What To Do When Your Friend Turns Anti-Mormon?

[GingerRed]

57 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

Mormons don’t believe “Christians” are the “real Christians” because the gospel was removed from the earth shortly after the last apostle died some 2000 years ago. Growing up I was taught my Christian family members were following the teachings of satan. We Mormons still believe that to this day. Why else do we have a missionary program? Because to us, anything less than the celestial kingdom is a form of damnation. Yes, the  terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are kingdoms of damnation. 
 

 

“” Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.” Brigham Young.

””both Catholics and protestants are nothing less than the whore of Babylon whom the Lord announces by the mouth of John the revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornication and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive the holy ordinances of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them unless they repent”” Orson Pratt

 

 

Well THIS mormon does NOT believe other Christians are not "real Christians" ! My definition of a Christian  is anyone who believes in Christ, takes on His name, practices repentance, shows Christlike love and service to others  and follows His teachings. 

 I believed that as a Episcopalian ( I'm a convert ) and I still believe that now.   I know as a Latter Day Saint there is more to it than those basics, but I still say that is a Christian to me.  My own roommate is not of my faith. And we've had good respectful talks about our religions. NO WAY would ever consider her kind, generous spirit as NOT Christian!  And all the LDS friends I know, don't think that way either.  I'm sorry YOU were taught that, cause I don't think that's true. IMHO

What  some of our former Presidents of our church said way back then is not what our currant Prophet says now.   He said to be tolerant and loving toward those not of our faith. Never had I heard one word of any sort of damnation like above come from his mouth.  Perhaps back in those days they had to speak more 'fiery' back then to get folks to listen.  That's not how we convert anyone now.  

Edited January 10, 2022 by GingerRed

[Navidad]

27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Dude, I don’t care. I’m pointing out the double standard here that is all. It seems odd to me that Latter-day Saints would be troubled to see things like “You aren’t real Christians” while at the same time teaching things like what’s quoted in Moroni. Again each side thinks they are only saying what’s true. 
 

Further I will point out that those that believe in infant baptism don’t believe unbaptized children are going to hell. That is an uncharitable attribution by Moroni. And additionally he does not limit his condemnation to those that hold such a belief. His statement says that if you think little children need to be baptized you have no faith hope or charity. This is a very harsh statement. One of many harsh condemnations of other faiths found in Latter-day Saint scriptures.
 

And just to reiterate - That’s fine! But maybe grow a thicker sin when some of that gets reflected back at you (not talking to you specifically, but to the attitude expressed in the OP). 

I have often thought of writing a book with a well-known LDS professor friend of mine. It would be a book that you could start reading one way, flip it over and then start reading it from the back. Both front and back covers would then be front covers. He would write about all the incorrect, exaggerated and erroneous things that have been written or said by LDS Christians about non-LDS Christians. I would write the other half of the book about all the those things written or said by non-LDS Christians about LDS Christians. I think it would be much more interesting to have each of us take the opposite perspective of what a reader might normally expect. The book might be more factual and less polemic, therefore a better read. I wonder which half of the book would be longer? Wouldn't that be a great read? It might be longer than War and Peace!

[Stargazer]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Dude, I don’t care. I’m pointing out the double standard here that is all. It seems odd to me that Latter-day Saints would be troubled to see things like “You aren’t real Christians” while at the same time teaching things like what’s quoted in Moroni. Again each side thinks they are only saying what’s true. 

I suppose it's easy to be apathetic if one doesn't believe one way or the other. Assume for a moment that God does exist, and condemns infants without baptism. Does this overcome your apathy to get a little annoyed, at least, with God? Does it sound righteous to your mind?

If you feel like it, you might want to explain to me what this "double standard" is that you see. I'm not following you.

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further I will point out that those that believe in infant baptism don’t believe unbaptized children are going to hell. That is an uncharitable attribution by Moroni.

Oh, but it was taught. Rather than direct you to the post I made to 3DOP pointing this out, I will repeat it here, but if you want to read the entire thing, here's the LINK

---- Quote ----

Whether it was "officially" taught, or only "unofficially" taught, the fact remains that it was taught in the Catholic church. The verses addressing the question in Moroni 8 do not seem to care whether it was a Pope or a mere important theologian who taught it. 

On the Vatican's website we have this:

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis." [Emphasis added] See: THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

[The theory the above mentions is the Limbo theory, btw]

So, it's not dogma, but is a possible theological hypothesis. Now, regardless of whether this teaching is now understood to be incorrect, and a better one substituted, at the time Moroni 8 was being penned (which I think would have been some time in the 400s AD) guess who was evolving and teaching this doctrine that babies were going to hell if they didn't manage to get baptized? That would be Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD)! You're welcome to believe that the Book of Mormon is a fiction, that Moroni did not exist and thus the entirety of Moroni 8, which gets very explicit in condemning infant baptism, is a modern anti-Catholic screed. But it is internally consistent in a chronological sense with the doctrines espoused by Saint Augustine on the subject, at around the same nominal time.

I don't know how "official" the writings on the website of Catholicism.org are, but on this subject we find this:

"St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98). The originator of this “infant-salvation” heresy was an Irish monk named Morgan, known to posterity as Pelagius — one of St. Augustine’s greatest enemies. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)." See HERE.

...and this...

The "Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell”

Now, are these "official" teachings, or "unofficial" ones? Since this Council of Florence is the seventeenth ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church, held between 1431 and 1449, I would tend to think that its conclusions represent doctrine, at least of a sort. So, it appears that Augustine's doctrine on the subject was accepted at least until the mid-1400s.

---- End Quote ----

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And additionally he does not limit his condemnation to those that hold such a belief. His statement says that if you think little children need to be baptized you have no faith hope or charity. This is a very harsh statement. One of many harsh condemnations of other faiths found in Latter-day Saint scriptures.

Yes it is harsh. Maybe God doesn't like it? He seems to have called out all kinds of things He didn't like throughout history, in a number of places. Go ahead and argue with Him. Except I gather you don't think He exists or else He does but all this religious stuff on earth has little or nothing to do with him.

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And just to reiterate - That’s fine! But maybe grow a thicker sin when some of that gets reflected back at you (not talking to you specifically, but to the attitude expressed in the OP). 

The OP appears to have gotten quite discombobulated over a friend who made a complete turn-around and not only no longer believes, but is actively promulgating lies about her former faith, as well as engaging in the same kind of behavior that we try to teach our missionaries not to engage in. I don't blame the OP in the slightest for being upset about it, and her "attitude," as you put it, is entirely justifiable.

The people who believe that Mormons are going to hell if they don't leave the faith, are, in my humble opinion, acting by and large according to a possible genuine concern for the eternal well-being of the poor, unfortunate, benighted Mormons. I don't hold it against them, except as they make complete donkeys out of themselves.

I would imagine that your expressions of disbelief around family and friends who still believe are fairly peaceful and non-confrontational. You seem not to be "on the warpath" against the church and church members. What would YOU expect from those who still believe if YOU were to start acting like the OP's friend? Don't you think they might get a bit upset about it? 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Stargazer

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  There needs to be more guidance on the matter. 

I read a couple of weeks ago about Elder Christofferson's brother, who is gay and very active in the church, beginning to date again because he doesn't want to be alone the rest of his life.  He is not backing down from his beliefs or involvement in the church though.  And we have David Archuleta who has basically said that God told him to start dating men (or being open to it), who is also not backing down from his testimony or desire to remain in the church.  I'm sure there are many more gay and lesbian members in the same situation.

I think we are reaching a tipping point where we need more revealed guidance if we are going to be able to move forward from this topic.

 

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, kimpearson said:

After centuries of spiritual darkness, truth-seeking men and women protested against current religious practices. They recognized that much of the doctrine and many of the ordinances of the gospel had been changed or lost.

To be clear, this isn't Kim speaking, this is Kim quoting an LDS manual used by missionaries.

I'm not complaining about your teachings on the apostasy -- they are foundational to your truth claims, like the papacy is to ours. This quote, however, seems to align your church with protestantism, in the sense that you view protestants as closer to the truth than Catholicism ("current religious practices" is quite a euphemism for Catholicism).

From my point-of-view, your church actually has much more in common doctrinally with Catholicism than with protestantism, though you definitely have more of a protestant culture.

I also want to push back on "centuries of spiritual darkness." It falls into the trap that equates the Middle Ages with the dark ages. The Middle Ages were a time of flourishing spirituality. All one needs to do is walk into a cathedral from the Middle Ages to realize that this culture was not dark, barren, and sterile. Read some writings of saints from the Middle Ages. The belief that the Catholic Church did not have priesthood authority does not have to be conflated with the idea that there was no spirituality or enlightenment until the protestant "truth-seekers" came along.

I think the manual is painting with way too broad a brush here, and I don't say that just because I'm Catholic.

 

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

We are not directing any attack against any specific church or group.

I did just quote your manual that said the Catholic Church caused centuries of spiritual darkness until the protestants arrived.

But I agree with your overall message. You are much calmer than the groups that label you (and Catholics!) as cults.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

OK, you're right. Thanks for bringing it to my attention; I guess I was soft-pedaling it:

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. (Moroni 8:14)

Does this mean that every person who believes that little children are going to hell/limbo/wherever if they don't get baptized are going to hell? I don't think so. But even if I'm wrong and they are going to hell, even in Spirit Prison they can repent. Most people who believed this evil doctrine were taught the doctrine by those whom they trusted to know what the gospel is, because an awful lot of them back in the day were illiterate and the scriptures were not available in their language in any case.

It is an extremely uncharitable thing to believe that if a baby dies shortly after birth that that baby cannot be saved and is going to a bad place. And how reasonable is it to have such a belief?

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! (Moroni 8:12)

To insist that little children will go to hell if they don't get baptized is to insist that God is a partial and changeable God, and respects persons. So much so that, even knowing in advance that the child will die without baptism, God sends that child to hell anyway (because the people that believed this evil doctrine also believed that there was no pre-existence and the baby is a brand-new soul). 

And let's not forget that it isn't just babies. It's every single person who was born and died upon the earth prior to John the Baptist. Billions going to hell because by oversight, or by intention, God sent them into mortality when they would have no chance whatsoever to hear the Gospel and accept it.

I guess you take exception to calling people out on believing the evil doctrine of infant baptism. Fine, go ahead.

 

Just to repeat 3DOP's response, the Catholic Church has never officially taught that unbaptized children go to hell. We don't know the details of how it all works out, but we trust in a just and merciful God.

The teaching of Limbo was very popular, but was never dogma.

[Mike Drop]

20 minutes ago, GingerRed said:

Well THIS mormon does NOT believe other Christians are not "real Christians" !

If they’re real Christians then what’s the point of having Mormon missionaries teach them the gospel of Jesus Christ?

24 minutes ago, GingerRed said:

What  some of our former Presidents of our church said way back then is not what our currant Prophet says now. 

Back in 2016 I think, Elder Oaks said the only way any of us can make it back to our heavenly parents is to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ. Do our heavenly parents share priesthood authority with any other denomination besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Is a “Christian” baptism binding in heaven? Because I was taught “Christian” baptism is meaningless in the eyes of God. That’s why we have a missionary program. 

 

GingerRed, take a listen to this talk from Elder Oaks. He pretty much spells out that “Christianity” the Christianity our early prophets thought was hatched in hell, Oaks explains at the 13:40 mark that anyone who doesn’t reach the Celestial kingdom will find themselves damned in a lesser kingdom. He then goes on to explain that there’s not one “Christian” minister that can get you to the Celestial Kingdom. He also says “good Christian living” can’t help you make it back to our heavenly parents. You see! We Mormons believe Mormonism is the only path back to our heavenly parents. We are a very legalistic church. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Navidad]

Is it the teaching from Moroni that causes LDS folks to erroneously believe that folks, either Catholic or Protestant teach as doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell? I have heard this belief repeated over the years on this forum and as well at LDS funerals where a story (in varying forms) is recounted that LDS missionaries save the day for distraught parents who just were told by a "minister" that their two children were already in hell because they had died prior to being baptized. In the story the parents convert to the LDS faith due to the comfort offered them that their children were indeed innocent and certainly not in hell.

At least here in our area (predominantly Catholic) it seems to be a favorite story of those who speak at the end of a funeral which tends to be the LDS doctrine portion of the service. It has now been discussed several times on this thread. Can anyone point to an origin point for this belief besides the words of Moroni?

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps it is more an expression of my own heterodoxicity (is that a word?) or, maybe like the OP I hate when other people tell me what I believe, but I am one Mormon who does not believe that other Christians are following the teachings of Satan. I recognize some of the "One True Church" rhetoric that shows up in our canonized and uncanonized historical documents, and it gets a bit messy and muddy trying to sort out truth from error, but I just want to be clear that I don't believe that lie.

Me neither. But I also wonder how much absolutisms are more an indication of family culture and personality moreso than actual doctrinal stance. There are things within our doctrines that are exclusionary to some degree....there's also plenty that are extremely inclusionary. I remember when I was talking to my mother about the concerns with my brother, though both of us were frustrated, when it came to actual spiritual concerns we differed widely. My mom veers personally and hales from a cultural background that's more black and white in understanding the world around her. I'm more contextualist oriented and lean naturally towards inclusionary messages. So where my mom would jump to "satan" language or some such about "hell" and found solace in confrontation apologetic writings. I turned to more personal frustrations in how he got to where he was, an insistence that we are not the Judge of his salvation, and highlighting positive growth that may not have happened as quickly without a shift for at least the short term. At some points she'd go too far and I'd point out that's not even what we really believe...at which point she'd usually soften up a little. Technically we are active in the same religion...but how we interpret and interact with it is very different.

 

With luv,

BD

[Stargazer]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to repeat 3DOP's response, the Catholic Church has never officially taught that unbaptized children go to hell. We don't know the details of how it all works out, but we trust in a just and merciful God.

The teaching of Limbo was very popular, but was never dogma.

I've heard that word, dogma, many times, but it always seemed to be a pejorative in some folks' mouths. I needed to look it up, and here we are:

"Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. It may be in the form of an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion"

I guess there's official dogma as well as unofficial dogma?

Well, anyway. What annoyed me was the claim that the only people who thought unbaptized infants went to hell was whoever wrote Moroni 8, because it was quite clear from what appears to be official sources, that they were thought to go to hell at least as late as the mid-1400s. You did see that reference to the Council of Florence, held between 1431 and 1449? According to one source I cited, that council did in fact hold to Augustine's dictum about unbaptized infants being hell-bound. A council convoked by a Pope does seem to have some official street-cred, at least to my mind.

Whether it was dogma, or not, it was definitely taught.

I guess some people say that the Mormons believe X just because Brigham Young once said X, even if, to put it in Catholic terms, it isn't dogma. The Adam-God doctrine comes to mind. And nobody knows what the heck he meant when he spoke of it. I guess Augustine was the Catholic Church's Brigham Young in some areas, then. 

 

[Canadiandude]

On 1/9/2022 at 2:45 PM, GingerRed said:

And how is your negative, judgmental, unfounded comments on here in any way being kind, helpful or empathetic?   My gosh, where is this coming from?? Are you always like this?

I did not 'form a group' to talk to these gals... they are  friends of both of ours. They all know Jane for some time. A couple of them were asking me after hearing about her posts on Facebook and was like what the heck is going with Jane?  So I private messaged the 4 of them and it was only the 5 of us discussing the situation.   And yes most of  know why Jane has left the church. That's one of the things she likes to keep repeating to anyone who will listen.   Some did not. It has nothing to do with what you so implied about our friendships.  You obviously had not taken the time to go back a look at all my other comments on here and what other kind, understanding advice I've been given. 

 

I came here because I've been a part of this forum years ago and consider most of the posters on here as friends. Some I've even met in person.  And I know there might be other posters here who might be in the same boat with people THEY know and could give me good advice, which most of them have so far, and are a being a great help. 

So if you have nothing to contribute in a mature manor, besides name calling and attacking...which is against this broads rules by the way...then I suggest you leave this post.

The Karen’s be at each other.

I’ve faced enough hostility from your opponent in this conversation on other threads to cause me to be a lil unsure of whom to root for here. But I confess, I think you could try to understand what’s going through you’re friend’s mind. 
 

edit: I think your accuser could also sometimes use that selfsame empathy on this forum a little more.

I believe people who leave the church (such as myself) require empathy, and careful boundaries for everyone involved (yourself included), followed by points of mutually shared interests.

I understand that you feel deeply betrayed by your friend.

So also do those who leave, and who are doubtful of the church’s claims feel as far as the church is concerned.

We often contend that the church betrayed us. Lied to us. Spread demonstrably false things about ourselves and our experiences.

If I may: I suggest reading some interview-based scholarly studies on member, non-member, and ex-member interactions within and re: the church. Historical and contemporary.

A birds eye-view can be most helpful. 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Canadiandude

[Stargazer]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is it the teaching from Moroni that causes LDS folks to erroneously believe that folks, either Catholic or Protestant teach as doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell? I have heard this belief repeated over the years on this forum and as well at LDS funerals where a story (in varying forms) is recounted that LDS missionaries save the day for distraught parents who just were told by a "minister" that their two children were already in hell because they had died prior to being baptized. In the story the parents convert to the LDS faith due to the comfort offered them that their children were indeed innocent and certainly not in hell.

At least here in our area (predominantly Catholic) it seems to be a favorite story of those who speak at the end of a funeral which tends to be the LDS doctrine portion of the service. It has now been discussed several times on this thread. Can anyone point to an origin point for this belief besides the words of Moroni?

As 3DOP has admitted, Saint Augustine taught it very definitely -- and may have been the originator of the idea. Rather than me re-post what I wrote, go to my earlier post at this link, where I show that it was being taught officially in Catholic circles at least as late as the 15th century. Even if it wasn't "dogma" as both 3DOP and MisereNobis have stated, it was very current. And lots of people believed it. Moroni 8 was not exaggerating.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

To be clear, this isn't Kim speaking, this is Kim quoting an LDS manual used by missionaries.

I'm not complaining about your teachings on the apostasy -- they are foundational to your truth claims, like the papacy is to ours. This quote, however, seems to align your church with protestantism, in the sense that you view protestants as closer to the truth than Catholicism ("current religious practices" is quite a euphemism for Catholicism).

From my point-of-view, your church actually has much more in common doctrinally with Catholicism than with protestantism, though you definitely have more of a protestant culture.

I also want to push back on "centuries of spiritual darkness." It falls into the trap that equates the Middle Ages with the dark ages. The Middle Ages were a time of flourishing spirituality. All one needs to do is walk into a cathedral from the Middle Ages to realize that this culture was not dark, barren, and sterile. Read some writings of saints from the Middle Ages. The belief that the Catholic Church did not have priesthood authority does not have to be conflated with the idea that there was no spirituality or enlightenment until the protestant "truth-seekers" came along.

I think the manual is painting with way too broad a brush here, and I don't say that just because I'm Catholic.

 

I think it's the problem that comes from oversimplifying our understanding from our own cultural background to help interpret it. Early converts and many still hale from protestant backgrounds or at least moved through protestant faiths before becoming LDS. So the reflection of what the apostacy actually looked like and what happened to allow for the later restoration often gets benched in the most recent social shifts to open up spiritually diverse explorations into christian practice/thought (ie protestantism). But I don't think the actual doctrines tied to it necessarily need to point to it. One that is often skipped over because it's all written in a complex parable is in the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob 5. But it basically is talking about this complex work that God undertakes to get to where the right fruits (or spiritual outcomes) consistently show in the world via the gospel (or the roots of the vineyard). If you read it carefully, the oversimplified message of both the church now and the church in the past don't really match it. And even when things were all off (as in the part that looks like it's talking about the claimed apostacy that previously happened) there is good preserved and still work of God being done with it. One that struck at me was in jac 5:34 where the servant and the lord are looking over a main tree that isn't producing any good fruit. The servant points out though, that because of their previous work grafting in, the roots of the tree were also preserved. And it then later details this work of clipping out the worst parts of the tree and a delicate work of removing the bad at an equivalent rate of how much the good has developed. To me the last time I read it, I could easily see how the catholic church could be seen as a fruition/mechanism of trimming out some of the worst early heresies that would have left the church dead or struggling and that there was still the work of the savior and therefore God occurring throughout its history, even if it was missing key "fruits" that are deemed  necessary. In other words the Catholic church was also preserving the main roots of the God's work with man.

I'd also note that it points to a more complicated church dynamic now too that includes still clipping poor branches out of the LDS church and (me extrapolating here) likely other faiths as well. But that's more blurry. Often people don't like blurry, complicated messaging. So it gets simplified and interpreted usually from our own contexts. And that, to me, is where we're most likely to get really dumb subtle and less subtle messaging about specific churches or epochs of Christian history.  

Each person's explanation of what is meant by "one true church" therefore also will likely mean something different. Though I believe we are the only church authorized to perform lasting salvific rites, I don't believe that means we hold a monopoly on all truth or that we aren't also being "pruned" actively to remove falsities...some that have taken on LDS specific flavors over the years. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited January 10, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

42 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is it the teaching from Moroni that causes LDS folks to erroneously believe that folks, either Catholic or Protestant teach as doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell? I have heard this belief repeated over the years on this forum and as well at LDS funerals where a story (in varying forms) is recounted that LDS missionaries save the day for distraught parents who just were told by a "minister" that their two children were already in hell because they had died prior to being baptized. In the story the parents convert to the LDS faith due to the comfort offered them that their children were indeed innocent and certainly not in hell.

At least here in our area (predominantly Catholic) it seems to be a favorite story of those who speak at the end of a funeral which tends to be the LDS doctrine portion of the service. It has now been discussed several times on this thread. Can anyone point to an origin point for this belief besides the words of Moroni?

My guess is that this may happen from specific contexts that are more rigid finding more solid answers in another faith experience. Either the person got an unsatisfactory answer (limbo, we don't know, maybe a couple who were adamant/rigid and loose with deciding who goes to hell) at a really compromised moment and the missionaries or their own faith journey gave them an answer they could finally find peace in.

I had that happen with an acquaintance of mine who came from a hindu background. Though she had early experiences that led her to a more christian orientation one of her big stumbling blocks with alliging herself with any of them was how official doctrinal stances viewed her family as going to hell if they didn't accept Jesus in this life. She couldn't get on board with that and when it became clear what they thought or officially taught, she was out. At some point she stopped all together trying to find a church community to worship in. And then she met a member of our church, which has a more complex orientation of heaven/hell, and she was hooked.

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

A surprising number of people believe that this is what the Catholic church taught. Did they make it all up? Or was it taught at one time and not fully expunged from the beliefs of the people?

The thing that gets me is this: why does the Catholic church baptize infants? If they don't need baptism, then why are they doing it? Regardless of whether St. Augustine's notion was accepted or not, it would seem to be nevertheless important to the culture, and getting infants baptized as soon as possible must have a reason. What is that reason?

Because the Lord commanded baptism for salvation, and the Church has reaffirmed its necessity. Now, one thing we are not supposed to do is judge whether or not someone is saved. This means we cannot say one way or another what happens to a specific unbaptized infant. Here is the entry in the Catechism concerning unbaptized infants:

Quote

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"⁶³ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The Luther church, which inherited pretty much all of its doctrine from the Catholic church, also held infant baptism to be extremely important. When I was doing research into my late wife's German genealogy, I noticed that one of her uncles' Protestant baptism was recorded as a "Nottaufe" or "Emergency Baptism". This distinguishment would be because the baby was in bad enough health that there was some fear he was going to die before his regular opportunity for baptism, and thus he might die without baptism. And so he was baptized by either a minister rushing to the home to do the job, or perhaps a non-clerical person did the deed according to some exceptional policy.

The exceptional policy is that a priest is not required for baptism. Anyone can baptize, as long as they do it properly and with the right intent.

It certainly appears to me that under that theological belief, infants need baptism. Again, why? If they are not going to suffer without it, why? Clearly, somebody thought something dire was going to result if the baby didn't get sprinkled with holy water.

Again, it's because the Lord commanded it.

Whether it was "officially" taught, or only "unofficially" taught, the fact remains that it was taught in the Catholic church. The verses addressing the question in Moroni 8 do not seem to care whether it was a Pope or a mere important theologian who taught it. 

On the Vatican's website we have this:

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis." [Emphasis added] See: THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

So, it's not dogma, but is a possible theological hypothesis.

A dogma, in Catholicism, is an irrevocable truth that has been declared in a revelation or related to a revelation. Since limbo was never declared a dogma, there was a chance it was wrong and also a chance it was right. It was a very popular solution for awhile to the issue of infant baptism. It is not as popular anymore.

I don't know how "official" the writings on the website of Catholicism.org are, but on this subject we find this:

"St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98). The originator of this “infant-salvation” heresy was an Irish monk named Morgan, known to posterity as Pelagius — one of St. Augustine’s greatest enemies. Augustine declared: ‘Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)." See HERE.

Catholicism.org is NOT a legitimate source. It is run by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Their founder was Leonard Feeney. He had very hardline views on the doctrine "outside of the church there is no salvation." He was excommunicated in the 1950s for it. This article (and website) is going to be extreme and often counter to the Catholic Church when it comes to issues of salvation. They've been ordered to not even use the name Catholic to refer to themselves or their teachings.

...and this...

The "Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell”

Now, are these "official" teachings, or "unofficial" ones? Since this Council of Florence is the seventeenth ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church, held between 1431 and 1449, I would tend to think that its conclusions represent doctrine, at least of a sort. So, it appears that Augustine's doctrine on the subject was accepted at least until the mid-1400s.

I didn't know this decree from the Council of Florence, so I did some poking around. It's important to note that the Council of Florence was not called to deal with the issue of salvation or infant baptism. It was trying to reconcile the issues between Eastern and Western Christianity. The statement that you quote was part of an overall statement of belief that both East and West will accept. This is a statement that is still believed and accepted today. But it is a general statement that does not deal with possible exceptions, like unbaptized infants. Ecumenical Councils are called to deal with specific issues of controversy and heresy. This council was not dealing with the controversy of unbaptized infants, so this statement cannot be construed as declaring that unbaptized infants go to hell.

Another way to look at this is the fact that this statement (and those around it) do not mention those who desire baptism but have not yet received it and those who are martyred before they are baptized. This is the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. The Church holds that these are saved even though they are not baptized. While this "appears" to contradict the statement of the Council of Florence, it only does so because the Council is only speaking in a general way because it is not dealing with the exceptions to the general rule.

You can see the decrees of the council here: Council of Florence

 

 

I was having formatting issues so my replies are in red.

Edited January 10, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was having formatting issues so my replies are in red.

Yes, I wondered about that "slaves of the.. etc" site. They seemed a bit "over the top," yet there were references to legitimate sources.

You will not get any argument from me about the necessity for baptism as a salvific ordinance. It's definitely necessary. I will accept that the Catholic Church doesn't have a dogma regarding the ultimate fate of an infant dying without baptism, and that they are "entrusted to the mercy of God". I would propose to you that the Latter-day Saints agree with the Catholic Church that such infants will indeed be the recipients of God's mercy. It is our doctrine, and I'd call it "dogma" in the Catholic sense, that Christ's sacrifice covers them automatically. Which is easily illustrated by Jesus's statement that He came to heal the sick, not the healthy. Since innocent children are healthy, no healing is needed, and they are saved automatically through Christ.

Now, your ire was raised as to Moroni 8, as if there were no such belief in hell-bound infants happening in Christian history, and it was an idea invented by whoever wrote Moroni 8. Disregarding Moroni 8 for a moment, and regardless of whether official dogma said one thing or the other about it, that principle promulgated by Augustine did not die with him, and things such as "emergency baptism" exist simply because of the apparently widespread belief that Augustine was correct. Hence, regardless of whether the teaching was dogma or not, it was out there in current thinking. 

Does the Catholic Church also entrust to God's mercy those people who died without ever having heard Christ's name, let alone his Gospel? It seems that, in order for God not to be a respecter of persons, that such a way out of the conundrum must tentatively exist for them, too. Of course, we LDS overcome this by referencing Paul's mentioned ordinance of baptism for the dead, and other verses that refer to Jesus, before His resurrection, having gone to those who were dead to preach to them. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

But I also wonder how much absolutisms are more an indication of family culture

I was confused for a moment on this due to the similarity of absolution (the previous posts discussing Catholicism took me there first) and absolute (absolutism).  And it works both ways for the sentence….

[BlueDreams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I was confused for a moment on this due to the similarity of absolution (the previous posts discussing Catholicism took me there first) and absolute (absolutism).  And it works both ways for the sentence….

Lol! I definitely meant absolutism in this case  

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

think your accuser could also sometimes use that selfsame empathy on this thread a little more.

For someone who just used “The Karen’s”, this comes across as hypocritical or at least not able to see your own beam

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[SteveO]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is it the teaching from Moroni that causes LDS folks to erroneously believe that folks, either Catholic or Protestant teach as doctrine that unbaptized infants go to hell? I have heard this belief repeated over the years on this forum and as well at LDS funerals where a story (in varying forms) is recounted that LDS missionaries save the day for distraught parents who just were told by a "minister" that their two children were already in hell because they had died prior to being baptized. In the story the parents convert to the LDS faith due to the comfort offered them that their children were indeed innocent and certainly not in hell.

At least here in our area (predominantly Catholic) it seems to be a favorite story of those who speak at the end of a funeral which tends to be the LDS doctrine portion of the service. It has now been discussed several times on this thread. Can anyone point to an origin point for this belief besides the words of Moroni?

4th century CE:

St. Gregory of Nazianzus (circa 329 - circa 390) commented in Orat., XL, 23 that infants dying without baptism "will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked." This was the common view of the early Church Fathers.
 

Pope St. Siricius insisted on the baptism of infants as well as adults lest "each one of them on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom." 2
 

5th century CE: 

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) convinced the Council of Carthage (418 CE) to reject the concept of limbo "of any place...in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all."

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

My guess is that this may happen from specific contexts that are more rigid finding more solid answers in another faith experience. Either the person got an unsatisfactory answer (limbo, we don't know, maybe a couple who were adamant/rigid and loose with deciding who goes to hell) at a really compromised moment and the missionaries or their own faith journey gave them an answer they could finally find peace in.

I had that happen with an acquaintance of mine who came from a hindu background. Though she had early experiences that led her to a more christian orientation one of her big stumbling blocks with alliging herself with any of them was how official doctrinal stances viewed her family as going to hell if they didn't accept Jesus in this life. She couldn't get on board with that and when it became clear what they thought or officially taught, she was out. At some point she stopped all together trying to find a church community to worship in. And then she met a member of our church, which has a more complex orientation of heaven/hell, and she was hooked.

 

 

With luv,

BD 

I have mentioned before my husband’s grandparents who had to bribe a pastor not of their own church to bury their unbaptized infant in hallowed ground under the cover of darkness a few years before the missionaries came to their door with the opening line of “do you believe in infant baptism”. A shoe thrust in the way of the response of slamming the door and a shout “neither do we” led eventually to baptism of the entire family.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

that principle promulgated by Augustine did not die with him, and things such as "emergency baptism" exist simply because of the apparently widespread belief that Augustine was correct.

I don’t think you are accurate in your reasoning from “emergency baptism” based on what has been clarified below.

Quote

It certainly appears to me that under that theological belief, infants need baptism. Again, why? If they are not going to suffer without it, why? Clearly, somebody thought something dire was going to result if the baby didn't get sprinkled with holy water.

Again, it's because the Lord commanded it.

This seems similar to me to our own temple proxy work where we don’t believe that someone not receiving it at this time will be locked out and yet we go to what others see as extremes in building our temples and going worldwide to collect records and then perform proxy work when we could be investing elsewhere in what others see as more immediate needs because we believe God has commanded us to do so.

[GingerRed]

4 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

The Karen’s be at each other.

I’ve faced enough hostility from your opponent in this conversation on other threads to cause me to be a lil unsure of whom to root for here. But I confess, I think you could try to understand what’s going through you’re friend’s mind. 
 

edit: I think your accuser could also sometimes use that selfsame empathy on this forum a little more.

I believe people who leave the church (such as myself) require empathy, and careful boundaries for everyone involved (yourself included), followed by points of mutually shared interests.

I understand that you feel deeply betrayed by your friend.

So also do those who leave, and who are doubtful of the church’s claims feel as far as the church is concerned.

We often contend that the church betrayed us. Lied to us. Spread demonstrably false things about ourselves and our experiences.

If I may: I suggest reading some interview-based scholarly studies on member, non-member, and ex-member interactions within and re: the church. Historical and contemporary.

A birds eye-view can be most helpful. 

 

You're calling me a "Karen??"  gee how nice of you... 🙄

Yes  I understand that is how my friend is feeling but that doesn't give her the right to bash another person's beliefs. 

Personally I don't need to look into your scholarly studies. As I have already made clear  ( doesn't anybody go back read ANY of my comments??)  I have more NON LDS friends than LDS ones of many other faiths and we hang together or talk a lot.  I also have other friends who are ex Mormons and inactive Mormons.  So I'm pretty well acquainted with a  well rounded "birds eye view " already, thanks.

Edited January 11, 2022 by GingerRed

[GingerRed]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

For someone who just used “The Karen’s”, this comes across as hypocritical or at least not able to see your own beam

Thank you, Calm