormon apologetics, in my opinion, needs to more carefully identify the non-LDS Christianity it wishes to address. In some cases, I get the impression that there is some comfort in knowing that one can always win an argument in favor of LDS Christianity vs. "non-LDS Christianity".

-----------------------------

Ultimately, my goal is that we all go to church together. I don't believe that the redeemed have any differences of opinion about what is God's true church when they get to heaven. So if it is God's will that there be unity about this in heaven, what about earth? Not without prayer and toil. "...thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." we pray. Apologetics and polemics are only a factor among many which determine the viability of an earthly church. I don't imagine to be able to change anyone's will through apologetics. Everyone arrives at places in life where conversion becomes almost unthinkable. Mormons parents have children serving missions. I have a son who is completing the first of seven years preparation to be a priest. Most participants here are probably among the most involved people in their individual churches with positions of responsibility. For such reasons and much more, few of us wants to find out that we have erred somewhere along the way to the point of needing to re-evaluate our church affiliations. We can't underestimate the way the will can manipulate the intellect so as to magnify arguments that give pleasure and diminish arguments that cause aversion based upon how it could cause upheaval to realign ourselves in our church affiliations.

I apologize for the digression. I used to be a preacher. I know the pain of standing in front of a congregation that I loved and who seemed to love me and saying that I can no longer serve them because my beliefs were changing. More than any arguments for or against a particular church, those of us who desire Christian unity should attempt to foster in ourselves and those we meet a fear that we would let our own wills get in the way of God's will as to who He would identify as either the one true church, or at least a true church, the existence of which He approves.

[Flyonthewall]

Barry Bickmore wrote a book, the title of which escapes me, something like "Restoring the Ancient Landmarks???" (that's not it though) that in my opinion tended to lump all non-LDS Christianity together. I think anyone can agree that "non-LDS Christianity" is NOT the one true church and couldn't possibly be. I can remember him making a generalization about how with non-LDS Christians, that prophetic and miraculous gifts of the Spirit have ceased and thinking how Pentecostals and Catholics needed to be considered separately. If anything, Catholics fall under criticism for believing in too much "extra curricular" acts of the Spirit with claimed miracles and visions that no one else accepts.

The problem I see with this book and LDS approaches to other forms of Christianity is that they frequently consist of generalizations against a non-existent conglomeration identified as "Traditional Christianity", "Orthodox Christianity", or even "Evs" as though those are the other games in town that could possibly compete for the title of being, either the one true church, or at least a church that God inspired to exist. I couldn't possibly defend mongrelized Christianity against LDS claims. For me, it is the Orthodox Presbyterians, the Missouri or Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, the Presbyterian Church in America, the Southern Baptists or Baptist Bible Fellowship, the Assemblies of God, and the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches that might have counter-claims to those of the Restored Church. I named a few of the places that I have considered during my faith journey. There are many others. I will always welcome a clear and distinct of comparison of one church with another church, even the claims of Wisconsins vs. Missouris or Orthodox vs. Catholic. Mormon apologetics, in my opinion, needs to more carefully identify the non-LDS Christianity it wishes to address. In some cases, I get the impression that there is some comfort in knowing that one can always win an argument in favor of LDS Christianity vs. "non-LDS Christianity".

-----------------------------

Ultimately, my goal is that we all go to church together. I don't believe that the redeemed have any differences of opinion about what is God's true church when they get to heaven. So if it is God's will that there be unity about this in heaven, what about earth? Not without prayer and toil. "...thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." we pray. Apologetics and polemics are only a factor among many which determine the viability of an earthly church. I don't imagine to be able to change anyone's will through apologetics. Everyone arrives at places in life where conversion becomes almost unthinkable. Mormons parents have children serving missions. I have a son who is completing the first of seven years preparation to be a priest. Most participants here are probably among the most involved people in their individual churches with positions of responsibility. For such reasons and much more, few of us wants to find out that we have erred somewhere along the way to the point of needing to re-evaluate our church affiliations. We can't underestimate the way the will can manipulate the intellect so as to magnify arguments that give pleasure and diminish arguments that cause aversion based upon how it could cause upheaval to realign ourselves in our church affiliations.

I apologize for the digression. I used to be a preacher. I know the pain of standing in front of a congregation that I loved and who seemed to love me and saying that I can no longer serve them because my beliefs were changing. More than any arguments for or against a particular church, those of us who desire Christian unity should attempt to foster in ourselves and those we meet a fear that we would let our own wills get in the way of God's will as to who He would identify as either the one true church, or at least a true church, the existence of which He approves.

I agree that LDS speak in generalizations towards all non-LDS Christianity. I think we do this because we don't try to single any one sect out.

We catch a lot of flak when there is mention in a talk about "traditional Christianity" believing X, Y, or Z...people of different faiths tell us we are wrong in our teaching of what they believe. Any one faith may not believe X, but may believe Y or Z, or any combination of X, Y or Z, or none of X, Y or Z.

I don't see it as us teaching what any one single faith believes, but that those beliefs exist in "traditional Christianity".

So would that be considered an attack? Attack may be too strong of a word.

[Thinking]

Mormons don’t attack any specific denomination. They attack all of Christianity with general statements like the one found in JSH 1:19.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

If you were to just leaving it at "I don't believe X" I'd have no problem with it. But you substantially beyond that. I don't believe the Hindu are correct, I don't spend my time on the internets trashing their beliefs.

[3DOP]

I agree that LDS speak in generalizations towards all non-LDS Christianity. I think we do this because we don't try to single any one sect out.

We catch a lot of flak when there is mention in a talk about "traditional Christianity" believing X, Y, or Z...people of different faiths tell us we are wrong in our teaching of what they believe. Any one faith may not believe X, but may believe Y or Z, or any combination of X, Y or Z, or none of X, Y or Z.

I don't see it as us teaching what any one single faith believes, but that those beliefs exist in "traditional Christianity".

So would that be considered an attack? Attack may be too strong of a word.

Hi Flyonthewall,

A "restored church" is going to have some need to analyze negatively what went wrong that a restoration would be required. "Attack" in this sense doesn't even imply malice. It is a necessity in order to fully explain your position.

As for any beliefs that are universally held by non-LDS Christians, it needs to be recognized that the individual churches would never reply to the charges in the same way. If a Mormon talk argued that it was error to believe a closed canon, original sin, or the doctrine of the Council of Nicea, it would be helpful to define clearly what the different views are, and how they would reply. I can assure you that 3DOP the Dispensational Baptist, or 3DOP the Reformed Presbyterian, or 3DOP the Catholic, would understand each position differently and give different replies. I would be concerned as 3DOP the Latter-day Saint, that generalizations about "non-LDS Christianity" do not showcase the best answers to the questions that LDS analysts raise. Rather, they seem to me to tend to invite straw men that don't represent what anybody really believes.

A problem I have with LDS theology is that coming straight from Latter-day revelation is argument against original sin that fails to understand what the Old World Churches have taught about it. Now obviously as a Mormon, I would know that the Book of Mormon is a record of the Church and the beliefs and practices that were encountered in the Americas in the post-Apostolic age. One could say that the Church in America never encountered Old World teaching on original sin. (Incidentally, the same problem exists in the Koran where it doesn't understand the Christian teaching of the Incarnation. Again, it can be argued that Muhammed never encountered Catholic teaching. So I am not saying I have disproven the Book of Mormon or disproven the Koran). But what happens is that there is an assumption among Mormons that what was taught about original sin in the times of Mormon are the same teaching as existed and continues to exist today that has its roots in the Church in the Old World. Muslims continue to assume that it is good enough to disprove the deity of Christ by obvserving that He slept and ate, seldom understanding the actual doctrine that they THINK they oppose. And Latter-day Saints tend in the same way to expect that infant baptism stems from speculated beliefs that at most were operative only in the Americas and have died away. Because of what was taught half way around the world well over a thousand years ago, Latter-day Saints frequently misunderstand the actual doctrine they THINK they oppose.

Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

---Moroni 8: 13-15

The impression one gets from these remarks are of cruel doctrines that submit to the notion that God would plunge the soul of a dead baby into eternal fire forever. Naturally, Mormons find such a belief repugnant. But everybody else finds the idea repugnant too! Nobody today believes that and I don't know of a single Old World Church that ever taught that unbaptized babies burn in hell forever. Yet such generalizations continue to inform Latter-day Saints as to the beliefs of Christians whose roots are elsewhere than what was encountered in Book of Mormon days and times.

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

I guess St. Augustine was wrong.

http://instituteforjedirealiststudies.org/smf/index.php?topic=38.0;wap2

St. Augustine - the 4th century bishop who is particularly dear to Benedict. Augustine wrote that such infants do go to hell, but they suffer only the "mildest condemnation."

[Rob Bowman]

saint,

You wrote:

If you were to just leaving it at "I don't believe X" I'd have no problem with it. But you substantially beyond that.

And Mormons go substantially beyond that when they pronounce my church to be part of the Great Apostasy. I don't take it personally, and neither should you when I say that the LDS Church is heretical (for example).

You wrote:

I don't believe the Hindu are correct, I don't spend my time on the internets trashing their beliefs.

"Trashing" expresses a pejorative judgment that the way I treat LDS beliefs is somehow unmeasured, over the top, or unfair. If it is, I wish to have it pointed out to me with specifics.

My guess is that you, or at least some Mormons, would probably spend considerable time criticizing Hindus if they claimed to be the true form of Mormonism and if they were engaged in a proselytizing effort aimed primarily at converting Mormons to their uber-Mormonism.

[zerinus]

duplicate

[zerinus]

saint,

You wrote:

And Mormons go substantially beyond that when they pronounce my church to be part of the Great Apostasy. I don't take it personally, and neither should you when I say that the LDS Church is heretical (for example).

You wrote:

"Trashing" expresses a pejorative judgment that the way I treat LDS beliefs is somehow unmeasured, over the top, or unfair. If it is, I wish to have it pointed out to me with specifics.

My guess is that you, or at least some Mormons, would probably spend considerable time criticizing Hindus if they claimed to be the true form of Mormonism and if they were engaged in a proselytizing effort aimed primarily at converting Mormons to their uber-Mormonism.

Tell me something, how can God reveal a new dispensation of the gospel, a new revelation (as He has done many times in the past), without making all previous dispensations obsolete? That is in fact what He has done:

D&C 22

:

1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

That is the position of Mormonism. You can choose to fight against it, as did the Jews against the religion of Jesus; but you do so at your own peril:

Acts 5

:

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Now there was a difference between the way Jewish Rabbis treated Jesus and His Apostles, and the way Jesus and His Apostles treated them. The Jews could have brought the same argument against Jesus and His Apostles that you are bringing against us; and in fact they did:

John 9

:

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

But still there was a qualitative difference between how Jesus and His Apostles treated the Jews, and how the Jews treated them. Jesus and His disciples minded their own business, and preached their own gospel. They didn’t actively attack other people’s religions. They just taught that their version was the most correct one. That is what Mormons do. We don’t write books, create websites, organize seminars whose sole purpose is to attack somebody else’s religion. You people act like the scribes and Pharisees. We act like Jesus and His disciples. That is the difference. And as Jesus said, you know them “by their fruits”.

[bookofmormontruth]

Mormons don’t attack any specific denomination. They attack all of Christianity with general statements like the one found in JSH 1:19.

How dare the Lord "attack" other denominations that He doesn't recognize as His.

[Mike Richards]

"Trashing" expresses a pejorative judgment that the way I treat LDS beliefs is somehow unmeasured, over the top, or unfair. If it is, I wish to have it pointed out to me with specifics.

Hi Rob,

I was perusing the irr website and read the page entitled, "God Was Once a Man Like Us: Finessing an Off-Putting Mormon Doctrine" by Joel B. Groat. I'm not sure exactly what you role at the irr is, but from the title "Director", I would assume you have some approval/disapproval authority over the content. The following statement in Mr. Groat article is misleading. It appears that he is either being deceptive or is misinformed. If deceptive, I would suggest this is unfair and therefore, "trashing". If Mr. Groat is misinformed, I'd suggest that he ought not write articles where he presents himself as knowing something he doesn't.

Here's the quote:

When the Gospel Principles manual is used in the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class, this final chapter of the book is covered about a year after the start of the class, meaning those in the class have been members of the LDS church for nearly a year or more, and have likely developed strong social and emotional connections to the Church.⁵ Two key teachings that were skirted or avoided at the beginning of the class are now presented clearly. First, men can become Gods – capital G – like Heavenly Father, this is what it means to achieve exaltation. Second, we are simply repeating an already established process, doing what God the Father has already done before us. This is the doctrine of eternal progression. Men become Gods, who are then able to create other men who in turn can also progress to become Gods, who repeat the process indefinitely. Up through the 1980s the Mormon Church taught these doctrines in clear, unmistakable terms. The 1981 and 1988 editions of Gospel Principles, while undergoing some format changes (smaller size, new cover design, adding an index) introduced no textual changes I’m aware of.

The first sentence suggests that the church holds back, a year or more, before teaching its new members the doctrine of eternal progression. The problem is that new members (and investigators, who also attend this class) don't start at lesson 1 and then continue through the whole book. At least as far as I've experienced, there is always a Gospel Principles class going on and new members and investigators who attend church join in on whichever lesson is being taught. What does this really mean? This means that an investigator attending for their first time might just happen to attend on the Sunday this final lesson is being taught. This fact not only makes this portion of the article incorrect, but is a piece of counter evidence to the thesis of the article--that the church hides this doctrine. You may decide if you think this is "unfair".

Now that I've said all that, let me acknowledge two pieces of information that might weaken my argument presented here:

1. Foot note 5 says, "The class structure and schedule was explained to me by a Mormon friend who is currently a bishop and has taught the class himself." While I don't doubt that Mr. Groat spoke with his friend the bishop, it would seem to me that he misunderstood the bishop how the class works or that it works differently from anywhere I've ever been. This leads me to the second piece of information.

2. I'm only able to speak from my own experience--I've lived in 4 countries and 8 states and in all but the student wards, there was an active Gospel Principles class going on. It is certainly possible that there are some wards that have so few new members or investigators that they start a new class each time they get one.

If it turns out that I'm the one that's mistaken, then I apologize for my mistake. If I'm right, then I'd like to see the article corrected (and perhaps the acknowledgement that the original thesis has this piece of evidence against it).

Thanks!

Edit: Tried to fix squirrelly formatting

[Calm]

Even if they started at the beginning of the manual....from lesson 2 in the GP manual:

Then we would receive immortal bodies like that of our Heavenly Father. If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our Heavenly Father has received. (See D&C 93:30–34.) Our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present His plan for our progression (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 209, 511). We learned that if we followed His plan, we would become like Him. We would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does (see D&C 132:19–20).

How is this not clear enough?

[urroner]

I occasionally visit religious message boards to see what people are discussing. I have found out that it typically tends to be the same subjects and usually nothing new is to be learnt, but there is one thing that I have noticed. I have noticed that, for the most part, those who oppose the Mormon Church with vigor, tend to very aggressive and are not up for any discussion. They used the comment about all churches being false as their excuse to state the MC is "attacking" Christianity and then they use some scripture or another in the Bible to be mean and nasty in their comments and then they state that they are doing it in love.

What I have noticed is that if I say anything that disagrees with their beliefs and they don't even know who I am or what I believe, other than it isn't what they believe, they immediate start to attack me and then they start throwing out all sorts of ad hominems in my direction. That's not love, that is just plain bitterness and hatred. Then when I say that we should just stick to the subject, they do everything to change the subject to what a terrible person I am because I don't believe like them.

What a crock of poo poo.

I realize that there are Mormons who use similar tactics, but it is not encouraged by the Church, in fact, the Church discourages that type of interaction. My mission president really discouraged scripture bashing sessions. He stated that we are there to teach others why we are right and not why they are wrong.

[3DOP]

3DOP:

I guess St. Augustine was wrong.

http://instituteforj...topic=38.0;wap2

St. Augustine - the 4th century bishop who is particularly dear to Benedict. Augustine wrote that such infants do go to hell, but they suffer only the "mildest condemnation."

No sometime saint. Being somewhat familiar with St. Augustine's teaching, I chose my words carefully:

I don't know of a single Old World Church that ever taught that unbaptized babies burn in hell forever.

#1) It would be fine if St. Augustine were wrong.

#2) St. Augustine was mostly right.

#3) Do you get the impression from Moroni 8, that "the everlasting hell" of the unbaptized infants consisted only of the "mildest condemnation" or the torments of fire?

#4) Just as Galileo's House Arrest, which literally permitted his living in palaces, was markedly less unpleasant than a dungeon, so we have been taught that the "limbo of the unbaptized children" is markedly less unpleasant than hell fire.

#5) To be speciic about #4, the Catholic Church for instance, teaches that it could never be permitted that original sin can result in any greater punishment than to fail to reach exaltation in the highest heaven (to use terms familiar to LDS).

It seemed to me like Moroni 8 and the infant baptizers of the New World, in contrast with St. Augustine's belief, and whose fallible judgment is among the most severe that can be found in the Old World, was remarkably more severe than anything taught in the Old World. Anecdotally, I have heard Mormons here at this board who appeared to associate infant baptism with the charge that without it, infant baptizers believe babies burn in hell. They didn't get that teaching from us! That is why I thought it probably came from the New World, the America of the Book of Mormon...and when applied to us...it is a misunderstanding.

However, if Mormons say that Moroni 8 teaches a "hell" that is compatible with the Old World view for unbaptized babies, I will be happy to know that there is no misunderstanding about the fate of unbaptized infants between Moroni 8, the Latter-day Saints, and Old World Christianity. I would have to say I wouldn't quite understand the strong judgment of Moroni against infant baptizers just like us, saying we ourselves have to go to hell for merely thinking that baptism will be helpful, without teaching babies burn in hell. You wouldn't say that Old World infant baptizers like me go to hell when we hope that unbaptized babies go to heaven, but believe that they probably live in what we call limbo, which would appear to be a place that is similar to what Mormons call telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, would you? Surely Moroni isn't teaching that one goes to hell just for not being sure that dead unbaptized babies who while doing nothing bad, never did anything good either, merit to go to the very highest places in heaven?

[TAO]

This thread is becoming rather trashing, no?

I will leave it at this. Why don't we ignore what the other side is 'attacking' and worry about what we do, and whether we are doing what God wants us to.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

[Flyonthewall]

No sometime saint. Being somewhat familiar with St. Augustine's teaching, I chose my words carefully:

#1) It would be fine if St. Augustine were wrong.

#2) St. Augustine was mostly right.

#3) Do you get the impression from Moroni 8, that "the everlasting hell" of the unbaptized infants consisted only of the "mildest condemnation" or the torments of fire?

#4) Just as Galileo's House Arrest, which literally permitted his living in palaces, was markedly less unpleasant than a dungeon, so we have been taught that the "limbo of the unbaptized children" is markedly less unpleasant than hell fire.

#5) To be speciic about #4, the Catholic Church for instance, teaches that it could never be permitted that original sin can result in any greater punishment than to fail to reach exaltation in the highest heaven (to use terms familiar to LDS).

It seemed to me like Moroni 8 and the infant baptizers of the New World, in contrast with St. Augustine's belief, and whose fallible judgment is among the most severe that can be found in the Old World, was remarkably more severe than anything taught in the Old World. Anecdotally, I have heard Mormons here at this board who appeared to associate infant baptism with the charge that without it, infant baptizers believe babies burn in hell. They didn't get that teaching from us! That is why I thought it probably came from the New World, the America of the Book of Mormon...and when applied to us...it is a misunderstanding.

However, if Mormons say that Moroni 8 teaches a "hell" that is compatible with the Old World view for unbaptized babies, I will be happy to know that there is no misunderstanding about the fate of unbaptized infants between Moroni 8, the Latter-day Saints, and Old World Christianity. I would have to say I wouldn't quite understand the strong judgment of Moroni against infant baptizers just like us, saying we ourselves have to go to hell for merely thinking that baptism will be helpful, without teaching babies burn in hell. You wouldn't say that Old World infant baptizers like me go to hell when we hope that unbaptized babies go to heaven, but believe that they probably live in what we call limbo, which would appear to be a place that is similar to what Mormons call telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, would you? Surely Moroni isn't teaching that one goes to hell just for not being sure that dead unbaptized babies who while doing nothing bad, never did anything good either, merit to go to the very highest places in heaven?

The passage in the BoM was written to or about the "infant baptizers" of the New World, so those specific words were aimed at them. However, that does not mean they cannot address similar things going on elsewhere.

If you remove the notion of unbaptized infants going to hell, and replace it with them simply being excluded from God's presence, the passage still conveys the same message...that infant baptism is outside of God's plan as they are NOT punished or excluded from anything or anywhere.

It seems like the thought of an innocent babe being punished, or even excluded from God's presence was unthinkable...even to equate limbo to the Telestial kingdom would be unfair in the case of infants, as the Telestial kingdom is where murderers and the like go. Even the Terestial kingdom is for those who fall short of the Celestial kingdom, by their own actions. What actions have unbaptized infants done to keep them out of the Celestial or Terestial kingdoms?

I will leave the details of original sin and infant baptism alone as it pertains to your faith as I just don't know what the official position is.

[3DOP]

The passage in the BoM was written to or about the "infant baptizers" of the New World, so those specific words were aimed at them. However, that does not mean they cannot address similar things going on elsewhere.

If you remove the notion of unbaptized infants going to hell, and replace it with them simply being excluded from God's presence, the passage still conveys the same message...that infant baptism is outside of God's plan as they are NOT punished or excluded from anything or anywhere.

It seems like the thought of an innocent babe being punished, or even excluded from God's presence was unthinkable...even to equate limbo to the Telestial kingdom would be unfair in the case of infants, as the Telestial kingdom is where murderers and the like go. Even the Terestial kingdom is for those who fall short of the Celestial kingdom, by their own actions. What actions have unbaptized infants done to keep them out of the Celestial or Terestial kingdoms?

I will leave the details of original sin and infant baptism alone as it pertains to your faith as I just don't know what the official position is.

Thank you, Flyonthewall. I don't understand your official position either. I'd have assumed that some trial might be necessary to make the celestial kingdom, thus disqualifying dead babies. That is why I thought it would be okay to you, if we thought dead babies would be saved from the worst, but deprived of the best. I see my assumption was mistaken. In any case, I hope that if murderers get to go to the telestial kingdom, that us infant baptizers aren't considered worse! May pedobaptists at least hope to be able to dwell in the realm of the murderers?

[TAO]

Thank you, Flyonthewall. I don't understand your official position either. I'd have assumed that some trial might be necessary to make the celestial kingdom, thus disqualifying dead babies. That is why I thought it would be okay to you, if we thought dead babies would be saved from the worst, but deprived of the best. I see my assumption was mistaken. In any case, I hope that if murderers get to go to the telestial kingdom, that us infant baptizers aren't considered worse! May pedobaptists at least hope to be able to dwell in the realm of the murderers?

Nah, a trial isn't needed for all, I think. Or if so, that trial be accepting the gospel in the next life.

And nah, God is merciful... I don't think that sorta thing deserves the telestial, my friend. Going to the telestial takes alot of bad things. Alot. I would not worry about it a bit =).

In any case, talk with God about it, and determine what he says =D.

[Flyonthewall]

Thank you, Flyonthewall. I don't understand your official position either.

The official position is that it is not required.

I'd have assumed that some trial might be necessary to make the celestial kingdom, thus disqualifying dead babies. That is why I thought it would be okay to you, if we thought dead babies would be saved from the worst, but deprived of the best.

Children who die before the age of accountability are born without sin and die without sin, so in their case, a trial in not needed.

I'm not sure why there would be a need for it to be okay with me, those are not my beliefs, I simply disagree with them.

I see my assumption was mistaken. In any case, I hope that if murderers get to go to the telestial kingdom, that us infant baptizers aren't considered worse! May pedobaptists at least hope to be able to dwell in the realm of the murderers?

Please don't feel I'm passing judgement on anything, as I am not. I used the term "infant baptizers" becuase you did, I hope it wasn't derogatory. Each of us will be judged on what we did with the knowledge we had, and attain a kingdom accordingly.

[Rob Bowman]

mjr522,

Some quick comments:

1. The article that you are criticizing was published on IRR's website two years before I became director of research.
2. I am the director of research but do not exercise unilateral control over the content of our resources.
3. I don't make changes to older resources unless there is a clear need, and prefer to make changes with the original author's agreement.
4. We have a lot of resources and there has not been time to review and make editorial changes to all of them.
5. You seem to move rather cavalierly from the article being inaccurate to it being misleading and then to it being guilty of "trashing" the LDS Church.
6. Your objection to the article in question is rather picayune at best.

On this sixth point, your criticism of the article doesn't put the specific statement with which you took exception in context. Even though it may be the case that new members may join a class on Gospel Principles in progress and so hear the material in chapter 47 covered before they are exposed to the earlier chapters, the manual clearly was designed to be studied from beginning to end. The article points out that in both chapters the same passage from TPJS is quoted but that the early chapter presents a selective quotation that omits the salient point about God having once been a man. This observation, by itself, would not prove that the LDS Church was shielding new converts from the idea of God having once been a man, but the cumulative effect of the evidence, such as the progressive changes that have been made to the manual in its several editions and the notorious comments by Hinckley, makes a pretty strong case for this conclusion.