Infant Baptism

[3DOP]

Beatific Vision

Limbo

I'm lernin'

Hey Darren,

Good enough. Thanks for your interest and God bless.

3DOP

[zerinus]

You are about the only LDS participant who is left, and now you abandon me? Alas, I shall have to carry on alone! If nothing else, the thread demonstrates how difficult and time consuming it is to effectively and exhaustively answer skeptical speculations that detractors to our faiths often raise. If we answer with a simple affirmative or negative, we are misunderstood. If we answer as I have done, we are boring to people.

So I am aware that such "hot air" can't radically change anyone's mind. My aims are as usual, quite modest, at least to my way of thinking. I am not proposing that we are NOT apostate. I am only proposing that the evidences for apostasy given by Yep should be seen as debatable by reasonable minds on both sides. Tomorrow is another great feast in our Lady's honour, the Octave of Her Holy Name, the Feast of Her Seven Sorrows, and on Saturday to boot. I can think of no other day that could offer better hopes or heavenly helps for inaugurating an investigation into one of the reasons why Catholics think so highly of the Blessed Virgin Mary, even having the audacity, if you will, to proclaim her co-redemptrix, as you mentioned. As for any efforts I am able to make on the morrow along those lines, I suppose I would be greatly rewarded if only to discover some day that like the suicide I described earlier on this thread, one Mormon without my knowing it, was to recite one Hail Mary..."just in case."

3DOP

I think that you are fretting over this quite unnecessarily. I have always argued that the greatest evidence for the Apostasy is the Restoration. The fact that God has taken the trouble restore His true Church anew in our time means that it did not exist elsewhere. Obviously if you don't believe in the Restoration that won't work for you, which is okay. It works for me, and that is what I care about.

[Storm Rider]

You are about the only LDS participant who is left, and now you abandon me? Alas, I shall have to carry on alone! If nothing else, the thread demonstrates how difficult and time consuming it is to effectively and exhaustively answer skeptical speculations that detractors to our faiths often raise. If we answer with a simple affirmative or negative, we are misunderstood. If we answer as I have done, we are boring to people.

So I am aware that such "hot air" can't radically change anyone's mind. My aims are as usual, quite modest, at least to my way of thinking. I am not proposing that we are NOT apostate. I am only proposing that the evidences for apostasy given by Yep should be seen as debatable by reasonable minds on both sides. Tomorrow is another great feast in our Lady's honour, the Octave of Her Holy Name, the Feast of Her Seven Sorrows, and on Saturday to boot. I can think of no other day that could offer better hopes or heavenly helps for inaugurating an investigation into one of the reasons why Catholics think so highly of the Blessed Virgin Mary, even having the audacity, if you will, to proclaim her co-redemptrix, as you mentioned. As for any efforts I am able to make on the morrow along those lines, I suppose I would be greatly rewarded if only to discover some day that like the suicide I described earlier on this thread, one Mormon without my knowing it, was to recite one Hail Mary..."just in case."

3DOP

I think this medium makes for challenging conversations. So many of us steal moments during the day to peak in, briefly read some of the threads and comment on one or two and then move on. If things demand too much time, many will pass on simply because of a lack of time.

In brief, for me the apostasy has far more to do with loss of the keys of the priesthood than an overabundance of false doctrine. I do think that false teachings crept in and other teachings loss value, importance or were ignored over time. It is too easy to see evidence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the lives of saints and Christians throughout history to know that God was ever leading those who sought him.

As far as Mary goes, her veneration perplexes me. I have never comprehended the need for a co-redemptrix. The mere fact that Jesus lived on this earth as a man, that he could feel loneliness to the point that he would cry out to his Father, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" is sufficient for me to know that he understands me completely, fully; he knows how weak I am and he is my intermediary to the Father. It is his mercy and his blood that ransoms me from my sinful life and the countless times that I fail to obey; sins of omission and commission. I guess that he suffices for me. He is Master, Lord, Teacher, Guide, Friend, and endless source of compassion for one such as I. He knows that though I try I fail. He picks me up, dusts me off, and says let's try one more time.

Mary, beloved of God, and Mother of the Son of God, is undoubtedly holy and choice above all others, but her place is not found between me and our Redeemer. I think, possibly, that I can intellectually grasp why some appreciate seeking a mother's aid in talking to her son, but I just am not sure why I would talk to her when he is always there.

Always good to read your comments, may his peace always abide with you,

[Stargazer]

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.

In one family in our ward, there was a daughter who, while not a Down Syndrome child, was nevertheless retarded. She was judged to be "Not Accountable" and was not baptized at age 8. However, when she reached around age 40 or so, she requested baptism on her own initiative. And so she was baptized -- presumably she was interviewed to determine if she understood what she was doing. She still remained of somewhat limited understanding, but was an active member until her death at around 50.

But the point is that those who are not capable of judging right from wrong need no baptism, and freely receive of the Grace of Christ.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

From the Catholic point-of-view, there can be and are doctrines/dogmas that are not clearly stated in Holy Scripture. It goes back to understanding the underpinning of the Faith: Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium. We, like the LDS, are not a Bible-only faith. Dogmas have been and will continue to be clarified and stated since the canonization of Scripture. This doesn't prove that they are "invented" or "made-up" from our point-of-view. They are being clarified to the point that they can be infallible declared.

Tradition pre-dates Scripture, and the Magisterium is led by the Holy Ghost to give proper interpretation, to be free from error when it is so declared.

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.

Honestly, I will have to think on and research this. My initial reaction is yes, of course Jesus experienced inner urges of temptation. Allow me some time to get back to you on how this connects with original sin (or maybe 3DOP will weigh in on this).

[MiserereNobis]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm not intentionally ignoring you Sometimes I get caught up in a specific discussion and forget to go back to something directed at me.

I think 3DOP's responses on freedom/free-will will help. It appears we view freedom differently and I think he succinctly explained the difference.

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.

Could this lead to a type of indifferentism? If a devout believer of one religion will recognize the truth of the LDS church in the afterlife, then why try to convert them in this life? Could someone say that it would be best to support people in their own religions so that they will recognize the truth better in the afterlife?

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.

This might be LDS doctrine (is it?), but you have to admit that many LDS believers do pretend to have all the answers now and pretend that it is all very simple. Perhaps these members are just poorly catechized. Poorly catechized members of any religions often make terrible assumptions. You have pointed out a few times that the idea of "mystery" in Catholicism doesn't sit well with you, but it is precisely this idea which gives us the humility to realize that we don't have it 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.

This is true -- repentance must occur in this life. However, this repentance can occur in the final moments of life. Even Sacraments, via angels, can be administered in the final moments of life. 3DOP's wonderful story of the atheist who commited self-murder is a good example of this.

Edited September 15, 2012 by PopeStPiusX

[MiserereNobis]

You are about the only LDS participant who is left, and now you abandon me? Alas, I shall have to carry on alone! If nothing else, the thread demonstrates how difficult and time consuming it is to effectively and exhaustively answer skeptical speculations that detractors to our faiths often raise. If we answer with a simple affirmative or negative, we are misunderstood. If we answer as I have done, we are boring to people.

So I am aware that such "hot air" can't radically change anyone's mind. My aims are as usual, quite modest, at least to my way of thinking. I am not proposing that we are NOT apostate. I am only proposing that the evidences for apostasy given by Yep should be seen as debatable by reasonable minds on both sides. Tomorrow is another great feast in our Lady's honour, the Octave of Her Holy Name, the Feast of Her Seven Sorrows, and on Saturday to boot. I can think of no other day that could offer better hopes or heavenly helps for inaugurating an investigation into one of the reasons why Catholics think so highly of the Blessed Virgin Mary, even having the audacity, if you will, to proclaim her co-redemptrix, as you mentioned. As for any efforts I am able to make on the morrow along those lines, I suppose I would be greatly rewarded if only to discover some day that like the suicide I described earlier on this thread, one Mormon without my knowing it, was to recite one Hail Mary..."just in case."

3DOP

Thank you for this post. I, too, hope that seeds are being planted, and that perhaps one person reading will ask for Our Lady's intercession at some point in their lives.

I was brought to the Faith through the intercession of Mary and I thank Her for it with every Rosary I pray.

Our Lady of Sorrow, pray for us!

[thesometimesaint]

The LDS don't believe in deathbed repentance, but we do leave that judgement up to God.

[DBMormon]

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

The fall affected everyone, but as Joseph Fielding McConkie put it, the fall was both downward and forward.

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

Baptism is a choice. Otherwise it goes against all in the gospel - agency is at the core. Will you choose to be like Christ or not

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

True but does not play into the reason at all as they are not accountable, that is the main reason.

[DBMormon]

There is a big difference between being fallen and having sinned - one is your choice and another is your circumstance

[MiserereNobis]

I think this medium makes for challenging conversations. So many of us steal moments during the day to peak in, briefly read some of the threads and comment on one or two and then move on. If things demand too much time, many will pass on simply because of a lack of time.

Indeed. If only we could sit down and discuss this over a glass of wine

In brief, for me the apostasy has far more to do with loss of the keys of the priesthood than an overabundance of false doctrine.

Why/how were the keys lost? I guess my understanding of the LDS view of the apostasy was that the keys were taken away by God because of the [perceived] false teachings and immorality of the clergy.

As far as Mary goes, her veneration perplexes me. I have never comprehended the need for a co-redemptrix. The mere fact that Jesus lived on this earth as a man, that he could feel loneliness to the point that he would cry out to his Father, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" is sufficient for me to know that he understands me completely, fully; he knows how weak I am and he is my intermediary to the Father. It is his mercy and his blood that ransoms me from my sinful life and the countless times that I fail to obey; sins of omission and commission. I guess that he suffices for me. He is Master, Lord, Teacher, Guide, Friend, and endless source of compassion for one such as I. He knows that though I try I fail. He picks me up, dusts me off, and says let's try one more time.

Mary, beloved of God, and Mother of the Son of God, is undoubtedly holy and choice above all others, but her place is not found between me and our Redeemer. I think, possibly, that I can intellectually grasp why some appreciate seeking a mother's aid in talking to her son, but I just am not sure why I would talk to her when he is always there.

I'm sure 3DOP will offer an excellent explanation on the apostasy thread. I'll just briefly say that a relationship with Mary doesn't preclude a direct relationship with Jesus. It isn't an either/or issue, but an and/both. Think of the parable of the importuning widow (Luke 18:1-8). Her wish was granted because she was persistent -- in fact, she bothered the judge. Jesus uses this as a parable as to why we should pray and pray and pray without ceasing. Now, imagine if many people, not just the widow, had been bothering that judge. He probably would have acquised earlier (this is an example why we ask Saints to intercede for us). Now take it one step further and imagine if the judge's mother, whom he loved dearly and for whom he do almost anything, kept asking him as well.

So, it is and/both. We ask God, and we ask Saints to ask God, and we ask His Mother to ask Him, too. The more the better, eh?

may his peace always abide with you

And with you.

[Bill Hamblin]

The most important thing to realize is that Infant Baptism was not practiced by the earliest Christians. See E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, (Eerdmans, 2009) p. 362-379.

The first reference to the practice is from Tertullian (d. 225) who rejects it (p. 362). The council of Carthage (255) permits it, but does not require it (p. 370-371). The earliest Christian tomb inscription of a child (c. 200) says that it was "without sin by reason of his age" (p. 372) About half a century later we find reference to a two year old child receiving deathbed baptism--obviously it had not been baptized as an infant (p. 373).

So, notice, the practice didn't begin until nearly 200 years after Jesus. It was initially controversial, rejected by many, and then only permitted rather than required. "We cannot give the name of anyone before the fourth century not in an emergency situation [i.e. near death] who was baptized as an infant" (379).

Ferguson's conclusion: "The liturgy and theology of baptism, as well as the practice of leading Christian families show that in the fourth century infant baptism was not yet the norm. The situation began to change late in the fourth century" (p. 379), that is, three centuries after the New Testament church.

Whether infant baptism is a "true" doctrine or not, it is clearly not a doctrine of original Christianity.

[MiserereNobis]

The LDS don't believe in deathbed repentance, but we do leave that judgement up to God.

I'd like to add that deathbed repentance doesn't mean that the person then goes up to Heaven. Deathbed repentence usually means a very long and difficult stay in Purgatory.

[3DOP]

The LDS don't believe in deathbed repentance, but we do leave that judgement up to God.

Sometimesaint...hey. No one is advocating waiting for the deathbed. Maybe that is what you mean? It is certainly unwise to expect to have the grace to repent after a lifetime of rejecting God's grace. We are probably agree about that. But in theory, it seems like you need to allow like we do, that anyone who is alive can theoretically repent.

So if you are about to die...but not yet dead...it is too late? Or is it too early? Because after you are dead...then you can repent, right? Why can one not repent before death if it is allowed after death?

[Calm]

The LDS don't believe in deathbed repentance, but we do leave that judgement up to God.

Don't have to since we don't limit repentance to mortal life. Repentance is seen as a process. If someone repents on their deathbed, that repentance will continue into the next life if sincere. If it is not sincere, then it will not continue. Judgment as you say of that sincerity is left up to God. Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

The most important thing to realize is that Infant Baptism was not practiced by the earliest Christians. See E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, (Eerdmans, 2009) p. 362-379.

The first reference to the practice is from Tertullian (d. 225) who rejects it (p. 362). The council of Carthage (255) permits it, but does not require it (p. 370-371). The earliest Christian tomb inscription of a child (c. 200) says that it was "without sin by reason of his age" (p. 372) About half a century later we find reference to a two year old child receiving deathbed baptism--obviously it had not been baptized as an infant (p. 373).

So, notice, the practice didn't begin until nearly 200 years after Jesus. It was initially controversial, rejected by many, and then only permitted rather than required. "We cannot give the name of anyone before the fourth century not in an emergency situation [i.e. near death] who was baptized as an infant" (379).

Ferguson's conclusion: "The liturgy and theology of baptism, as well as the practice of leading Christian families show that in the fourth century infant baptism was not yet the norm. The situation began to change late in the fourth century" (p. 379), that is, three centuries after the New Testament church.

Whether infant baptism is a "true" doctrine or not, it is clearly not a doctrine of original Christianity.

Hard to argue with that one!

[Calm]

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

I was thinking that with water births being out there, this might be untrue, but apparently there have been documented problems with it including drownings and near drownings, so I have to retract that idea. However, just for the fun of it, here is a video of babies swimming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNqprBC_3BI&feature=related

edited for the right link

Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

I was thinking that with water births being out there, this might be untrue, but apparently there have been documented problems with it including drownings and near drownings, so I have to retract that idea. However, just for the fun of it, here is a video of babies swimming

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNqprBC_3BI&feature=related

edited for the right link

Here is a video of the Orthodox doing a triple immersion baptism of an infant:

[3DOP]

The most important thing to realize is that Infant Baptism was not practiced by the earliest Christians. See E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, (Eerdmans, 2009) p. 362-379.

The first reference to the practice is from Tertullian (d. 225) who rejects it (p. 362). The council of Carthage (255) permits it, but does not require it (p. 370-371). The earliest Christian tomb inscription of a child (c. 200) says that it was "without sin by reason of his age" (p. 372) About half a century later we find reference to a two year old child receiving deathbed baptism--obviously it had not been baptized as an infant (p. 373).

So, notice, the practice didn't begin until nearly 200 years after Jesus. It was initially controversial, rejected by many, and then only permitted rather than required. "We cannot give the name of anyone before the fourth century not in an emergency situation [i.e. near death] who was baptized as an infant" (379).

Ferguson's conclusion: "The liturgy and theology of baptism, as well as the practice of leading Christian families show that in the fourth century infant baptism was not yet the norm. The situation began to change late in the fourth century" (p. 379), that is, three centuries after the New Testament church.

Whether infant baptism is a "true" doctrine or not, it is clearly not a doctrine of original Christianity.

I agree that Tertullian was the first to object to infant baptism. However, it seems unreasonable to assume that Tertullian waited for the very first instance of an infant baptism before writing about it. Our position is that Tertullian was objecting to an established tradition. An abuse arose in the 3rd and 4th Centuries which opposed the traditional practise of the church, in which the Church defended what Tertullian opposed.

The phone guy just came....losing internet...Later.

3DOP

[Calm]

That was very sweet. Thank you.

Do the Orthodox always use immersion?

Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

That was very sweet. Thank you.

Do the Orthodox always use immersion?

As far as I know, yes, but honestly I don't know too much about their practices. I'm too much of a papist, I suppose

[Calm]

As far as I know, yes, but honestly I don't know too much about their practices. I'm too much of a papist, I suppose

I've got some research to do then.

add-on: looks like it is done by immersion in all cases save where it is not possible:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism

Normally baptism is by triple immersion, and a licit baptism must be performed by a priest or a deacon. But in case of necessity, as in clinical or other settings where there is a risk of imminent death and baptism by immersion is impractical, or where a deep pool of water is really unavailable, a person may properly be baptized by an Orthodox Christian clergyman or layman by pouring water three times on the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The proper formula must be recited: "The servant of God [Name] is baptized in the name of the Father [immerse, or pour]. Amen. And of the Son [immerse, or pour]. Amen. And of the Holy Spirit [immerse, or pour]. Amen"; other acceptable forms include "Let this servant of Christ be baptized..." or "This person is baptized by my hands..." Roman Catholics use the form "I baptize you..." However, neither church repeats baptisms performed by the other. The Catholic Church teaches that the use of the verb "baptize" is essential.

Sprinkling, however, is not allowed under any circumstances. There is disagreement about this, however, with some theologians arguing that sprinkling -- even sprinking on a part of the body other than the head -- in an emergency would also be valid.

Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I've got some research to do then.

add-on: looks like it is done by immersion in all cases save where it is not possible:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism

You have probably seen this before but if not, check this out:

http://www.copticchu...nfirmation.html

THE ANOINTMENTS

The priest places his right thumb on top of the opening of the Myron bottle, and turns it downwards to wet his finger with the Myron. He then anoints the baptized as follows :

The first four anointments (eight crosses) are on the senses

Firstly, the top of the head, the nostrils, the mouth, and the right ear

Then, the right eye, the left eye, an finally the left ear

Whilst anointing, the priest says, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The anointment of grace of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”

NOTES:

He anoints The Head to sanctify it. The head contains the brain, where thinking takes place. It is the brain which distinguishes humankind from other creatures. A good mind is of great use and benefit to oneself and to others also. King Solomon praises the mind saying, “When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you, understanding will keep you, to deliver from the way evil” (Proverbs 2: 10-12).

Also, the Lord Jesus praised the young man who answered wisely and said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). And St. Paul our teacher prays for us saying, “And the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).

The Nostrils contain the sense of smell, and it is an important sense, for if a person is not careful and alert, it is possible for impure thoughts to enter ones heart through this sense. Hence, the priest anoints it to protect it against all sin and lust.

The Mouth with the tongue is the most dangerous organ in a person...

“If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless” (James 1:26).

“If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2).

“The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison, it defiles the whole body and sets on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire by hell” (James 3:8,6), if it is not controlled.

The Psalmist prays, “Set a guard O Lord, over my mouth. Keep watch over the door of my lips. Do not incline my heart to any evil thing” (Psalm 141:3,4)

And the wise King Solomon said: “Whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23), and, “Put away from you a deceitful mouth, and put perverse lips far from you” (Proverbs 4:24. We ought to keep our tongue from sins such as swearing, insulting, lying, judging, and gossiping. Our words should always be graceful.

The Ears provide us with the important sense of hearing, which should also be controlled, and the anointing of the Myron is a strong weapon in control what we hear. We protect our ears from hearing such things as gossip, and other conversations which may poison our hearts with revenge and hatred. We also protect our ears from hearing certain songs which may poison our hearts with lustful thoughts.

The Eyes are the most important sense, through which enters more than 80% of information which may affect our hearts. If the information is holy, it sanctifies the heart, and vice versa. For this reason, we should control what we see so that we may keep ourselves pure. The tenth commandment says, “Do not covet”. The Psalmist prays, “Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things” (Psalm 119:37), and, “Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law” (Psalm 119:17).

Catholics annoint the senses as well in cases of serious bodily injury or in cases where death is imminent- the sacrament used to be called "Extreme Unction" but I don't know what it has been changed to.

Edited September 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Can't remember if I have or haven't so it was good to be pointed to it either way.

[MiserereNobis]

You have probably seen this before but if not, check this out:

http://www.copticchu...nfirmation.html

Catholics annoint the senses as well in cases of serious bodily injury or in cases where death is imminent- the sacrament used to be called "Extreme Unction" but I don't know what it has been changed to.

Well, it depends on which form of the Roman Rite we are referring to. In the Ordinary Form (the Novus Ordo), which is by far the most widespread now, it's called the Rite for the Anointing of the Sick. In the Extraordinary Form (the traditional Sacraments), it is still called Extreme Unction.

Together with Confession and the Eucharist, these three Sacraments constitue the Last Rites.