What Do Mormon And Helen Radkey Have In Common?

[Analytics]

The conversation about Baptisms for the Dead remind me of infant baptism from a couple of angles.

First, imagine if a well-meaning baby-baptizing sect believed that all babies would go to hell if they died without being baptized, so they did research on the birth of your children and did vicarious infant baptism on their behalf. Would that bug you at all?

Second, is Mormon out of line when he rants against infant baptism? After all, it’s just other churches following their own religions with good intentions. Is it really Mormon’s place to be offended by folks who practice infant baptism? Is he overreacting to say, “I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children….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.”

Pretty harsh words against those who are simply following their own religion. Is he justified in being so offended?

[Pahoran]

The conversation about Baptisms for the Dead remind me of infant baptism from a couple of angles.

First, imagine if a well-meaning baby-baptizing sect believed that all babies would go to hell if they died without being baptized, so they did research on the birth of your children and did vicarious infant baptism on their behalf. Would that bug you at all?

Second, is Mormon out of line when he rants against infant baptism? After all, it’s just other churches following their own religions with good intentions. Is it really Mormon’s place to be offended by folks who practice infant baptism? Is he overreacting to say, “I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children….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.”

Pretty harsh words against those who are simply following their own religion. Is he justified in being so offended?

I'm having a hard time accepting that you genuinely see a discussion topic here. In fact, I can see only one question arising:

Couldn't you find anyone more offensive with whom to compare a revered prophet than this cheap demagogue?

Regards,

Pahoran

[blueadept]

I'm not aware that any other Christian faith performs an ordinance (sacrament) for others as LDS are called to do so. This would be more relevant if it actually happened IMHO.

LDS would have no issues of other Christian faiths performing ANY good intentions in regards to this issue.

[Freedom]

Mormon is not talking about 'they' of other churches but 'ye' of his own church. He is condemning the apostate practices that are creeping into the true religion.

[Scott Lloyd]

The conversation about Baptisms for the Dead remind me of infant baptism from a couple of angles.

First, imagine if a well-meaning baby-baptizing sect believed that all babies would go to hell if they died without being baptized, so they did research on the birth of your children and did vicarious infant baptism on their behalf. Would that bug you at all?

Not in the least. See my sig line, the part in gray.

It woudn't even bother me if if a child of mine were born in a Catholic hospital and a well-meaning nurse had the infant baptized live.

In fact, the story is told that that very thing happened to a daughter of Joseph Fielding Smith. When she told her father what had happened to her newborn, his benign response was, "Don't worry; it'll wash off."

And for future reference, come up with any outlandish or ugly shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario you choose; my response will be the same. If the act brings no harm to me or mine, then there's no point in worrying about it, as it has no validity. I'm pretty sure most LDS people would react the same way.

In other words, this line of argument is pretty old and hackneyed, and it is quite ineffective.

Second, is Mormon out of line when he rants against infant baptism? After all, it’s just other churches following their own religions with good intentions. Is it really Mormon’s place to be offended by folks who practice infant baptism? Is he overreacting to say, “I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children….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.”

Pretty harsh words against those who are simply following their own religion. Is he justified in being so offended?

I don't believe that binds me to take offense at other folks practicing their own religious beliefs. Just my own take.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[LeSellers]

The conversation about Baptisms for the Dead remind me of infant baptism from a couple of angles.

First, imagine if a well-meaning baby-baptizing sect believed that all babies would go to hell if they died without being baptized, so they did research on the birth of your children and did vicarious infant baptism on their behalf. Would that bug you at all?

No, why should it? I assume they'd be acting in good faith, and with the best of intentions.

That said, since I recognize that they have no real authority to make their baptism effective, at best, they will have wasted their time and other resources on a meaningless act.

Second, is Mormon out of line when he rants against infant baptism? After all, it’s just other churches following their own religions with good intentions. Is it really Mormon’s place to be offended by folks who practice infant baptism? Is he overreacting to say, “I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children….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.”

You miss Mormon's point. He was not "ranting" against a separate pedobaptism organization. He admonishment was for those in The Church of Jesus Christ who were perverting the truth; those who completely missed a major point of the Gospel: that children who cannot repent (no legitimate concept of sin, no ability to feel remorse) do not need baptism because they cannot meet the minimum requirement: repentance.

Pretty harsh words against those who are simply following their own religion. Is he justified in being so offended?=

Once again, with feeling: he was not writing about a different group and its beliefs, but about members of the Church who through either ignorance or rebellion were performing "ordinances" in defiance of the teachings of their own church.

Lehi

[juliann]

Aw, you can do better than that. What if.... There was a sect that performed human sacrifice by proxy! I'm sure we can find appropriate and equally irrelevant verbiage from a sacred text somewhere.

It is probably preferable to discuss the topic as it is given the publicity given to the real thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mormon is not talking about 'they' of other churches but 'ye' of his own church. He is condemning the apostate practices that are creeping into the true religion.

Yeah. What Freedom said.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

I'm not aware that any other Christian faith performs an ordinance (sacrament) for others as LDS are called to do so. This would be more relevant if it actually happened IMHO.

Performing the ordinance for infants is simliar--it represents adults making the decision to perform an ordiance for others, motivated by the belief that the others can't be saved without it. The only difference is that the "others" in this case are babies rather than the deceased.

[blueadept]

I may have to rethink this issue a bit.

I remember Mother Teresa taking in the dying Hindus of Calcutta....and in the process she happens to baptise them prior to them dying.

Obviously, the government voiced a major disapproval.

Hmmm.......

So in this example, Mother Teresa is the honorable Helen Radkey..................

Edited February 15, 2012 by blueadept

[Analytics]

Not in the least. See my sig line, the part in gray.

It woudn't even bother me if if a child of mine were born in a Catholic hospital and a well-meaning nurse had the infant baptized live.

In fact, the story is told that that very thing happened to a daughter of Joseph Fielding Smith. In telling her father what had happened to her newborn, his benign response was, "Don't worry; it'll wash off."

And for future reference, come up with any outlandish or ugly shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario you choose; my response will be the same. If the act brings no harm to me or mine, then there's no point in worrying about it, as it has no validity. I'm pretty sure most LDS people would react the same way.

In other words, this line of argument is pretty old and hackneyed, and it is quite ineffective.

I don't belive that binds me to take offense at other folks practicing their own religious beliefs. Just my own take.

All good points. For my part, I think you are exactly right in this attitude. I try to have empathy for the offended, but I don't think being offended is justified.

[Analytics]

Mormon is not talking about 'they' of other churches but 'ye' of his own church. He is condemning the apostate practices that are creeping into the true religion.

Apostate practices creeping into true religion? Isn't that how the Church of Jesus Christ turned into the Roman Catholic Church? If so, then it's the apostate practices of the Roman Catholic Church that he's talking about.

[LeSellers]

What do Mormon and Helen Radkey have in common?

We're all God's children: carbon-based life forms, and we breathe oxygen.

Lehi

[Scott Lloyd]

Aw, you can do better than that. What if.... There was a sect that performed human sacrifice by proxy! I'm sure we can find appropriate and equally irrelevant verbiage from a sacred text somewhere.

In fact, maybe we could have a contest to see who can come up with the silliest, most outlandish analogy that the critics could use in their fruitless and ceaseless argument to get Mormons to say, "Well, er, uh, gee, I never thought of it that way."

Edited February 15, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

In fact, maybe we could have a contest to see who can come up with the silliest, most outlandish analogy that the critics could use in their fruitless and ceaseless argument to get Mormons to say, "Well, er, uh, gee, I never thought of it that way."

That sounds fun. What's the prize?

[Scott Lloyd]

That sounds fun. What's the prize?

A proxy ceremony giving you membership in the church, lodge or synagogue of your choice.

[KevinG]

I've been compared to overbreeding lemmings, does that count?

[Mark Beesley]

The conversation about Baptisms for the Dead remind me of infant baptism from a couple of angles.

First, imagine if a well-meaning baby-baptizing sect believed that all babies would go to hell if they died without being baptized, so they did research on the birth of your children and did vicarious infant baptism on their behalf. Would that bug you at all?

Nope. I'd say, Thanks, glad you cared.

Second, is Mormon out of line when he rants against infant baptism?

Well, let's consider it. Who was Mormon's audience. Let's read the first few verses of Moroni, Chapter 8:

1 An epistle of my father Mormon, written to me, Moroni; and it was written unto me soon after my calling to the ministry. And on this wise did he write unto me, saying:

2 My beloved son, Moroni, I rejoice exceedingly that your Lord Jesus Christ hath been mindful of you, and hath called you to his ministry, and to his holy work.

3 I am mindful of you always in my prayers, continually praying unto God the Father in the name of his Holy Child, Jesus, that he, through his infinite goodness and grace, will keep you through the endurance of faith on his name to the end.

4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.

5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. . .

So, Mormon is not ranting about infant baptism. He is writing a letter to his son in response to information he had received from his son. The letter was not addressed to Roman Catholics, or anyone else. It was address to Moroni.

Is it really Mormon’s place to be offended by folks who practice infant baptism?

If it were just Mormon's knee jerk reaction, then I would say No. But that is not what happened, is it? Mormon says he went to the Lord to ask Him about the issue, and Mormon's reaction is a result of the revelation he received from the Lord. So, Mormon's offense arises only after the Lord reveals to him the scope and breadth of the atonement, And now that Mormon has that understanding, he sees more clearly why infant baptisms is not only unnecessary, but indeed, an abomination, because it denies the power of the atonement.

Is he overreacting to say, “I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children….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.”

When you consider the entire story, i.e. who his audience was and what steps he took understand the problem and the will of the Lord, then I'd have to say, No, he was not overreacting.

Pretty harsh words against those who are simply following their own religion.

As has been pointed out by others, Mormon is not condemning someone who is just following their own religion. He is distraught about disputation that had arisen within his son's ministry. The people he is condemning are trying to corrupt what he has learned to be a true ordinance.

Is he justified in being so offended?

Considering the whole story, what do you think?

[Analytics]

A proxy ceremony giving you membership in the church, lodge or synagogue of your choice.

I'm in, Lol.

As has been pointed out by others, Mormon is not condemning someone who is just following their own religion. He is distraught about disputation that had arisen within his son's ministry. The people he is condemning are trying to corrupt what he has learned to be a true ordinance.

Considering the whole story, what do you think?

Trying to corrupt a true ordinance, or doing their best to live their own religion in sincerity? It's a matter of perspective.

It is special pleading to say that it's okay for Mormon to be so intensely offended about somebody else's religious practices.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Performing the ordinance for infants is simliar--it represents adults making the decision to perform an ordiance for others, motivated by the belief that the others can't be saved without it. The only difference is that the "others" in this case are babies rather than the deceased.

That's not true. In the case of infant baptism, the child is baptized a member of the Church. In the case of vicarious ordinances in LDS temples, the adult is not baptized. A believing member is baptized for the deceased individual, so that he or she may accept the ordinance if the person so wishes. Unlike the infant baptism into a Church, a person is not baptized, nor considered a Mormon as a result of the ritual. That's a HUGE difference in your analogy, and an important factor that many people miss.

[The Nehor]

Mormon was fighting corruption in his faith.

As for being offended:

[Freedom]

Apostate practices creeping into true religion? Isn't that how the Church of Jesus Christ turned into the Roman Catholic Church? If so, then it's the apostate practices of the Roman Catholic Church that he's talking about.

Your logic is flawed. For one thing, The Church of Jesus Christ did not turn into the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not show up for hundreds of years after the apostasy. Until that time, there were dozens of beliefs. This is why the Creeds were put together, to bring all the many teachings into alignment. Further, if I reprimand a mormon deacon for wearing a purple shirt while passing the Sacrament I do not think any person of sound mind would conclude that I am therefore attacking the muslim faith or the Church of Scientology. When the prophet tells us to go to the temple, according to your argument, he is in fact condemning Methodists for not holding current recommends. This logic just does not hold up.

[Freedom]

Mormon was fighting corruption in his faith.

As for being offended:

I am offended by this post. If I wake up with leprosy, which I probably will, I am going to file a complaint with the moderators.

[Analytics]

Mormon was fighting corruption in his faith.

As for being offended:

Mormon was ranting about how evil it is to believe in and perform infant baptism. He didn't qualify his condemnation of believers in this practice to the apostates of his own faith.

Great video, BTW--I totally agree with it. Just as infant baptism offended certain fifth-century meso-americans, baptism for the dead offends certain 21st century Jews. So what? If they're offended, that's their problem.

[LeSellers]

Mormon was ranting about how evil it is to believe in and perform infant baptism. He didn't qualify his condemnation of believers in this practice to the apostates of his own faith.

Mormon did not post his letter on a billboard on the main square of Zerehemla. He wrote to his son, arguably a bishop or stake president in the Church.

When I was going door-to-door in Mesquite, Texas, in 1970, I wrote a half-dozen post cards to my fiancée every day. I knew her parents would see them, but I was not writing to them. Until our house burned down a dozen years later, Jacquie kept those post cards (and the letters, too), and we both knew our children read them. I wasn't writing to them, either. My audience was the person I was writing to, not others who might casually or purposefully see those missives. Mormon, I believe, was no different: he was writing to another leader in his church, and those beyond his target audience who might possibly read the letters were, if considered at all (which I doubt), were mere afterthoughts, nothing more.

Pædobaptism, as Mormon said, is a solemn mockery of the Atonement of Christ. But, in his ecclesiastical role, Mormon claimed no authority over anyone not in the Church of Jesus Christ, so whether he condemned the practice in others is wholly immaterial. His only concern was to prevent apostasy in the Church over which he was the presiding high priest.

Lehi