Infant Baptism

[Flyonthewall]

I view 8 yrs old as the age when most children understand well enough. Some kids mature faster and reach sufficient understanding before 8, some will be later. I believe it is not a black and white thing that they are not accountable before their 8th birthday, and then on their 8th birthday they become accountable.

One of my kids was baptized at 9, and had to take the missionary lessons.

[zerinus]

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.

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 disagree with that sentiment entirely. The man is asking specific questions. That general resource does not necessarily have answers to his specific questions; or if it does, it may be buried in multiple articles. It is not right to tell him not to ask questions, and just go and read the articles; when he can ask, and be given answers specific to his questions.

[zerinus]

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

Not true! We don't believe that we are immaculately conceived! See my previous posts. We inherit a "fallen nature" because of the original sin. We are just not held guilty because of that sin. We become guilty when we sin ourselves, not just because Adam sinned.

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).

I am sure initially the teaching was that without baptism children could not be saved. Then it was changed to limbo, and finally to whatever it is today.

[Darren10]

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.

While there are some similarities between the Catholic "Limbo" and the Telestial Kingdom (and you pointed out a couple, good job, sir), the latter has nothing to do with not being baptized as an infant; but everything to do with a conscious choice to not obey God's words and to not repent from that shortcoming. Liars and murderers will go to the Telestial Kingdom. It is a hell in many ways yet, yes, I do believe Joseph Smith described it as more glorious than life in this mortal world. And, yes, that does show God's mercy. But condemning a child to anything less than becoming one with the Father merely because the child wasn't baptized fails to show any mercy on God's behalf as far as I'm concerned.

As for administering angels, my understanding is that those who make it to the Celestial Kingdom but are not exalted before the Most High God will serve as these angels. They will very much be blessed to live in the presence of the Father but not be one with Him as Christ and He are one.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

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

Oh yes.

I forget that stint that Joseph had in a Catholic seminary. Silly me.

[mfbukowski]

Unbaptized babies go to the Celestial kingdom not the Telestial. Putting them in the Telestial kingdom would be just as unjust as putting them in Limbo. That's Catholic logic, not Mormon.

[Storm Rider]

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.

---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

I missed something. How do LDS believe they are immaculately conceived?

[mfbukowski]

I missed something. How do LDS believe they are immaculately conceived?

The Immaculate Conception refers to the belief that Mary did not inherit original sin. LDS do not believe they inherited original sin, therefore they must have been "immaculately conceived". That's the joke here.

It kinda loses something in the translation I think.

[Storm Rider]

The Immaculate Conception refers to the belief that Mary did not inherit original sin. LDS do not believe they inherited original sin, therefore they must have been "immaculately conceived". That's the joke here.

It kinda loses something in the translation I think.

I must be slow today; that flew completely over the top of my head.

[zerinus]

I must be slow today; that flew completely over the top of my head.

Catholics do not distinguish between inheriting a sinful disposition (propensity to commit sin) as a consequence of the fall of Adam (i.e. becoming "carnal, sensual, and devilish"--Alma 42:10), and the actual sin itself. They see one being equivalent to the other. Hence they believe that Jesus was born without original sin, otherwise He would have been born a sinner, and therefore He couldn't have been a sinless sacrificial lamb. And they have taken that one stage further, and invented the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, which teaches that Mary was also born free from the taint of original sin (immaculately conceived) in order to facilitate the perfect sinlessness of Jesus. That of course is entirely incorrect from the LDS (and biblical) point of view. Jesus was not born free from the curse of Adam. He inherited all the consequence of the Fall just as we do, which includes death, and the ability to be tempted of the devil. He nailed the sin of Adam to the cross, according to St Paul (Colossians 2:12-15), which He couldn't have done if He hadn't inherited the original sin. The mistake that the Catholics are making is that they think that inheriting original sin automatically makes one a sinner, which of course it doesn't. One becomes a sinner when one yields to temptation and actually commits a sin. If Jesus had not inherited original sin, He could not have been tempted of the devil. His triumph consisted of overcoming Satan by being tempted and not yielding to that temptation; not by avoiding that temptation altogether. The joke in 3DOP is the suggestion that Mormons don't believe original sin, therefore according to them we are all immaculately conceived! That of course is not LDS doctrine at all. We all inherit the curse of Adam, but no one actually becomes guilty of sin until he yields to temptation and commits a sin. Original sin does not automatically make one a sinner. One becomes a sinner when one actually starts sinning. That is the difference.

EDIT: They also make the mistake of equating the temptation to commit sin with sinfulness, or the sin itself. Thus Jesus being subject to temptation would somehow taint Him with the sin with which He was being tempted, which is also incorrect.

Edited September 14, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

I am curious, do Catholics believe in hallowed ground for burial? My memory says that suicides are not allowed to be buried there, but I don't know the Catholic teaching about unbaptized babies.

My husband's greatgrandmother joined the Church in part because of teaching on infants dying going to the CK. When a baby of theirs died unbaptized, they had to pay a minister (Protestant, not Catholic) to smuggle him into a hallowed cemetary for burial at night (so no one would see). When the missionaries came to the door, their opening line was "do you believe in infant baptism?", at which time she went to slam the door in their faces, but he yelled out as she was doing it "Neither do we!" and the rest is history.

So far I can only find a claim that Lutherans believe unbaptized babies go to hell. OTOH, I found a Lutheran who said this was wrong.

I found one Calvinist site that claims all infants who die must be of the elect so they will of course go to heaven, but I knew another Calvinist who said it was unknown, but a possibility that they went to hell.

Edited September 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

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".

Big deal! They suffer nothing at all! Why should they suffer anything when they have done nothing wrong at all?

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.

I would not use infant baptism as the main support for the Apostasy. It is one of many indicators of the Apostasy. However, from the point of view of LDS theology, infant baptism is fundamentally an erroneous concept, no matter how it is looked at. It is based on an erroneous concept of the original sin, and of the whole concept of salvation. It goes a lot deeper than how it is perceived children will suffer (or not suffer) who have not been baptised in the next life.

[CV75]

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.

I find this concept very interesting, in that our sinful disposition is a function of our spirit acting in a mortal body in a fallen world. Through the Fall, Adam and Eve gave our spirits mortal bodies and a telestial physical environment where we could be tested and tempted and thus develop a disposition to accept or reject the light of Christ (and fortunately we can repent of the sins and be coverted from and healed of the sinful disposition we inevitably develop).

My understanding is that what we actually do with our mortal bodies in this world and its attendant trials and temptations is inevitably sinful because we simply had not developed to the full stature of Christ while pre-mortal spirits. This is why as we “begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in [our] hearts.” So, we often live below or pre-mortal level of spirituality, or lose it between infancy and accountability. Christ lived a perfect life because while a pre-mortal Spirit He had attained the level of godliness to enable Him to do so.

[Tacenda]

I find this concept very interesting, in that our sinful disposition is a function of our spirit acting in a mortal body in a fallen world. Through the Fall, Adam and Eve gave our spirits mortal bodies and a telestial physical environment where we could be tested and tempted and thus develop a disposition to accept or reject the light of Christ (and fortunately we can repent of the sins and be coverted from and healed of the sinful disposition we inevitably develop).

My understanding is that what we actually do with our mortal bodies in this world and its attendant trials and temptations is inevitably sinful because we simply had not developed to the full stature of Christ while pre-mortal spirits. This is why as we “begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in [our] hearts.” So, we often live below or pre-mortal level of spirituality, or lose it between infancy and accountability. Christ lived a perfect life because while a pre-mortal Spirit He had attained the level of godliness to enable Him to do so.

This analogy resonates with me, in the context of LDS belief.

[Darren10]

The Immaculate Conception refers to the belief that Mary did not inherit original sin. LDS do not believe they inherited original sin, therefore they must have been "immaculately conceived". That's the joke here.

It kinda loses something in the translation I think.

That is correct. The difference is that the LDS believe that everyone is concieved without original sin whereas the Catholic belief is that *only* Mary (and Jesus but He's in His own category) was concieved without sin whereas all other mortals were concieved in original sin. Thus the argument that Mary is place too far up the holy pedastal in Roman Catholic theology.

[Darren10]

The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific". For further explanation of the subject, see HEAVEN.

Beatific Vision

(Late Latin limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").

Limbo

I'm lernin'

Edited September 14, 2012 by Darren10

[MiserereNobis]

Catholics do not distinguish between inheriting a sinful disposition (propensity to commit sin) as a consequence of the fall of Adam (i.e. becoming "carnal, sensual, and devilish"--Alma 42:10), and the actual sin itself. They see one being equivalent to the other.

Yes and no. Original sin is both, but that doesn't mean both are equivalent. Original sin means that we are guilty from birth AND that we have a sinful disposition, which means that no matter how hard we try and what we do, we will sin. Like you said, it is a propensity to commit sin.

Hence they believe that Jesus was born without original sin, otherwise He would have been born a sinner, and therefore He couldn't have been a sinless sacrificial lamb. And they have taken that one stage further, and invented the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, which teaches that Mary was also born free from the taint of original sin (immaculately conceived) in order to facilitate the perfect sinlessness of Jesus.

We didn't invent nothing, sir

That of course is entirely incorrect from the LDS (and biblical) point of view. Jesus was not born free from the curse of Adam. He inherited all the consequence of the Fall just as we do, which includes death, and the ability to be tempted of the devil.

Jesus' could die, but His death was of His own choice. He didn't have to die. We, on the other hand, have to die. We cannot choose otherwise, as Jesus easily could. But He chose suffering and death to atone for our sins.

Jesus also could be tempted of the devil. He did not have a sinful disposition, a propensity to sin, an inability not to sin, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be tempted. You are conflating the two.

He nailed the sin of Adam to the cross, according to St Paul (Colossians 2:12-15), which He couldn't have done if He hadn't inherited the original sin.

Sure He can. He nailed my sins to the Cross, too, but He hadn't inherited my sins.

Also, we believe that the Sacraments are necessary to engage the effects, so to speak (the Sanctifying Grace) of Christ's passion. Thus baptism washes away original and personal sin, and confession absolves personal sin. Without baptism or confession our sins (original and personal) remain, even though Christ has already paid for them.

If Jesus had not inherited original sin, He could not have been tempted of the devil. His triumph consisted of overcoming Satan by being tempted and not yielding to that temptation; not by avoiding that temptation altogether.

See my comments above.

Original sin does not automatically make one a sinner. One becomes a sinner when one actually starts sinning. That is the difference.

Do the LDS believe it is possible to not be a sinner?

EDIT: They also make the mistake of equating the temptation to commit sin with sinfulness, or the sin itself. Thus Jesus being subject to temptation would somehow taint Him with the sin with which He was being tempted, which is also incorrect.

This is simply not true. See above for clarification. Temptation is not a sin. It is assent to that temptation (by thought or word or deed) that is a sin. Jesus as subject to temptation but did not assent to it. We are subject to temptation but, because of original sin (our sinful disposition), we tend to assent to me. At least, I certainly assent to it... way too often than I'd like.

[mfbukowski]

That is correct. The difference is that the LDS believe that everyone is concieved without original sin whereas the Catholic belief is that *only* Mary (and Jesus but He's in His own category) was concieved without sin whereas all other mortals were concieved in original sin. Thus the argument that Mary is place too far up the holy pedastal in Roman Catholic theology.

She is also called a "co-redemptrix" meaning that, in a sense I do not understand, she is also viewed as being partially a redeemer figure - I am sure I will get set straight on that one.

To me this just proves the human need to have both male and female god figures- and gosh I wonder why that happens?

Could it be that we are programmed to seek out the truth that God is a Father and that we also have a Mother?

[Scott Lloyd]

I disagree with that sentiment entirely. The man is asking specific questions. That general resource does not necessarily have answers to his specific questions; or if it does, it may be buried in multiple articles. It is not right to tell him not to ask questions, and just go and read the articles; when he can ask, and be given answers specific to his questions.

You quoted my posts but apparently you didn't read them very carefully. I didn't tell him not to ask questions.

He understood my clarification quite well; I don't see why you're having a problem with it.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Darren10]

Jesus' could die, but His death was of His own choice. He didn't have to die. We, on the other hand, have to die. We cannot choose otherwise, as Jesus easily could. But He chose suffering and death to atone for our sins.

That's exactly what the LDS believe.

Jesus also could be tempted of the devil. He did not have a sinful disposition, a propensity to sin, an inability not to sin, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be tempted. You are conflating the two.

While the LDS would certainly agree that Jesus had no propensity to sin, the LDS view this asa result of choice, not necessarily because of His divine nature at birth. There is definitely LDS doctrine that could be used to show that Jesus hada neternal godly nature for He was created "like unto God" according to Jesus to the Book of Abraham. But free choice is also firmly grounded in LDS doctrine, including the eternities. So applying this to Jesus' premortal existence (as Jehovah), my conclusion is that Jesus was godly by His own choice. That He is and was exalted above all other of God's creatures. That it was Jesus who carried out the will the Father on earth for it was Jesus who offered Himself a sacrifice for sin. He was able to do this because of His divinity which divinity He chose to have by always following the will of the Father.

Sure He can. He nailed my sins to the Cross, too, but He hadn't inherited my sins.

I'd agree to that.

Also, we believe that the Sacraments are necessary to engage the effects, so to speak (the Sanctifying Grace) of Christ's passion. Thus baptism washes away original and personal sin, and confession absolves personal sin. Without baptism or confession our sins (original and personal) remain, even though Christ has already paid for them.

I pretty much agree to that as well.

Do the LDS believe it is possible to not be a sinner?

A better question is if Jesus believed it was possible not to be a sinner?

Here's from Mathew 5:48:

48 ^aBe ye therefore ^bperfect, even as your ^cFather which is in heaven is ^dperfect.

Why would Jesus give us a commandment if it were not possible to keep that commandment? The possibility of being perfect *as* the Father is perfect, is through our own choice AND through Christ's sacrifcie for us and following Christ's example and teachings. For we come unto the Father through the Son.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Darren10

[MiserereNobis]

She is also called a "co-redemptrix" meaning that, in a sense I do not understand, she is also viewed as being partially a redeemer figure - I am sure I will get set straight on that one.

Well, in the simplest sense, Mary's Fiat (her answer to the Angel Gabriel: "let it be done unto me according to they word") enabled the Incarnation and thus the redemption of mankind.

For more detail, I will quote the Catechism:

964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death" it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."

965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers." In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."

Bolded parts are mine.

To me this just proves the human need to have both male and female god figures- and gosh I wonder why that happens?

Could it be that we are programmed to seek out the truth that God is a Father and that we also have a Mother?

The problem with looking at commonalities between religions and using those commonalities as evidence for one's own religion is that every religion can do that. I could say, with equal evidence, that the fact that the LDS posits the existence of a heavenly mother shows that humans are led by God's grace to seek the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hindus could say the same about their goddesses, Buddhists (well, at least non-Theravadin ones) about their goddesses, etc.

I know this is a common occurrence among the LDS -- to find religious commonalities and use it as evidence for the restoration -- but I think it is a weak tactic because it can go both ways.

[MiserereNobis]

A better question is if Jesus believed it was possible not to be a sinner?

Here's from Mathew 5:48:

Why would Jesus give us a commandment if it were not possible to keep that commandment? The possibility of being perfect *as* the Father is perfect, is through our own choice AND through Christ's sacrifcie for us and following Christ's example and teachings. For we come unto the Father through the Son.

My question was: Is it possible for a human to be sinless? I don't think you answered it directly, but the bolded part of your quote seems to imply no, since Christ's sacrifice is necessary for perfection and Christ's sacrifice was to redeem us from sin (and death).

Do you think it is possible for a human to live a life completely free of sin?

The Catholic answer is no, because of original sin (both because of inherited guilt and the propensity to sin).

I believe that Christ's command to be perfect is a calling to an ideal -- for us to be perfect by cooperating with His sanctifying grace and His redemption. I don't see it as a statement saying that we can be sinless, but a statement saying that we can be redeemed.

[zerinus]

Yes and no. Original sin is both, but that doesn't mean both are equivalent. Original sin means that we are guilty from birth AND that we have a sinful disposition, . . .

I meant the same kind of thing.

. . . which means that no matter how hard we try and what we do, we will sin. Like you said, it is a propensity to commit sin.

I wouldn't go along with that entirely. Jesus (according to our belief) inherited a body that was subject to consequences of the Fall the same as us, but was able to remain sinless. This is also what the Bible teaches:

Hebrews 4:

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

We didn't invent nothing, sir

Actually, by the Catholic church's own admission you did. It is acknowledged by the Catholic Church that it is not taught in scripture; and in fact it was not declared a dogma of the Church until quite recent times (1854). It was done as a result of popular demand. It was an extremely popular doctrine among Catholics, and it was basically declared doctrine by popular demand. But the Catholic Church has always acknowledged that it was not a scriptural doctrine.

Jesus' could die, but His death was of His own choice. He didn't have to die. We, on the other hand, have to die. We cannot choose otherwise, as Jesus easily could. But He chose suffering and death to atone for our sins.

I agree that Jesus was divine, and had the power to prevent Himself from dying, or make Himself translated, or immortal, or anything else He wanted to. But His ability to die at all came as a consequence of the Fall. He was not "naturally immortal," in the same sense that Adam was before the fall. Before the Fall Adam was immortal. He couldn't have died. If Jesus had been born without the effects of the Fall, He would have been like Adam, naturally immortal, and unable to die. But there is nothing in the scriptures that says that that is the kind of body that He inherited.

Jesus also could be tempted of the devil. He did not have a sinful disposition, a propensity to sin, an inability not to sin, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be tempted. You are conflating the two.

Okay, there are several ways of being tempted. One way is the question and answer session that Jesus had with Satan as recorded in Matthew 4:1-11. Another way is when somebody experiences a strong urge to commit a sin, such to steal, or to lie, or to commit adultery, or to take advantage of someone for personal gain etc. Do you think that Jesus was subject to those kinds of temptations?

Sure He can. He nailed my sins to the Cross, too, but He hadn't inherited my sins.

Yes, but since it all originates from the sin of Adam, it was essentially Adam's sin (sinful nature) that He nailed to the cross (according to Paul). He nailed our sinful nature to the cross; and He couldn't have done that if He had not inherited that sinful nature, and overcame its temptations all the way up to the cross.

Also, we believe that the Sacraments are necessary to engage the effects, so to speak (the Sanctifying Grace) of Christ's passion. Thus baptism washes away original and personal sin, and confession absolves personal sin. Without baptism or confession our sins (original and personal) remain, even though Christ has already paid for them.

That is not an issue as far as the subject of the discussion is concerned.

Do the LDS believe it is possible to not be a sinner?

Yes, by "putting off the natural man and becoming a saint through the atonement of Christ etc." (Mosiah 3:19). See also Alma 13:12; D&C 45:58.

This is simply not true. See above for clarification. Temptation is not a sin. It is assent to that temptation (by thought or word or deed) that is a sin. Jesus as subject to temptation but did not assent to it. We are subject to temptation but, because of original sin (our sinful disposition), we tend to assent to me. At least, I certainly assent to it... way too often than I'd like.

That depends on how you understand temptation. In order to maintain that doctrine you necessarily limit the meaning of temptation so as to exclude certain kinds of temptation, such as those that a sinful man might experience, such as having an inner urge to commit a sexual transgression for example. Such a temptation is excluded from your model of the kind of temptation that Jesus could suffer or experience. Correct me if I am wrong.

Edited September 14, 2012 by zerinus

[Darren10]

My question was: Is it possible for a human to be sinless? I don't think you answered it directly, but the bolded part of your quote seems to imply no, since Christ's sacrifice is necessary for perfection and Christ's sacrifice was to redeem us from sin (and death).

Do you think it is possible for a human to live a life completely free of sin?

The Catholic answer is no, because of original sin (both because of inherited guilt and the propensity to sin).

I believe that Christ's command to be perfect is a calling to an ideal -- for us to be perfect by cooperating with His sanctifying grace and His redemption. I don't see it as a statement saying that we can be sinless, but a statement saying that we can be redeemed.

I'd say that, yes, the LDS can think of it *possible* to live a sinless life but no one save Jesus ever has and no one ever will. So despite the possibility of living a sinless life, it won't happen. The key, therefore is to continue to repent of sins through Jesus Christ and through changing one's heart which is by choice and through Christ.

anatural ^bman is an ^cenemy to God, and has been from the ^dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he ^eyields to the enticings of the Holy ^fSpirit, and ^gputteth off the ^hnatural man and becometh a ⁱsaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a ^jchild, ^ksubmissive, 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 3)

I think salvation comes to those who earnestly seek to follow God's word. These are they who will willingly follow God because that is what they want to do.

*Can* onel ive a sinless life? Sure.

Will that happen (except for Christ)? Nope.

[mfbukowski]

Well, in the simplest sense, Mary's Fiat (her answer to the Angel Gabriel: "let it be done unto me according to they word") enabled the Incarnation and thus the redemption of mankind.

Well I know that I have asked some questions before you have not answered and I know you are busy on this thread, but I will continue I suppose to ask and if you decide not to answer for your own reasons, so be it.

But as I see it there is a problem here logically but I am sure it is covered by God's foreknowledge and the "mystery" of it all. Of course Mary would have to have been predestined to make her "Fiat" for her to have been conceived without sin since her conception occurred before her Fiat and so in some sense the choice was not completely hers, and if that is true, she should not have received the merits of the Fiat before the choice happened, but I am sure there is some loophole already thought up for that.

The Catechism answer does not deal with this at all- it is simply a pious statement of faith. I mean that's fine for its purpose but it provides no answers to real questions, at least not for me.

The problem with looking at commonalities between religions and using those commonalities as evidence for one's own religion is that every religion can do that. I could say, with equal evidence, that the fact that the LDS posits the existence of a heavenly mother shows that humans are led by God's grace to seek the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hindus could say the same about their goddesses, Buddhists (well, at least non-Theravadin ones) about their goddesses, etc.

Of course and I have no problem with that. I recognize and embrace it. God teaches us truth in our own "languages" in ways we will understand culturally. And our doctrine can handle that whereas yours, I think cannot.

When the Hindu gets into the after life, all he will have to do and think is "Aha! I see it now! That is just like the story I believed about (blank blank blank) and he will accept the gospel as he understands it then.

Our church acknowledges that there is more to learn than we have now- just that we have the essentials to get us by for now until we progress further in the afterlife. And we also believe that there is truth in all religions for that precise reason. We don't pretend to have it all now.

Unless Catholics believe that our progression and knowledge can and will continue in the afterlife and that even repentance is possible there, and that major new truths can and will be revealed there, I don't think that view is compatible with Catholicism. It is however compatible with Mormonism.

I know this is a common occurrence among the LDS -- to find religious commonalities and use it as evidence for the restoration -- but I think it is a weak tactic because it can go both ways.

Perhaps but you are missing that indeed the doctrine itself already handles this objection whereas Catholicism does not.

Edited September 14, 2012 by mfbukowski