Infant Baptism

[MiserereNobis]

Are the following the LDS objections to infant baptism?

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

Any others?

Here are some thoughts and questions on these objections:

1) Obviously we disagree on original sin, but what is the LDS view of the fall? What is different between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans? In other words, if you don't believe in original sin, what, according to the LDS church, was the consequence of Adam's fall on the human race?

Does the ability to sin begin exactly at age 8? Are 8 year olds, in baptism, being cleansed of sin or simply initiated into the LDS church?

2) I have a difficult time believing that 8 year olds can freely choose baptism or not. Are there any instances of an 8 year old deciding to be baptised when his or her parents did not? Are there any instances of an 8 year old from an active Mormon family rejecting baptism? I would think that the age of free choice would be older than 8, since an 8 year old is overwhelmingly influenced by his or her family, especially if that family is actively religious.

3) The Orthodox practice infant immersion, so it is possible. There are videos on youtube you can check out.

[filovirus]

Of the top of my head:

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

Christ atoned for original sin.

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

The person being baptized must be accountable for their actions. Infants are not. More or less at the age eight, children understand right and wrong and are accountable.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

Yes.

[CV75]

Are the following the LDS objections to infant baptism?

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

Any others?

Here are some thoughts and questions on these objections:

1) Obviously we disagree on original sin, but what is the LDS view of the fall? What is different between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans? In other words, if you don't believe in original sin, what, according to the LDS church, was the consequence of Adam's fall on the human race?

Does the ability to sin begin exactly at age 8? Are 8 year olds, in baptism, being cleansed of sin or simply initiated into the LDS church?

2) I have a difficult time believing that 8 year olds can freely choose baptism or not. Are there any instances of an 8 year old deciding to be baptised when his or her parents did not? Are there any instances of an 8 year old from an active Mormon family rejecting baptism? I would think that the age of free choice would be older than 8, since an 8 year old is overwhelmingly influenced by his or her family, especially if that family is actively religious.

3) The Orthodox practice infant immersion, so it is possible. There are videos on youtube you can check out.

There are a few threads about this that I recommend to you, but I will also come up with some replies for you.

[MiserereNobis]

There are a few threads about this that I recommend to you, but I will also come up with some replies for you.

Thank you. Some forums discourage resurrecting old threads -- what's the custom here?

[mfbukowski]

Are the following the LDS objections to infant baptism?

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

Any others?

Here are some thoughts and questions on these objections:

1) Obviously we disagree on original sin, but what is the LDS view of the fall? What is different between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans? In other words, if you don't believe in original sin, what, according to the LDS church, was the consequence of Adam's fall on the human race?

Does the ability to sin begin exactly at age 8? Are 8 year olds, in baptism, being cleansed of sin or simply initiated into the LDS church?

2) I have a difficult time believing that 8 year olds can freely choose baptism or not. Are there any instances of an 8 year old deciding to be baptised when his or her parents did not? Are there any instances of an 8 year old from an active Mormon family rejecting baptism? I would think that the age of free choice would be older than 8, since an 8 year old is overwhelmingly influenced by his or her family, especially if that family is actively religious.

3) The Orthodox practice infant immersion, so it is possible. There are videos on youtube you can check out.

Oh come on! Why does the Catholic church have "First Confession" and "First Communion" at age 7 (as I recall?)

Because that is around the age it becomes possible to know right from wrong and therefore "sin"!

The consequences of the fall are sin (actually the agency to be able to choose to sin) and death, both spiritual and physical. There would be no "death" as we know it as humans were it not for our fall from innocence- and that is true on many levels. For me it is also true in a linguistic constructivist sense- there was no CONCEPT of what we know as "death" or what we know as "sin" until we were capable of understanding the idea and putting it into words.

But of course as with everything religious we can take that literally or not literally. I take it both ways because, like all things religious, the ultimate knowledge of what "actually happened" is impossible to know. Might have happened literally, might not have, and it really doesn't matter. What matters is that I accept the principle in my life an act on it.

So it could all be talking about an individual fall from innocence or about a physical phenomenon. It's all on faith after all- so it doesn't matter what "really happened" as long as I think that it might have really happened because there is no difference between those two thought models.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you. Some forums discourage resurrecting old threads -- what's the custom here?

The custom is to respond if one has nothing better to do. Otherwise go do something else.

[ERayR]

Are the following the LDS objections to infant baptism?

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

Any others?

Here are some thoughts and questions on these objections:

1) Obviously we disagree on original sin, but what is the LDS view of the fall? What is different between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans? In other words, if you don't believe in original sin, what, according to the LDS church, was the consequence of Adam's fall on the human race?

Does the ability to sin begin exactly at age 8? Are 8 year olds, in baptism, being cleansed of sin or simply initiated into the LDS church?

2) I have a difficult time believing that 8 year olds can freely choose baptism or not. Are there any instances of an 8 year old deciding to be baptised when his or her parents did not? Are there any instances of an 8 year old from an active Mormon family rejecting baptism? I would think that the age of free choice would be older than 8, since an 8 year old is overwhelmingly influenced by his or her family, especially if that family is actively religious.

3) The Orthodox practice infant immersion, so it is possible. There are videos on youtube you can check out.

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

This is correct

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

I have never heard of this as a consideration.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

This could be a consideration but in light of #1 it seems irrelevant.

The consequence of The fall of Adam and Eve was mortality and separation from God.

It is not about the ability to sin but about not being accountable until age 8. And no I do not think that there is anything magical about age 8 and do not know why accountability begins at that age. It is not about family influence but rather do they have the ability to understand the seriousness of the ordinance they are receiving.

Properly taught an 8 year old are very perceptive. Parental wishes and authority is not disregarded. An 8 year old or any other minor would not be baptized without parental consent.

Again infants are pure before God and have not the capacity to understand the ordinance and its covenants.

[mfbukowski]

From the Vatican website:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_07121980_fconf_en.html

The greatest disadvantage, though, lies in the danger that the child might not appreciate fully the value of the sacrament of Penance since his attention would be absorbed by the first Communion. This difficulty, however, does not necessarily imply a delay of Confession; it can be overcome by anticipating Confession, thus separating it from Communion at least for a month or so and making it the beginning of the preparatory phase of first Communion.

In any case, the emphasis should be placed more on the way of preparing the children for the two sacraments, and, in general, on the initiation of the child to Christian life. Such preparation for the two sacraments should be faced in modern terms, keeping always in mind the confrontation of the Christian with today's world sharing responsibility with the whole Christian community.

Merely moving the years does not help, unless we invite into action the whole Church, especially the families and, in a very special way, the parents.

As far as age is concerned, the most suitable age seems to be still seven to eight years, as we have it today, and this for many reasons.

Pastoral experience tells us that the so-called "second infancy," due to the development of the moral self, has the same decisive importance that the "first infancy" had for the unconscious ego, since it can determine those conditionings, anxieties and impulses whose influence will remain during the whole future life of the person.

This is the age at which the child, if helped, can pass from the instinctive phase (tied to the stimulus of the binomial pleasure-sorrow) to the ethical phase, in which emerges, together and sometimes in contrast with the instinctive law, the attraction to good and disgust for evil.

It is a very delicate and precise moment, an opportunity which cannot be missed without serious consequences for the future. The awakening of ethical and moral life is not automatically linked to physiological and psychical growth; alas, as history proves in chapters writ with blood, moral sense does not necessarily develop with intelligence, least of all with mere knowledge. Without solicitous care from parents, priests and teachers, the instinctive life is prolonged through the "second infancy" and beyond, with disastrous consequences on the spiritual destiny of the individual.

"Operation salvation"

To act in time to awaken the moral sense at the beginning of the age of discernment is to save the person at his roots, is to give him moral being, namely, full eventual personality. To do this, not only through the best available human means but through the pedagogy of the liturgy and the sacraments, in particular through the sacrament of Penance (which has exactly the conscience as its object, and the purification, liberation, formation, elevation and perfecting of the conscience as its proper contribution), constitutes-Bishop Tonini emphasizes-a very dramatic moment of "operation salvation" whose advantages we cannot renounce without serious danger.

The sacrament of Penance, if well prepared for, works wonders in this sense. A most beautiful experience comes to children when, receiving first Communion, they discover the existence of a Father who loves them, and begin to examine their actions in answer to that love. They then become aware that they not only possess an interior treasure, namely an upright conscience, but are themselves beings who are the objects of God's satisfaction, His faithful children, His friends, as was Adam before the Fall. This is the beginning of the discovery of moral greatness and of the consciousness of the eternal value of their actions. Such an experience is a delicate one which can be disastrous if not guided in a proper way; but which, well guided, gives the whole future life an authentically supernatural tone, thus providing the one and only antidote to both religious formalism and religious apathy.

[MiserereNobis]

Oh come on! Why does the Catholic church have "First Confession" and "First Communion" at age 7 (as I recall?)

Because that is around the age it becomes possible to know right from wrong and therefore "sin"!

Of course I agree with this. I was pointing out what I thought was an internal inconsistency in the LDS church. Since I accept infant baptism, I have no problem with young children receiving the sacraments.

I thought the issue was about being able to freely choose baptism. It appears that the issue is more about the ability to know right from wrong than about free choice. Is this a more accurate assessment?

[CV75]

infant baptism

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

Yes.

Article of Faith 2, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”

Also Moses 6:54, “the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents [starting with Adam and Eve] cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.”

In addition, infants cannot sin: “the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them… (Moroni 8:.”

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

No. I think the principle is rather that baptism is effective only when accepted of our own free will. Infants cannot exercise agency. But this principle alone does not prevent an infant from being baptized, since he can choose to accept it later on. This is the same principle as proxy baptism—we do it for dead people, but they need not accept it, and if they don’t it will have no effect on the remission of their sins.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

No. I don’t think this is a relevant consideration.

1) Obviously we disagree on original sin, but what is the LDS view of the fall … what, according to the LDS church, was the consequence of Adam's fall on the human race?

http://www.lds.org/topics/fall-of-adam#

Does the ability to sin begin exactly at age 8?

No, parents are commanded to teach and baptize their children by the age of eight (D&C 68:25): “And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.” We don’t know when each person is capable of sinning. I think the term “age of accountability” could pertain more to the parent’s accountability in preparing their children by the age of eight than the child’s actual accountability, as this can differ from person to person.

Are 8 year olds, in baptism, being cleansed of sin or simply initiated into the LDS church?

The baptism of an 8-year old is effective for the remission of his sin(s) only when accepted of his own free will. By age eight he can generally be expected to exercise agency; if not, no harm, no fowl. So this principle alone does not prevent an 8-year old from being baptized, since he can choose to accept it later on. His parents are doing him a favor and obeying a commandment. As mentioned above, this is the same principle as proxy baptism—we do it for dead people, but they need not accept it, and if they don’t it will have no effect on the remission of their sins.

2) I have a difficult time believing that 8 year olds can freely choose baptism or not.

See above.

3) The Orthodox practice infant immersion, so it is possible.

Not the issue.

[oremites]

Any others?

4) God has revealed that infant baptism is wrong.

That's the basic LDS objection.

[ERayR]

Of course I agree with this. I was pointing out what I thought was an internal inconsistency in the LDS church. Since I accept infant baptism, I have no problem with young children receiving the sacraments.

I thought the issue was about being able to freely choose baptism. It appears that the issue is more about the ability to know right from wrong than about free choice. Is this a more accurate assessment?

Yes

[MiserereNobis]

Ok, it's clear then that one of the issues is the child's ability to choose right from wrong. How is this connected to baptism? Children in the Catholic Church attend first confession around 7 or 8 because confession is obviously connected to knowing right from wrong. I don't, however, see the connection to baptism.

CV75 says that children who are baptised at age 8 but because of their personal development do not yet know right from wrong can freely accept the baptism later, once they do know. Can't we apply this same logic to infant baptism? Baptism the infant and then the individual can freely accept the baptism once they are older.

[MiserereNobis]

4) God has revealed that infant baptism is wrong.

That's the basic LDS objection.

Yes, but surely God doesn't mind us asking questions as to why and surely God has given us reasons and surely God would like us to understand practices and doctrines.

[mfbukowski]

Of course I agree with this. I was pointing out what I thought was an internal inconsistency in the LDS church. Since I accept infant baptism, I have no problem with young children receiving the sacraments.

I thought the issue was about being able to freely choose baptism. It appears that the issue is more about the ability to know right from wrong than about free choice. Is this a more accurate assessment?

It's both. My son decided not to be baptized at 8 so we waited until he wanted it- at age 9 and a half.

He also went on his mission "late" because he wanted to make sure he was doing it based on his choice and not popular pressure.

I used to interview children preparing for baptism, due to my calling at the time, and all wanted quite badly to be baptized. It's hard to say why, maybe in some cases because it was the "grown-up" thing to do, - as we know it is hard to judge anyone's private reason to do anything or if they are "ready" to be baptized- on the other hand I think many adults who want to be and are indeed baptized are not yet ready.

The age of 8 is a guideline but all those factors enter into the decision- nothing about it is cut and dried.

[mfbukowski]

Ok, it's clear then that one of the issues is the child's ability to choose right from wrong. How is this connected to baptism? Children in the Catholic Church attend first confession around 7 or 8 because confession is obviously connected to knowing right from wrong. I don't, however, see the connection to baptism.

CV75 says that children who are baptised at age 8 but because of their personal development do not yet know right from wrong can freely accept the baptism later, once they do know. Can't we apply this same logic to infant baptism? Baptism the infant and then the individual can freely accept the baptism once they are older.

There is no need to baptize if one is incapable of sin. That is the whole point of baptism- and that Vatican article I cited gives a bunch of very good reasons as well for an "initiation" into the church at that time.

[Freedom]

The purpose of baptism is to enter into a covenant, however the critical part is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. One of the roles of the Holy Ghost is to purify. Since we cannot sin prior to the age of accountability, there is no value in receiving this gift. Once we reach the age of accountability, we become more fully responsible for our choices and therefore require the cleansing power of the holy Ghost. Without it, we cannot receive a remission of our sins.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Are the following the LDS objections to infant baptism?

1) There is no original sin so infants have no need to have their sins cleansed.

2) Baptism must be accepted by our own free-will; infants cannot do this.

3) Baptism must be by immersion; this would be hard for infants.

Any others?

Here are some thoughts and questions on these objections:

1) Obviously we disagree on original sin, but what is the LDS view of the fall? What is different between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans? In other words, if you don't believe in original sin, what, according to the LDS church, was the consequence of Adam's fall on the human race?

Does the ability to sin begin exactly at age 8? Are 8 year olds, in baptism, being cleansed of sin or simply initiated into the LDS church?

2) I have a difficult time believing that 8 year olds can freely choose baptism or not. Are there any instances of an 8 year old deciding to be baptised when his or her parents did not? Are there any instances of an 8 year old from an active Mormon family rejecting baptism? I would think that the age of free choice would be older than 8, since an 8 year old is overwhelmingly influenced by his or her family, especially if that family is actively religious.

3) The Orthodox practice infant immersion, so it is possible. There are videos on youtube you can check out.

Baptisms are for the remission of sin, infants cannot sin. They are mortal as a result of the fall, but are born in innocence. An 8 year old can choose, right or wrong. Also since we as LDS have extra-Biblical scripture, we are taught that it is an abomination and mockery of God to baptize someone who has no sin. Children are redeemed from the fall.

[CV75]

Thank you. Some forums discourage resurrecting old threads -- what's the custom here?

Just go to the Library/archives and look up Infant Baptism and they should pop up.

[CV75]

CV75 says that children who are baptised at age 8 but because of their personal development do not yet know right from wrong can freely accept the baptism later, once they do know. Can't we apply this same logic to infant baptism? Baptism the infant and then the individual can freely accept the baptism once they are older.

No, because the parents (guardians, priesthood) are commanded to have them baptized when they are eight years old. Also, by age eight, it is safe to conclude that since they have been taught (received the message), they have sufficeint wherewithal to accept it or reject it, but in any case they can accept it or reject it later. Also where it is safe to conclude that by this time they have (and have had) the wherewithal to exercise agency, they have the agency to sin and according to the doctrine of the Fall have done so, however small or great. Note that Moses 6:55 says, "And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good." Children begin to "grow up" an learn right from wrong at indeterminate ages, but age eight is a safe time to have them taught over the years, for them to understand the basics of sin, repentance and the Gospel, and to be ready to be baptized.

[oremites]

Yes, but surely God doesn't mind us asking questions as to why and surely God has given us reasons and surely God would like us to understand practices and doctrines.

You're absolutely correct but the question was:

Are the following the LDS objections to infant baptism?

You asked for suggestions for any others and I was simply pointing out that you didn't list the most important objection.

I didn't intend to suggest that should be the final word on the matter.

Edited September 13, 2012 by oremites

[Scott Lloyd]

PiusX, are you aware that there is authoritative content on the Internet regarding topics such as you bring up here?

For example, this regarding baptism is on the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lds.org.

There are knowledgeable Church members on this board, and you are apt to receive intelligent and accurate responses to your questions. But you need to understand that none of us here speaks officially for the Church.

[mfbukowski]

The purpose of baptism is to enter into a covenant, however the critical part is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. One of the roles of the Holy Ghost is to purify. Since we cannot sin prior to the age of accountability, there is no value in receiving this gift. Once we reach the age of accountability, we become more fully responsible for our choices and therefore require the cleansing power of the holy Ghost. Without it, we cannot receive a remission of our sins.

An excellent point and something which is not understood by Catholics since they have no comparable ordinance. Their ordinance of "confirmation" is not comparable, as I recall.

[mfbukowski]

No, because the parents (guardians, priesthood) are commanded to have them baptized when they are eight years old.

Just to clarify- because I know this will come up- it doesn't say anywhere "Thou shalt have thy children baptized at exactly eight years of age or else thou shalt be condemned if the child is baptized at nine or later"

What is intended here I think by CV is that 1- we are under commandment to make sure that children are baptized and it would be negligent of a parent to not take the responsibility to make sure it happens, and that 2- the age of accountability according the the LDS church is the age of eight, so in a sense we are "commanded" to do so around that age.

Is that what you meant CV?

[MiserereNobis]

PiusX, are you aware that there is authoritative content on the Internet regarding topics such as you bring up here?

For example, this regarding baptism is on the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lds.org.

There are knowledgeable Church members on this board, and you are apt to receive intelligent and accurate responses to your questions. But you need to understand that none of us here speaks officially for the Church.

Yes, I am aware, but I like to have discussions over the topics, too. So I ask questions and then respond to the answers given. I understand that no one here speaks for the LDS church officially, just as none of the Catholics here speak for the Catholic church officially, despite that fact that I am a sainted pope

Would posters here rather I did not ask the questions that I am asking? I'm not quite sure how to take your post -- do you not want me doing what I am doing?

Edited September 13, 2012 by PopeStPiusX