Infant Baptism

[MiserereNobis]

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

Ok, I misunderstood you then. Thanks for the clarification!

[mfbukowski]

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?

What you are doing is one of the main reasons this board exists. Please continue!

[MiserereNobis]

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.

From the Catechism:

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

I've expressed no objection to it, and indeed, I have none.

My concern is as follows:

When I said that you are apt to receive intelligent and accurate answers here, the unspoken implication of my remark is that you are also apt to receive answers that are less so. Some observers (and I'm not referring to you) might be inclined to regard what they read here as binding upon the Church. It would, of course, be improper to do so. There have been some querulous individuals here in the past who have posed questions in an effort to find conflicts in the answers they receive so as to feed their contention that Mormons don't know their own doctrine or that Mormons are not unified in their faith.

I only meant to make it clear to you and everyone else that there is authoritative and reliable content about Mormonism, easily accessible on the Web, and that one need not -- indeed, should not -- rely wholly on this or any other non-official source for their information about Mormonism.

I hope you don't object to my pointing this out.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bart Burk]

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.

My understanding is that Mormons believe that Adam's sin caused the fall and caused sin and death to enter the world. Infants are not held accountable for Adam's sin because of Christ's atonement for Adam's sin. So LDS believe that people are only accountable for their own sins, and they can't commit a sin until they are eight years old. I think their understanding is generally more logical than the Catholic understanding. Having said that, I believe that grace is imparted through baptism and that infants do benefit spiritually from being baptized. I don't see a great deal of difference between a child being baptized as an infant and a child being baptized at eight. I think it is hard to make the case that eight year olds choose to be baptized because in almost all cases it is their parents choosing for them.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Freedom]

Baptism, according to the LDS Bible Dictionary, serves 4 purposes:

1) for the remission of sins

2) for membership in the Church

3) for entrance into the celestial kingdom

4) doorway to personal sanctification when followed by the reception of the Holy Ghost

[mfbukowski]

From the Catechism:

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."

Hmmmm kind of, but not the same. Catholics as I recall stress the witness and defend part - "soldiers of Christ" symbolized by the little slap on the cheek- or don't they do that anymore?

We emphasize that the ordinance gives us a special right to constant companionship of the Holy Ghost to guide us and direct us from minute to minute of every day.

Don't have time to fully respond at the moment.

[MiserereNobis]

Hmmmm kind of, but not the same. Catholics as I recall stress the witness and defend part - "soldiers of Christ" symbolized by the little slap on the cheek- or don't they do that anymore?

Unfortunately, the new rite of confirmation excludes the slap on the cheek (one of many poor liturgical revisions in my opinion). The traditional rite is still available -- my parish uses the traditional rites of all sacraments exclusively.

We emphasize that the ordinance gives us a special right to constant companionship of the Holy Ghost to guide us and direct us from minute to minute of every day.

Here is the preface from the new rite of confirmation:

All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

by water and the Holy Spirit

you freed your sons and daughters from sin

and gave them new life.

Send your Holy Spirit upon them

to be their helper and guide.

Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding,

the spirit of right judgment and courage,

the spirit of knowledge and reverence.

Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

So yes, the idea of the companionship of the Holy Ghost is there.

ETA: the actual words of the rite are: Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti' [be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.].

Edited September 13, 2012 by PopeStPiusX

[CV75]

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?

Yes, but I feel I should explain further:

I am basing my comment on 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.”

I am interpreting “the sin …upon the heads of the parents” to be negligence, sloth, or a sin of omission (not necessarily willful disobedience), by not teaching them to understand the doctrine as evidenced in their being baptized and confirmed when eight years old. The warning that there is a sin upon the heads of the parents for not doing something, that something to me would qualify as obedience to a commandment, or at least observation of a principle of righteousness.

Now that I think of it, parents having their children baptized and confirmed in many cases may legitimately be part of fulfilling the responsibility to teach them to understand the doctrine. As the children mature at or after the age of eight years, they more fully apply these teachings (especially in partaking of the Sacrament), and they understand them more fully.

The commandment that children are baptized at age eight comes from D&C 68:27, “And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.” To whom this commandment is given is not clear, but I have no problem it being the responsibility of the leaders to teach, encourage and facilitate it, the parents to do it, and the children to go along with it (after all, they are supposed to understand it by this time).

I believe the age at which children actually become accountable is indeterminate by anyone but the Lord since they “begin to become accountable” (D&C 29:47), and “sin conceiveth in their hearts …when they begin to grow up” (Moses 6:55) and the Lord mentions arriving at the “years of accountability” (D&C 137:10).

In tying these several concepts together, I agree with the usage of the terms, “children are accountable at the age of eight”; “the age of accountability is eight years”, etc. I mean, any or each of three parties is accountable for the child getting baptized at the age of eight years!

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but I feel I should explain further:

I am basing my comment on 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.”

I am interpreting “the sin …upon the heads of the parents” to be negligence, sloth, or a sin of omission (not necessarily willful disobedience), by not teaching them to understand the doctrine as evidenced in their being baptized and confirmed when eight years old. The warning that there is a sin upon the heads of the parents for not doing something, that something to me would qualify as obedience to a commandment, or at least observation of a principle of righteousness.

Now that I think of it, parents having their children baptized and confirmed in many cases may legitimately be part of fulfilling the responsibility to teach them to understand the doctrine. As the children mature at or after the age of eight years, they more fully apply these teachings (especially in partaking of the Sacrament), and they understand them more fully.

The commandment that children are baptized at age eight comes from D&C 68:27, “And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.” To whom this commandment is given is not clear, but I have no problem it being the responsibility of the leaders to teach, encourage and facilitate it, the parents to do it, and the children to go along with it (after all, they are supposed to understand it by this time).

I believe the age at which children actually become accountable is indeterminate by anyone but the Lord since they “begin to become accountable” (D&C 29:47), and “sin conceiveth in their hearts …when they begin to grow up” (Moses 6:55) and the Lord mentions arriving at the “years of accountability” (D&C 137:10).

In tying these several concepts together, I agree with the usage of the terms, “children are accountable at the age of eight”; “the age of accountability is eight years”, etc. I mean, any or each of three parties is accountable for the child getting baptized at the age of eight years!

Fair enough! Who am I to argue with the D&C? I forgot that was in there.

Like Scott Loyd said- not all of us are quite doctrinal! And the Lord knows I particularly tend to get a little..... shall we say "creative"?

[mfbukowski]

ETA: the actual words of the rite are: Accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti' [be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit.].

WOW

You realize of course that most here would see that as a confirmation (no pun intended) of the fact that we practice is a true "restoration" then.

Our exact words reflect even the commanding tone of the Latin- we say "Receive the Holy Ghost", and those words must be said exactly.

[MiserereNobis]

I've expressed no objection to it, and indeed, I have none.

My concern is as follows:

When I said that you are apt to receive intelligent and accurate answers here, the unspoken implication of my remark is that you are also apt to receive answers that are less so. Some observers (and I'm not referring to you) might be inclined to regard what they read here as binding upon the Church. It would, of course, be improper to do so. There have been some querulous individuals here in the past who have posed questions in an effort to find conflicts in the answers they receive so as to feed their contention that Mormons don't know their own doctrine or that Mormons are not unified in their faith.

I only meant to make it clear to you and everyone else that there is authoritative and reliable content about Mormonism, easily accessible on the Web, and that one need not -- indeed, should not -- rely wholly on this or any other non-official source for their information about Mormonism.

I hope you don't object to my pointing this out.

I don't object at all -- I just wanted clarification. Thanks!

[CV75]

Fair enough! Who am I to argue with the D&C? I forgot that was in there.

Like Scott Loyd said- not all of us are quite doctrinal! And the Lord knows I particularly tend to get a little..... shall we say "creative"?

Well, well, well! I think that's about the first time I've actually been put in the "doctrinal" corner!

[MiserereNobis]

WOW

You realize of course that most here would see that as a confirmation (no pun intended) of the fact that we practice is a true "restoration" then.

Our exact words reflect even the commanding tone of the Latin- we say "Receive the Holy Ghost", and those words must be said exactly.

Yeah, I can see that, but from the Catholic point-of-view you've got it reversed -- you took it from us, not us from [original] you

[Darren10]

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.

That aspect, yes. But what if the infant is not baptized? What is the believed consequences of that? Will God condemn an infant at all for not being baptized? I believe He can and will, at some level condemn a child for not being baptized, constituted that an child knew that he or she needed baptism. What I do not believe is in eternal punishment for those not knowing at all they needed baptism and thus were not baptized. While I know it is not conanoized doctrine of the catholic Church, there was a widespread acceptence of the idea of etenral consequence for infants not baptized. I think St. Augustine popularized this idea. That God will place non baptized infants into an eternal state of limbo. While the infant will feel no pain, he/she will also not feel any joy.

That's a teaching explicitly rejected in Mormonism.

Edited to add: That aspect, yes =

The aspect of applying the idea of baptizing youth and allowing them to accept that at an more advanced age of accountability, yes.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Darren10

[3DOP]

Hey Pope Pius,

I like to use the LDS belief about the sanctity of babies when we speak of the Mother of God as I am doing now in the apostasy thread. Some of them, or at least one of them in that thread, believe that Catholics exalt our Lady too much. But how do we exalt her? We begin with the Immaculate Conception. But that shouldn't be any big deal to LDS. They believe they are immaculately conceived!

I got some positive LDS feedback when I pointed out that Catholic doctrine does not permit that dead unbaptized babies suffer hell fire. Even St. Augustine at his singularly most rigorous, when he was more interested in exposing the errors of Pelagius than considering the question of infant baptism, affirmed at one point only that the "punishment" would be of such a nature that one could not apply the tragic end where it is could be said, "It was better for that baby never to be born". Part of the problem from the LDS side is that they have Latter-day Scriptures against infant baptism because the infant baptizers in the Scriptures did teach that unbaptized babies suffer hell fire.

I will understand if you question my solution to the problem. Rather than insist that Joseph Smith was just wrong about traditional teaching on infant baptism, I suggested that the censures against it, must be applied to those who practised it in ancient America only. My concern was not to shake LDS faith in their teachings, (something for which I am inadequate anyway) but to demonstrate that evidence for apostasy in early Christianity is wanting. Infant baptism as a case in point is usually the most loudly condemned because most LDS presume that pedobaptism is necessary so that the baby won't burn in hell.

...continuing to think of this subject of pedobaptism as an LDS might perceive it, I am reminded that I think I have seen passages in the Book of Mormon that are highly charged against the doctrine of infant baptism, implying that this means unbaptised dead babies burn in hell. There is an important way to look at this.

Now I have only demonstrated the situation as it has existed in the Old World Church. One could still be LDS, recognize that with regards to infant baptism, the Old World Church has a different (and acceptable) view of the fate of unbaptised babies, and realize that these passages against infant baptism must be applied against the New World Church only. Yes, the Church in America would have to be apostate when those passages were written. But it would be mistaken to apply the condemnations of a unique form of infant baptism outside of its unique historical context. The passages against infant baptism in the Book of Mormon cannot be applied to the Old World Church because of significant differences between the Old World Church and the Church in America.

---http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58258-was-there-an-apostacy-in-the-early-christian-church/page__st__160 (post 163, page nine) (bolding is new)

Interestingly, while no one commented, I did receive two rep points for this speculation from LDS observers.

3DOP

Edited September 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[Thunderfire]

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.

Of course we know of original sin in the garden. We also know of Christ's atonement for original sin on the cross. So the real issue with baptism is our agency or ability of choosing Jesus which an infant cannot do. We are taught in the Book of Mormon that infant baptism is a gross error because little children are incapable of committing sin, being whole in Jesus Christ.

We are to teach repentance and baptism for the remission of sin to those who are capable of sinning. Meaning, to those who are aware enough of the choice to choose Jesus or not.

Then too, in my opinion, when the parents baptize an infant they are doing something that even God will not do, take away the agency of man. Of course, many catholics believe this isn't the case, that the children have the right to accept their baptism at their age of accountability (when they receive confirmation and first communion). So in essence, the catholics are doing the same thing the LDS do: (giving the child the right to accept the baptism when they become aware of the choice). But they are trying to cover all the bases by baptizing them as infants, then giving them the right to accept it at their choosing. When the LDS waits until the child is old enough to choose Jesus on their own.

[3DOP]

That aspect, yes. But what if the infant is not baptized? What is the believed consequences of that? Will God condemn an infant at all for not being baptized? I believe He can and will, at some level condemn a child for not being baptized, constituted that an child knew that he or she needed baptism. What I do not believe is in eternal punishment for those not knowing at all they needed baptism and thus were not baptized. While I know it is not conanoized doctrine of the catholic Church, there was a widespread acceptence of the idea of etenral consequence for infants not baptized. I think St. Augustine popularized this idea. That God will place non baptized infants into an eternal state of limbo. While the infant will feel no pain, he/she will also not feel any joy.

That's a teaching explicitly rejected in Mormonism.

Hey Darren, I have to clear something up.

The Catholic Church does not teach that there would be no joy in limbo. It teaches that the joys would have to be natural. The dead baby will not contemplate God for all eternity in the beatific vision. But I don't see why most LDS should complain about that. It appears to me that if there is a beatific vision in the celestial kingdom, it is intermittent anyway. I have not sensed much desire among LDS to be an "eternal mystic". Do dead babies in the LDS cosmology go straight to the celestial kingdom and enjoy the beatific vision uninterruptedly? I seriously doubt it.

Limbo would be a place with no illness, opportunity to know there is a creator God and to have artistic expression of a beautiful natural world unencumbered by the pains of mortal life. It is for good reason that Dante's picture of Limbo is appealing in the natural order. I do not know that they might not have the opportunity to repopulate. I would never teach it, but I don't think we can say it is impossible. It seems to me like for most non-Catholic Christians, especially those who aren't interested in supernatural contemplation anyway, this would be a pretty nice deal.

3DOP

Edited September 13, 2012 by 3DOP

[Darren10]

3DOP;

I got some positive LDS feedback when I pointed out that Catholic doctrine does not permit that dead unbaptized babies suffer hell fire. Even St. Augustine at his singularly most rigorous, when he was more interested in exposing the errors of Pelagius than considering the question of infant baptism, affirmed at one point only that the "punishment" would be of such a nature that one could not apply the tragic end where it is could be said, "It was better for that baby never to be born". Part of the problem from the LDS side is that they have Latter-day Scriptures against infant baptism because the infant baptizers in the Scriptures did teach that unbaptized babies suffer hell fire.

This is probably what you are referring to:

12 But little ^achildren are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a ^brespecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

(Moroni 8)

While it is not known exactly who these false preachers were or exactly what they were teaching, I think here it would be prudent to point out that one LDS aspect of "hell" is for a soul to simply never enter into God's presence. And I do believe that is exactly what St. Augustine taught. While he may not have taught that infants will go to hell (where Satan dwells), they neither may be allowed into the Lord's presence. That, in and of itself, is [a] hell.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Hey Darren, I have to clear something up.

The Catholic Church does not teach that there would be no joy in limbo. It teaches that the joys would have to be natural. The dead baby will not contemplate God for all eternity in the beatific vision. But I don't see why most LDS should complain about that. It appears to me that if there is a beatific vision in the celestial kingdom, it is intermittent anyway. I have not sensed much desire among LDS to be an "eternal mystic". Do dead babies in the LDS cosmology go straight to the celestial kingdom and enjoy the beatific vision uninterruptedly? I seriously doubt it.

Limbo would be a place with no illness, opportunity to know there is a creator God and to have artistic expression of a beautiful natural world unencumbered by the pains of mortal life. It is for good reason that Dante's picture of Limbo is appealing in the natural order. I do not know that they might not have the opportunity to repopulate. I would never teach it, but I don't think we can say it is impossible. It seems to me like for most non-Catholic Christians, especially those who aren't interested in supernatural contemplation anyway, this would be a pretty nice deal.

3DOP

Thank you for that reply. I hold it important to speak accurately of doctrines and teachings of any religion. Now some parts of what you said is esoteric to me.

1) "It teaches that the joys would have to be natural." What does that mean?

2) What exactly is "beatific vision"?

3) Does Limbo allow spiritual progression? Also, how does one get into "Limbo"?

As for infants who passed away, my understanding is that their spirits will go to Paradise which is not heaven but in a "spirit world", be resurrected in the first resurrection and live with the Father for eternity. They will be one with the Father and a joint-heir with Christ.

[MiserereNobis]

Hey Pope Pius,

I like to use the LDS belief about the sanctity of babies when we speak of the Mother of God as I am doing now in the apostasy thread. Some of them, or at least one of them in that thread, believe that Catholics exalt our Lady too much. But how do we exalt her? We begin with the Immaculate Conception. But that shouldn't be any big deal to LDS. They believe they are immaculately conceived!

Ha, I never thought of that before! Nice point.

I got some positive LDS feedback when I pointed out that Catholic doctrine does not permit that dead unbaptized babies suffer hell fire. Even St. Augustine at his singularly most rigorous, when he was more interested in exposing the errors of Pelagius than considering the question of infant baptism, affirmed at one point only that the "punishment" would be of such a nature that one could not apply the tragic end where it is could be said, "It was better for that baby never to be born". Part of the problem from the LDS side is that they have Latter-day Scriptures against infant baptism because the infant baptizers in the Scriptures did teach that unbaptized babies suffer hell fire.

I will understand if you question my solution to the problem. Rather than insist that Joseph Smith was just wrong about traditional teaching on infant baptism, I suggested that the censures against it, must be applied to those who practised it in ancient America only. My concern was not to shake LDS faith in their teachings, (something for which I am inadequate anyway) but to demonstrate that evidence for apostasy in early Christianity is wanting. Infant baptism as a case in point is usually the most loudly condemned because most LDS presume that pedobaptism is necessary so that the baby won't burn in hell.

Interesting solution. I'll have to read more of the LDS scriptural injunctions against infant baptism, but I'm intrigued by your approach. Thank you for sharing it on this thread and joining in the conversation.

I've found that many people believe that we Catholics go around preaching that babies are burning in hell and sometimes this is accompanied by a story of some priest telling a mother whose unbaptized baby just died that her baby is now in hell. It's important sometimes to reiterate that the Church never makes a pronouncement on who is hell, only on who is in Heaven (the canonized Saints).

[MiserereNobis]

Limbo would be a place with no illness, opportunity to know there is a creator God and to have artistic expression of a beautiful natural world unencumbered by the pains of mortal life. It is for good reason that Dante's picture of Limbo is appealing in the natural order. I do not know that they might not have the opportunity to repopulate. I would never teach it, but I don't think we can say it is impossible. It seems to me like for most non-Catholic Christians, especially those who aren't interested in supernatural contemplation anyway, this would be a pretty nice deal.

While it is not known exactly who these false preachers were or exactly what they were teaching, I think here it would be prudent to point out that one LDS aspect of "hell" is for a soul to simply never enter into God's presence. And I do believe that is exactly what St. Augustine taught. While he may not have taught that infants will go to hell (where Satan dwells), they neither may be allowed into the Lord's presence. That, in and of itself, is [a] hell.

I'm wondering how these ideas might match up with the LDS conceptions of the telestial kingdom. My understanding is that in the telestial kingdom one does not get to be in God's presence, but only in the presence of angels (am I accurate on that?). I was also told that Joseph Smith taught that telestial kingdom was a paradise beyond our imagination (am I accurate on that?). If so, it seems like limbo and the telestial kingdom might have some things in common, as neither are the hell of the damned (Catholic) or outer darkness (LDS) but both postulate some sort of separation from God and some degree of joy.

I'll just add here that while limbo has a firm place in Catholic cosmology, it has not been dogmatically affirmed as a doctrine (and has been quietly downplayed in recent years). I, however, do personally believe it, though my faith in the case of the death of unbaptized babies is not staked on it, but instead on the mercy and omniscience of God, in Whom I trust.

[CV75]

I would add that it is an affront to the precious principle of agency, the ultimate reason for the Lord's atonement, to give the sacred ordinances to people who have not been taught them, that do not have the capacity to understand them, or do not need them. Proxy ordinances are for those who have been taught in the spirit world. Baptism and confirmation are for children and otehrs eight years and older who have been taught.

[zerinus]

I have skimmed through the thread, and it looks like you have been given some good answers already. Here are some additional comments from me:

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.

The explanations that are given in the scriptures themselves are as follows:

Moroni 8:

8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; 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; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 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.

15 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.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

D&C 29:

46 But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;

47 Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me;

48 For it is given unto them even as I will, according to mine own pleasure, that great things may be required at the hand of their fathers.

I am also not quite sure what you mean by original sin. If you mean by it that mankind is guilty because of the sin of Adam, then we reject that meaning of original sin. If you mean that as a result of the sin of Adam mankind have acquired a sinful disposition, that is a valid Mormon doctrine:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Mosiah 27:

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

Alma 42:

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

Also, it is not strictly accurate that little children cannot sin, or do something wrong. They can and often do; but they are not held accountable for their sins until they reach the age of accountability:

Mosiah 3:

16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

“As in Adam ... they fall” means that they can do wrong things as a consequence of the sinful disposition acquired though the Fall of Adam; but they are not held accountable for it until they reach the age of 8—when they begin to become accountable before God. If children didn’t sin before the age of accountability, they would have nothing to repent of when they arrive at that age. The fact that they are taught to repent means that they are not entirely free from sin. But whatever sin they are guilty of, it is their own sins, not the sin of Adam, or of somebody else.

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

It is not so much “freewill,” as accountability before God. See above.

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

Baptism must be by immersion; but I have not heard of that being given as the reason. The reasons are the ones explained above.

Any others?

No!

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?

See above. The main difference between Catholic doctrine and LDS doctrine as I see it is that in Catholicism mankind is actually guilty because of the original sin, whereas in LDS doctrine man becomes guilty only of his own sins. He may have acquired a sinful disposition as a result of the sin of Adam; but he does not become guilty until he actually commits sins himself.

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?

They begin to become accountable before God at the age of 8, and they are cleansed from their own sins, and not simply initiated into the Church. See above.

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

There is no coercion for them to be baptized, or shouldn’t be. There may be parental “expectation,” and some may consider that to be equivalent to some kind of “coercion;” but I don’t think it is. They are interviewed by their bishops privately to see if they willingly consent to baptism, and if they show unwillingness it would not go ahead.

Are there any instances of an 8 year old deciding to be baptised when his or her parents did not?

I don’t know what the law is on that, but I don’t think that the Church could legally baptise an 8 year old child against the wishes of his/her parents. But I am sure there have been instances where the parents couldn’t care either way, and an 8 year old has been baptized because he/she wanted to, not because their parents wanted to.

Are there any instances of an 8 year old from an active Mormon family rejecting baptism?

I believe there have been.

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.

Yes, but that depends on the attitude of the parents, and the child’s upbringing. If the parents have brought him up to be able to make that choice at that age (as they are supposed to), then they can make that choice. Also, it is not so much "free choice" as "accountability" before God. That will depend on how they are taught.

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

As I said, I am not aware that that has been an issue.

Edited September 14, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

It is not so much their ability to choose right from wrong, as their accountability before God. When they become accountable is God's decision, not our decision. God has revealed that the age of 8 is when they begin to become accountable before God. But I am sure that age of accountability can be varied depending on how they are taught.