Jump to content

What Do Mormon And Helen Radkey Have In Common?


Recommended Posts

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, honestly the whole unbaptism of romney's FIL didn't bother me at all either...except for the whole mockery bit. Hypothetically, its part of their religion, my hypothetical baby and I have nothing to do with it, and I don't really need to know about it anyways. My life and my baby's life are still the same, so I could care less.

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

What's offensive to God is the supreme refusal to understand the spirit and the nature of God's children. Children are pure and it shows in their face. I've never met a baby that reeks evil. Maybe from a diaper, but not evil. To me, to assume that babies will be in dire jeopardy if they don't get baptized as babies is ignoring the Spirit, a loss of truths about who children are, and a loss of truth of the purpose of baptism. It's not the act itself, it's what the act speaks about the dismissal of truth and the spirit. In a sense it's limiting the mercy of God.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

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?

They would be doing it out of sincere love and concern for my child-honestly i would be touched and grateful for their concern.

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.”

I don't know that Mormon is ranting about the practices of another religion. It seems like he's ranting about the practices of people who profess to be in the same church he is. Leaders of churches have a right to condemn practices in their church they believe are not of God.

Link to comment
Moroni transcribed the letter into the Book of Mormon, which has a fairly wide audience.

Your position is weak, therefore you make the trivial appear as if major. Mormon's words were for his son, another Church leader. The doctrine it contains applies to the Church and to no one else.

Yes, the Book of Mormon has a wide (but not wide enough) audience. However, only Saints see it as doctrinal. Ergo, my position remains unaffected: Mormon's audience was the Church of Jesus Christ, not all churches. Further, as I said above, Mormon did not claim any authority over any but those in the Church of Jesus Christ, so, irrespective of who reads his letter, the counsel is only for those in His Church.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment

Your position is weak, therefore you make the trivial appear as if major. Momron's words were for his son, another Church leader. The doctrine it contains applies to the Church and to no one else.

Yes, the Book of Mormon has a wide (but not wide enough) audience. However, only Saints see it as doctrinal. Ergo, my position remains unaffected: Mormon's audience was the Church of Jesus Christ, not all churches. Further, as I said above, Mormon did not claim any authority over any but those in the Church of Jesus Christ, so, irrespective of who reads his letter, the counsel is only for those in His Church.

Lehi

When Moroni made the decision to include this in the Book of Mormon, he intended the message to be sent to all nations, kindreds, tounges, and people. That is the explicit intended audience. You are right, Catholics don't see Mormon's condemnation of their doctrine and doctrinal. Just like Mormons don't see somebody's condemnation of baptism for the dead as doctrinal.

Link to comment

I'm in, Lol.

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.

You will recall that I agreed that if you read Mormon's words out of context, then it was not his place to be offended. To place his words in context does not constitute special pleading. It offers a full consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding his words. On the other hand, it does constitute special pleading to exclude the context in order to cast Mormon's words in the worst possible light.

Link to comment

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

Exactly!

Link to comment

Moroni transcribed the letter into the Book of Mormon, which has a fairly wide audience.

So, is it now your argument now that Moroni was somehow wrong to include his father's letter (since your initial complaint about Mormon being inappropriately offended can only hold water if you engage in that egregious practice of special pleading)? And if you now add the circumstance of Moroni including the letter in the Book of Mormon, why does that not constitute special pleading to support a spurious argument?

C'mon Analytics, give it up and move on. You picked a bad example.

Link to comment

Your position is weak, therefore you make the trivial appear as if major. Mormon's words were for his son, another Church leader. The doctrine it contains applies to the Church and to no one else.

Yes, the Book of Mormon has a wide (but not wide enough) audience. However, only Saints see it as doctrinal. Ergo, my position remains unaffected: Mormon's audience was the Church of Jesus Christ, not all churches. Further, as I said above, Mormon did not claim any authority over any but those in the Church of Jesus Christ, so, irrespective of who reads his letter, the counsel is only for those in His Church.

It makes little sense to assume that the sacrament prayers are given by Moroni for the use of other faiths.....which would be a natural assumption if one follows A's logic about the purpose and thus audience of the BoM for every statement....but not if one actually paid attention to what is going on in the text.

Moroni 8:4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should adisputations rise among you...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.

The disputations are specifically limited to "among you" in a letter talking about Moroni's ministry. "You" is clearly members of the Church. One can claim that Moroni was making known to the general public his father's being offended (though the term used is "grieved") by other members' claims about infants, but that hardly expands the offense to the general public any more than me telling a friend about how something my husband did ticked me off equates to me being ticked off by my friend for the same thing. Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

So, is it now your argument now that Moroni was somehow wrong to include his father's letter (since your initial complaint about Mormon being inappropriately offended can only hold water if you engage in that egregious practice of special pleading)? And if you now add the circumstance of Moroni including the letter in the Book of Mormon, why does that not constitute special pleading to support a spurious argument?

Recapping my position, Mormon was quite offended at apostates who believed that infants needed baptism. He wrote that in a letter to Moroni, who thought that this would be a very important message for us, and thus included it in the Book of Mormon. I find him being offended by apostate baptismal practices similar to the way a few Jews are offended by Mormon baptism (for the dead) practices.

And if you are offended by me making this comparison, that’s your right.

Link to comment
Recapping my position, Mormon was quite offended at apostates who believed that infants needed baptism. He wrote that in a letter to Moroni, who thought that this would be a very important message for us, and thus included it in the Book of Mormon. I find him being offended by apostate baptismal practices similar to the way a few Jews are offended by Mormon baptism (for the dead) practices.

What we have been patiently trying to tell you is that those apostates were not in a different church, but were perverting the same Church Mormon headed (and his son, Moroni, served in the ministry). The letter was not about being offended, it was about teaching correct doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ.

And if you are offended by me making this comparison, that’s your right.
I am not offended. I would not give you that much power over me.

I don't even give my boss that much power over me, certainly not by being offended.

Lehi

Link to comment

Recapping my position, Mormon was quite offended at apostates who believed that infants needed baptism.

Recapping the general position of LDS posters on this thread, Mormon was grieved (not offended) by members of the church (not apostates who had left the church, or members of other religions) who believed that infants needed baptism.

You can't force us to accept an interpretation of the BOM we don't agree with just so you can make your point.

Link to comment

Recapping my position, Mormon was quite offended at apostates who believed that infants needed baptism. He wrote that in a letter to Moroni, who thought that this would be a very important message for us, and thus included it in the Book of Mormon. I find him being offended by apostate baptismal practices similar to the way a few Jews are offended by Mormon baptism (for the dead) practices.

And if you are offended by me making this comparison, that’s your right.

They weren't apostates, which is why Mormon told Moroni, in his letter, to see to it that the practice was removed from among them.

Very little offends me, and your argument is far from offensive. It is just rather silly to compare Jews taking offense at a Mormon practice to Mormon taking offense at a Mormon practice. Kind of leaves one scratching their head . . . :)

(And just to be clear, when I say "Mormon taking offense at a Mormon practice," I mean the prophet Mormon being grieved by the practice of fellow church member in ancient Nephite culture.)

Edited by Mark Beesley
Link to comment
Recapping my position, Mormon was quite offended at apostates who believed that infants needed baptism.

We do not doubt that that is your position. Mormon, however, was "grieved," not offended, that a false practice had appeared "among you," i.e. within the church he headed and in which his son Moroni was a Priesthood leader. His position, therefore, was that no member of his church should believe or practice such a thing.

"Apostates," whether of the ancient American, medieval European or contemporary Internetian variety, are not in view. Just members of Mormon's own church.

He wrote that in a letter to Moroni, who thought that this would be a very important message for us, and thus included it in the Book of Mormon. I find him being offended by apostate baptismal practices similar to the way a few Jews are offended by Mormon baptism (for the dead) practices.

And I find your attempt to equate the two things to be a very long stretch.

And if you are offended by me making this comparison, that’s your right.

Indeed, it seems to be what you are aiming for.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
You can't force us to accept an interpretation of the BOM we don't agree with just so you can make your point.

This is a great line, and one I intend to quote often, particularly in my exchanges with Rob Bowman. I am even considering adding it to my signature line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

This is a great line, and one I intend to quote often, particularly in my exchanges with Rob Bowman. I am even considering adding it to my signature line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Gets to the point, doesn't it.

Alas, no points left to anoint it with.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment
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.

Analytics, assuming you were sincere in your opening post, attempting to equate some Jews taking offense at a Mormon practice to something we might take offense at (though no one seemingly would), could you tell us what a vicarious infant baptism would look like? Does someone who is not baptized as an infant but later converts to a church that practices infant baptism have to rely on a proxy baptism of an infant, or can they be baptized as an adult? (I know the answer, just pointing out how really silly your comparisons were.)

Edited by Mark Beesley
Link to comment

We do not doubt that that is your position. Mormon, however, was "grieved," not offended, that a false practice had appeared "among you," i.e. within the church he headed and in which his son Moroni was a Priesthood leader. His position, therefore, was that no member of his church should believe or practice such a thing.

Mormon said, "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."

I'm quite glad that you only think this is only talking about rogue Mormons who think that little children need baptism, and not about people in general who think of baptism that way.

Analytics, assuming you were sincere in your opening post, attempting to equate some Jews taking offense at a Mormon practice to something we might take offense at (though no one seemingly would), could you tell us what a vicarious infant baptism would look like? Does someone who is not baptized as an infant but later converts to a church that practices infant baptism have to rely on a proxy baptism of an infant, or can they be baptized as an adult? (I know the answer, just pointing out how really silly your comparisons were.)

The purpose of vicarious infant baptism would be to save people who didn't have parents who baptized them, and died before they were old enough to choose to get baptized themselves. If you don't see anything of value in the analogy, then we don't have to talk about it.

Link to comment
Mormon said, "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."

I'm quite glad that you only think this is only talking about rogue Mormons who think that little children need baptism, and not about people in general who think of baptism that way.

As seems to be your custom, you are "quite glad" to attribute something to me that I did not say.

I am simply pointing out that the passage is talking about "rogue" 4th-century New World Christians. Whether the principle has any applicability beyond that is another question entirely; but the notion that Mormon was "offended" by the religious practices of other believers in any way that is remotely analogous to Ms Radkey's Rabbi-rousing is really rather risible.

The purpose of vicarious infant baptism would be to save people who didn't have parents who baptized them, and died before they were old enough to choose to get baptized themselves. If you don't see anything of value in the analogy, then we don't have to talk about it.

Are you saying that you only want to hear from those who are impressed by your rather pointless attempt to create a parellel ex nihilo?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

As seems to be your custom, you are "quite glad" to attribute something to me that I did not say.

I am simply pointing out that the passage is talking about "rogue" 4th-century New World Christians. Whether the principle has any applicability beyond that is another question entirely...

It reminds me of what Ezra Taft Benson said, "The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us."

...; but the notion that Mormon was "offended" by the religious practices of other believers in any way that is remotely analogous to Ms Radkey's Rabbi-rousing is really rather risible.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that Neal A. Maxwell is looking down from heaven smiling right now?

Link to comment

It reminds me of what Ezra Taft Benson said, "The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us."

Come on Analytics, this is starting to be blatantly disingenuous on your part.

Though we know that the nephites and the lamanites never had the BoM as a book, we do know that they did very much have certain parts of it (king Benjamin's speech for example). We also know that they had the teachings by Mormon on infant baptism, as Mormon specifically wrote them so that his son Moroni would teach them to those in the church.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment

Come on Analytics, this is starting to be blatantly disingenuous on your part.

Though we know that the nephites and the lamanites never had the BoM as a book, we do know that they did very much have certain parts of it (king Benjamin's speech for example). We also know that they had the teachings by Mormon on infant baptism, as Mormon specifically wrote them so that his son Moroni would teach them to those in the church.

Blatantly disingenuous? Pahoran's remarks honestly reminded me of what Ezra Taft Benson said. Do you disagree with President Benson on this point?

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...