What To Do When Your Friend Turns Anti-Mormon?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

This is a discussion board bluebell. So I am not sure to whom you are referring with "us" but if she was just looking for moral support she chose the wrong venue.

I'm not really interested in deciding whether or not I'm going to be a compassionate person based on what venue I'm in, so this being a discussion board doesn't really change my opinion on it.

There's those things that we are obligated to give to a community we are a part of, and then there are those things that we should give to those in a community that we are a part of.  You seemed to believe that we don't owe anyone compassion on a discussion board because of the kind of community it is.  I don't agree.

From my perspective-and especially with such a personal thread--compassion when they are going through something that is causing hurt is something that all posters are due, regardless of what kind of a board it is.  We don't have to agree, and that doesn't mean that we can't point out flawed thinking, etc.  But we can do all of that with compassion (if we care to).

If people who leave the church deserve compassion for not always handling the transition gracefully (and I believe they do even on this board), then I think that people who have loved ones who leave the church also deserve compassion for not always handling that transition gracefully (even on this board).

I understand now that you see it differently.  You probably aren't the only one.  I won't use 'us' if the subject comes up again.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not really interested in deciding whether or not I'm going to be a compassionate person based on what venue I'm in, so this being a discussion board doesn't really change my opinion on it.

There's those things that we are obligated to give to a community we are a part of, and then there are those things that we should give to those in a community that we are a part of.  You seemed to believe that we don't owe anyone compassion on a discussion board because of the kind of community it is.  I don't agree.

From my perspective-and especially with such a personal thread--compassion when they are going through something that is causing hurt is something that all posters are due, regardless of what kind of a board it is.  We don't have to agree, and that doesn't mean that we can't point out flawed thinking, etc.  But we can do all of that with compassion (if we care to).

If people who leave the church deserve compassion for not always handling the transition gracefully (and I believe they do even on this board), then I think that people who have loved ones who leave the church also deserve compassion for not always handling that transition gracefully (even on this board).

I understand now that you see it differently.  You probably aren't the only one.  I won't use 'us' if the subject comes up again.

You are right that I could have been kinder.

[Vanguard]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not really interested in deciding whether or not I'm going to be a compassionate person based on what venue I'm in, so this being a discussion board doesn't really change my opinion on it.

There's those things that we are obligated to give to a community we are a part of, and then there are those things that we should give to those in a community that we are a part of.  You seemed to believe that we don't owe anyone compassion on a discussion board because of the kind of community it is.  I don't agree.

From my perspective-and especially with such a personal thread--compassion when they are going through something that is causing hurt is something that all posters are due, regardless of what kind of a board it is.  We don't have to agree, and that doesn't mean that we can't point out flawed thinking, etc.  But we can do all of that with compassion (if we care to).

If people who leave the church deserve compassion for not always handling the transition gracefully (and I believe they do even on this board), then I think that people who have loved ones who leave the church also deserve compassion for not always handling that transition gracefully (even on this board).

I understand now that you see it differently.  You probably aren't the only one.  I won't use 'us' if the subject comes up again.

There are ways to more gently press a person to reconsider their position all the while letting them know they are heard. Folks coming on the board with 'well, your side is just as bad or worse' is not helpful. I noted the opie's tone immediately and thought she could use a little insight into what the recent de-convert might be going through but I also felt bad for GingerRed because I have been through similar events in my life - events that have cut me to the core emotionally. I've commented to my wife how so many of my good friends have left and how awful the experience is to see this and to see they are no longer interested in talking with me about the gospel in the way we used to. It is a massive fracture for sure for all involved but especially for the individual leaving. 

Edited to add: I might add that I really do think as I've said before that the Social Hall is best for these types of exchanges. Rallying around someone who hurts, gently helping them process this hurt, and compassionately helping them view a topic differently (if needed) seems better suited for something other than this particular forum. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Vanguard

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

There are ways to more gently press a person to reconsider their position all the while letting them know they are heard. Folks coming on the board with 'well, your side is just as bad or worse' is not helpful. I noted the opie's tone immediately and thought she could use a little insight into what the recent de-convert might be going through but I also felt bad for GingerRed because I have been through similar events in my life - events that have cut me to the core emotionally. I've commented to my wife how so many of my good friends have left and how awful the experience is to see this and to see they are no longer interested in talking with me about the gospel in the way we used to. It is a massive fracture for sure for all involved but especially for the individual leaving. 

Edited to add: I might add that I really do think as I've said before that the Social Hall is best for these types of exchanges. Rallying around someone who hurts, gently helping them process this hurt, and compassionately helping them view a topic differently (if needed) seems better suited for something other than this particular forum. 

I agree the social would have probably been a better place for the thread.  The social hall doesn't get much traffic so she may have put it here so that she could get more replies with ideas on how to move forward, but since it's a personal thread it, I'm with you on the placement.  

[CA Steve]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not really interested in deciding whether or not I'm going to be a compassionate person based on what venue I'm in, so this being a discussion board doesn't really change my opinion on it.

Nor am I.

 

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There's those things that we are obligated to give to a community we are a part of, and then there are those things that we should give to those in a community that we are a part of.  You seemed to believe that we don't owe anyone compassion on a discussion board because of the kind of community it is.  I don't agree.

I never said any such thing. You are  disagreeing with your own strawman., I said this is a discussion board. How I act is a completely different question.

 

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective-and especially with such a personal thread--compassion when they are going through something that is causing hurt is something that all posters are due, regardless of what kind of a board it is.  We don't have to agree, and that doesn't mean that we can't point out flawed thinking, etc.  But we can do all of that with compassion (if we care to.)

You continue to build on a strawman of me that is not accurate.  Again I said this is a discussion board. I believe each individual is responsible for his/her own behavior. When people create threads, they should expect people to discuss the different sides of the theme. Our tone is a completely different issue.

 

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If people who leave the church deserve compassion for not always handling the transition gracefully (and I believe they do even on this board), then I think that people who have loved ones who leave the church also deserve compassion for not always handling that transition gracefully (even on this board).

I agree but that has nothing to do with my response that this is a discussion board.

 

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I understand now that you see it differently.  You probably aren't the only one.  I won't use 'us' if the subject comes up again.

Not how I see it at all.

It's a discussion board. She created a thread. People responded. If she is not comfortable with how the thread is unfolding, she is welcome to ask the mods to close it.

Edited January 12, 2022 by CA Steve

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know this isn't directed to me but if you don't mind me saying...I have a problem with Evangelicals that believe every word of the Bible is God breathed. And IMO, that can be a harmful thing.

I have a problem with Evangelicals that believe the former president is a saviour. 

But when I think of Evangelicals, you sure don't come to mind. I see you far more balanced and more Christlike. But I guess I'm really grouping all of them together. And need to listen/read more sermons.

I value your input . . . you can reply to any post I ever make! I am never quite sure what it means to say "every word of the Bible is God breathed." I believe the Bible is the Word of God written in the words of humans. I learn and grow from reading it. I also would have a problem with anyone who believes that anyone besides Christ is a savior. I do not believe that anyone can believe that and be an Evangelical at the same time.

Thank you for your kind words to me. I strive to be accurate and balanced. I pray every day that I will be increasingly more Christlike. It is a challenge. I would simply advise all my friends not to confuse Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mainline Christians. Each are different and unique in their own way. In the same way my LDS friends would not want me to confuse Fundamentalist Mormons with members of the LDS church. There certainly are similarities in some perspectives, but there are also many differences - enough to say that the two groups are different. So it is with the different groups within the non-LDS community.

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Would you consider Ray Comfort and evangelical or a fundamentalist?  Kent Hovind?  Ken Hamm?  In my mind, those are some radical EVs

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have been in meetings all day. I never heard of Ray Comfort, so in fairness I cannot say anything about him. I read some pages on the internet about him and still don't know anything about him. He claims his church to be in the Free Methodist tradition. That would indicate he is involved in the Holiness or Charismatic side of things. That doesn't tell me much either. I couldn't find anything about his education or doctrinal beliefs. He seems to be an evangelist, but that has nothing to do with him being an Evangelical. I can't comment more because I won't comment on what I don't know. Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are definitely evangelists in the Fundamentalist arena. I think that is something I can say without hesitation. Virtually everything they do and say comes from a Fundamentalist tradition.

Fundamentalists are as different from Evangelicals as Fundamentalist Mormons are from the folks in the LDS church. Lots of beliefs they share in common, but sufficient clear differences, alliances, and beliefs to say they are "different." Perhaps you are sweeping the non-LDS Christian community with too broad a singular broom? I don't know you either, so I can't go any further than that. That is simply conjecture on my part.

I was also uncertain about your use of the term "radical." That word can have both negative and positive connotations. Both Watchman Nee and A.W. Tozer were radical Christians. Their cry for piety and humility were in many ways "radical." They called for a radical Christianity, but in every way a positive thing. Nee was imprisoned and tortured for his faith and yet persisted in insisting on his followers being radically committed to the Savior. Thanks for your reply. I wish you the best.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Feel free.  Sure there are a lot of EVs who bash the church.  But worldwide I believe these are a small number.  Catholics typically do not do this nor do main stream Protestant denominations.  Any church is going to be adamant about their truth position.  But the LDS Church is unique in many of its claims.  I think there is mouch more ecumincal feelings among other Christian faiths and none except and LDS baptism as valid for and LDS person who leaves and becomes say Catholic or Methodist.  Nro as we know does the LDS Church recognize and ordinance of any other Christian faith or any other faith for that matter.  Remember the premise of the LDS Church is that all the others are wrong, their creeds an abomination in the site of God, their professors who are all corrupt.  

I certainly had my share of anti cultists EVs as a missionary and for many years as an LDS Hobby apologist so I don't have a good taste in my mouth about them either.  But to accuse them of foul play and nastiness and to downplay the LDS Church premises about other faiths is silly.  I guess we will have to disagree on this.

I assume from the get-go that it's from an american perspective considering the critique of what's within the church is also coming largely from that on this thread. And I didn't mention catholics for a reason....I completely agree that they're not typically in those shenanigans. Though their policy about baptism is a form of exclusion (that I don't have a problem with, BTW...explain more below).  I'm not lumping all christians everywhere in the same category

Almost all faiths have boundaries or exclusionary doctrine. How that is presented and the importance put on it differs, based on interpretation and often contextual pressures. I've not said once that we don't have exclusionary doctrine. We do. But HOW that is implemented within the church is not a forgone conclusion that it will be a hyper-rigid, I'm right/you're wrong orientation among mainstream members. And it's often balanced by inclusionary doctrines and beliefs, such as all mankind is god's children, and extremely broad interpretation of heaven that gives space to just about everyone ever born, and beliefs about the light of christ. Members often participate and enjoy interfaith relationships. They're highlighted quite often as positives. Worship of God, however we understand that, is seen as a net positive in society and to be encouraged. And said messages are shared over the pulpit, in our holy writ, and how we interact and come to view other faith groups over and over again.

My problem with the set up is that you're naming the better aspects of mainline christianity, ignoring the aspects (and large minority) of more conservative american christian groups such as evangelicals and (worse) fundamentalists, and dismissing some of the indicators that this isn't just a one-off sort of problem within several Christian communities. Meanwhile you're highlighting the strongest exclusionary language within church scripture with no context of how it was implemented, yanking out the most callous interpretations that represent (at least today) the most fringey fundy oriented members, and ignoring mainline inclusive messages that point to valuing and encouraging interfaith relationships and learning from different experiences. That by no means is a fair comparison. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 12, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

My problem with the set up is that you're naming the better aspects of mainline christianity, ignoring the aspects (and large minority) of more conservative american christian groups such as evangelicals and (worse) fundamentalists, and dismissing some of the indicators that this isn't just a one-off sort of problem within several Christian communities. Meanwhile you're highlighting the strongest exclusionary language within church scripture with no context of how it was implemented, yanking out the most callous interpretations that represent (at least today) the most fringey fundy oriented members, and ignoring mainline inclusive messages that point to valuing and encouraging interfaith relationships and learning from different experiences. That by no means is a fair comparison. 

Well if it helps I have a lot of disdain for how conservative American Christians approach the LDS faith and others that they view as cults or non Christian.  And I disdain how many of them approach politics as well.  

[Navidad]

55 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I assume from the get-go that it's from an american perspective considering the critique of what's within the church is also coming largely from that on this thread. And I didn't mention catholics for a reason....I completely agree that they're not typically in those shenanigans. Though their policy about baptism is a form of exclusion (that I don't have a problem with, BTW...explain more below). Protestants it's dependant on the denomination. I'm not lumping all christians everywhere in the same category

Almost all faiths have boundaries or exclusionary doctrine. How that is presented and the importance put on it differs, based on interpretation and often contextual pressures. I've not said once that we don't have exclusionary doctrine. We do. But HOW that is implemented within the church is not a forgone conclusion that it will be a hyper-rigid, I'm right/you're wrong orientation among mainstream members. Members often and enjoy interfaith relationships. They're highlighted quite often as positives. Worship of God, however we understand that, is seen as a net positive in society and to be encouraged. And said messages are shared over the pulpit and how we interact and come to view other faith groups over and over again.

My problem with the set up is that you're naming the better aspects of mainline christianity, ignoring the aspects (and large minority) of more conservative american christian groups such as evangelicals and (worse) fundamentalists, and dismissing some of the indicators that this isn't just a one-off sort of problem within several Christian communities. Meanwhile you're highlighting the strongest exclusionary language within church scripture with no context of how it was implemented, yanking out the most callous interpretations that represent (at least today) the most fringey fundy oriented members, and ignoring mainline inclusive messages that point to valuing and encouraging interfaith relationships and learning from different experiences. That by no means is a fair comparison. 

 

With luv,

BD

Please consider this a reply to your last two messages. I have struggled whether and how to reply to them. You are wonderfully eloquent and although I don't know you, I believe you are equally a wonderfully genuine person. Now to my reply. I hope I do this well, because that is what is within my heart to do.

Let me give you my testimony and then ask you one question - one very basic but critically important question - for me that is. My testimony is that I am a Christian whose salvation and sanctification comes only through the atonement - birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ as the final and sufficient sacrifice for sin. No more lambs, scapegoats, nor rituals needed to procure that eternal life. Christ's shed blood is the ultimate expression of love freely-given to me. I testify that I am confident that the promise of everlasting and eternal life from the New Testament means a life eternally with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I will have the privilege of continuing the sanctification process on the other side. I look forward to worshiping, learning, growing with the Savior forever. I believe I will face a final judgment as an individual - not as a Mennonite, nor as a non-Mormon. I believe I will be judged by a Savior who is my advocate, prosecutor, judge, and jury all in one. I believe that judgment is what Christ means when He saying "no man cometh unto the Father but by me." When Christ sees me I testify that he will see me covered with His blood. It will be the same as the OT Passover Egypt experience.

This testimony is the most important thing in my life. It is the core and foundation of my identity as a Christian, a person, a husband, and a father. It is my reason for getting up in the morning and the last thing I think about at night. I cannot stress to you how important this testimony is to me.

Having said all that, I ask you what is perhaps a several part question . . . a rather personal question for such a forum. Do you believe that my testimony is true and will come true with no assistance whatsoever from any LDS ordinance or influence on my judgment and final destiny? Whatever you deem the place where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost will dwell forever (heaven or the Celestial Kingdom) will you grant me the truth of my testimony that I will live with them and you forever, assuming I never join the LDS church nor accept any LDS ordinances or "work" in the spirit world?

If you hesitate or answer "no," please understand the anguish and pain that causes me given the depth of my commitment to Christ, just as it is right now. You may not intend to be the cause of that, you may even say to me "don't let it bother you, just say I am wrong and move on." You may not intend to be mean or unkind. You may even say, "Hey, Navidad" I am offering you another way, a truer way." Isn't that the ultimate kindness?

It isn't that easy. You see I, as an Evangelical Christian Mennonite 100% accept and believe that you will experience that same eternal life about which I am talking, just as you are. I accept your testimony and your commitment to the Savior. Will you do the same for me? If you say no, you are no different than those Fundamentalists and Evangelicals you speak so eloquently about who mock and take away from the LDS their dignity as Christians.  They do that! No question about it. I apologize to you and anyone else on this forum that has experienced that pain, even if it was me who caused it. You need nothing from me in regard to the certainty of your salvation and sanctification. I can and would in no way take that away from you.

If you say no to my question, you would strip me of the core essence of who I am. It will be a searing pain.  On the other hand, if I choose not to become LDS, I take nothing away from you. I will join hands with you as we cross to the other side. I will stand next to you waiting my turn for the judgment. I will have "your back" in encouraging you that you will be fine. If you say "no" to my question, what will you do at my judgment? Will you have my back, or simply say "Well I offered him my truth, he rejected it, so all I can think of to do is commend him for one of the other two kingdoms, either one an eternity without Christ or the Father.

I hope this isn't too direct a reply. I may get a host of downvotes for it. Please however, this is my testimony of my salvation and sanctification. That is more important than any votes!  You may not stand on the corner at the local Mennonite church, you may not mock other Christians, but if you deny me the truth of my testimony that may be an expression of disregard for the truth and validity of my faith that is as great as any Fundamentalist ever did to an LDS Christian. Thanks for reading this. If I did not do it well, I apologize in advance.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well if it helps I have a lot of disdain for how conservative American Christians approach the LDS faith and others that they view as cults or non Christian.  And I disdain how many of them approach politics as well.  

Me too on both counts!

[BlueDreams]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well if it helps I have a lot of disdain for how conservative American Christians approach the LDS faith and others that they view as cults or non Christian.  And I disdain how many of them approach politics as well.  

Lol! You'll hear no disagreement from me on that end.

[Stargazer]

On 1/11/2022 at 3:25 PM, MiserereNobis said:

The verse in the Book of Mormon states that the person who believes it is evil, not just that the idea is evil. I think any perusal of St. Augustine's life would show that this is not an evil man, even if one concedes that he believes an evil idea.

I didn't say it. The Book of Mormon did. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then I don't know how I can soften its message. It is what it is. But don't take it too personally.

Evil is a thing, not a person. There may have been otherwise wonderful people in the world who, outside of a certain idea they held to that was evil, you'd be happy to share a beer with. How about a hypothetical?

You believe, and I believe, that baptism is necessary to be saved from the effects of sin. Take a hypothetical person who is a great person, a wonderful person, full of love and concern for his or her fellow man, who always takes the high road when it comes to choosing the right. But on one topic, baptism, he or she is completely against it. He or she believes and teaches that baptism is humbug, that nobody should be baptized, and convinces others to follow along with this idea. Would this person not be teaching and believing an evil thing? And would not that person, in this respect at least, be evil?

I don't believe that there were or are any fully evil people in the world. Ever. Not Hitler, not Stalin, not Genghis Khan. But in some, perhaps many respects, they were evil. On the total other side, perhaps Augustine was as nearly perfect as he could be, but he believed this one evil thing, that babies dying without baptism are going to hell. And so, in this one respect he was evil. And let's go further: there may be some things that I believe which are evil. If I were to ask Pope Francis, he might do me the favor of identifying them for me, since by Catholic standards I obviously believe some very wrong things -- starting with the fact that I don't believe he's anything special from a divine authority point of view, and even believe that he is helping mislead over a billion people about what church is true. I'm particularly evil for that reason, am I not? Assuming that Francis is correct, and the Catholic Church is true.

But in all cases whatsoever, all evil men and women can repent and become clean. There may be some crimes that it is impossible to repent of, other than the sin against the Holy Ghost. But I don't know for sure what they are. Some have said that deliberate murder cannot be repented of -- but I am even unsure about that.

When Jesus spoke to the crowds that followed him, he once said:

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matthew 7:11 - emphasis added)

Were they all evil? Of course they were, as Paul the Apostle echoed:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10)

It's not so bad, therefore, to be evil. The escape from that evil stands before us who believe. And his name is Jesus Christ.

[Stargazer]

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

I don’t see how this is any different from those who would say we do temple work for the dead because we are unwilling to rely on the hope God will be merciful to those who are not baptized.  Can they not say we are worried God won’t be merciful unless we perform the right rituals?  In fact we state that God won’t allow exaltation without baptism, so in that sense the critics are right.

I seriously want to address your lovely post, but it's past midnight here and I might not be able to get to it for a few days. So, please quote/reply to this post of mine so that I see the notification next time I am here, and can respond! Thanks!

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But on one topic, baptism, he or she is completely against it. He or she believes and teaches that baptism is humbug, that nobody should be baptized, and convinces others to follow along with this idea. Would this person not be teaching and believing an evil thing? And would not that person, in this respect at least, be evil?

Hi Stargazer: I am not "completely against baptism," but I am completely against baptism as a salvific ordinance. I have preached that many times. Am I evil? Not a hypothetical - but an actual question. Am I evil?

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Stargazer: I am not "completely against baptism," but I am completely against baptism as a salvific ordinance. I have preached that many times. Am I evil? Not a hypothetical - but an actual question. Am I evil?

If you read my entire post, you know that we both are.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I seriously want to address your lovely post, but it's past midnight here and I might not be able to get to it for a few days. So, please quote/reply to this post of mine so that I see the notification next time I am here, and can respond! Thanks!

As requested  

[GingerRed]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO there is a vast disparity between a person's loss of faith and identity versus that person's friend's loss of reading scriptures together or reading social media posts that are critical. So yes, I feel that one loss is greater than the other and that the person complaining about their loss should take into account the greater loss.

I'm not sure what double standard you are talking about. Did GingerRed's friend blame her like she was blaming the friend? Did her friend call her a liar? Maybe. I don't know.

GingerRed can grieve and be angry. No one is stopping her. Sure, space can be provided but this is an online forum. We're not friends. We don't even know each other. So expecting everyone to uniformly rally behind her loss whilst she blames her friend, doesn't seem all that reasonable to me. When we post things here we can all expect agreement from some and disagreement from others. 

In fact, I hope some of what I say (even if it has been a little harsh) will stick with her so that the next time she faces a friend or loved one leaving the church, she might respond differently.

No I came here with my eyes wide open .  I've been on this forum long enough to know I would probably get a little backlash for my post.  I expected it.  I did NOT think at all that everyone would "rally around me"  That's not what I was looking for. But I've received FAR more kindness, compassion and loving advice from the folks here!  ( thank you  bluebell!! )And that was worth it.    I'm willing to take the bad with the good. The good here was way more that the bad. 

Yes you've been harsh!...BUT..at least you weren't downright nasty, like someone -who's name-I won't-mention 😉  You know who you remind me of? My older brother, Joe.  Like it or not...he knew when  I needed a kick in the pants.... but he was also there for me through thick and thin, growing up.  I DO think you could have worded your words better, less abrasive, dude!  Crikey !  I was sitting on my hands not wanting to say mean things back at you...  I just thought....its okay , let him vent, too.   But I see where you are coming from.  

The loss of doing church things together were as much her wanting to do those things with ME, too!  We both had those plans. That's not one sided, or trying to make it about me.  You don't always word things well when one is upset....hasn't that ever happened to you at all??  Are you not human, too? 

At the very beginning of all this, she was even open to still talking about church stuff...she said that's fine, that wouldn't bother me.  (it sure has heck bothers her now! ) You see, way back in March...when this started I even SAID to her.... Jane...that church you are going to...aren't you a little concerned they might be teaching anti Mormon stuff? Don't you think that's a possibly you might start believing that stuff?  She said, no I don't think that's a possibility. Then I asked her, I'm worried you might start thinking or saying things against the church....and she SAID : I am NOT against the church!  She SAID that...  She promised me that wouldn't happen! I'm sure she meant it at the time. ...I think...But she changed so fast!  So that kinda makes hurt more, too.   

So far, she has not shown that she is suffering from this loss of the LDS faith you speak of.  Quite the contrary . She was fine!, ....happy.!...felt at peace she said.  Which is why we had no problem still hanging around her, and doing things together, we just didn't mention religion at all.  It was working out just fine all this time.  I'm a convert myself.  I didn't join the LDS church til I was 21.  So I feel I have the best of both worlds. That's why I get along so well with all my non LDS friends.  I have gay friends, too . I was living in San Francisco when I joined the LDS church . I think my level of tolerance and acceptance is better than some LDS people I know who as far more stanch LDS than me.  But this is the first time I've ever dealt with someone close to me, without warning, turn into an anti , just like that and to try to throw that in the face of one of my friends, is shocking!  All my other ex-mormon friends that left the church just left it alone, no fan fare, just left and no big deal.  Never spoke a word against it.  So to see such negativity, such offensiveness ,coming out of no where from such a sweet, fun, kind person who would never talk down like that to anyone in the past.... ...holy cow what just happened?? So OF COURSE it hurts!!  Unfortunately  when I get hurt, I get angry.  And this knocked us for a loop.  Anyway....this has been very helpful posting this and just get the venting out of my system.  I'm still going to keep my distance for a bit. She seems to be keeping herself away from us too, so it going both ways.  

 

[BlueDreams]

I’m also going to try and be as cautious with how I word this to try and give an explanation to how I personally view it. Other’s likely would word it differently.

Thank you for sharing your testimony. You mentioned in it that you expected to learn and continue the sanctification process on the other side, which includes worshipping, learning, and growing with the Savior forever. This to me ties with the first part of your question about “LDS ordinances.” To me the more important question is would you accept anything that God would ask for you to receive in this process of sancitifcation? I don’t see the “lds ordinances” as LDS ordinances. I see them as Christ’s ordinances. I picture them like the spit and mud that were used to assist in healing the blind man. Of the river Jordan cleaning a leper. There’s nothing inherently magical about water or garments or hands on my head….any more than there is the river Jordan; spit or mud. It’s simply an action that is commanded of God that we should all partake in to assist in sealing mankind as one in Christ. I picture the temple rites as tying together in our own measly way the promises and commands that fulfill God’s word to us through Christ. I’ve experienced the sense of union to the people I’ve done work for there more than once. Those and many other experiences expand my view of those on earth to the point that I assume great capacity in each person I meet and that I know there are those not in the church who are doing amazing things with their “talents” (as in NT parable talents) from God and directions they receive. I don’t assume I naturally have more talents just because I’m a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don’t assume you have less because you are not. Likewise, I assume that there will be things that I will be corrected on, expected to receive, or let go of entirely as I continue into the next life. And I expect the same for you. Not a single person is perfect here. We all will.

I keep picturing a man I met on my mission. He was an AME retired minister. He was the easiest person we “taught.” Usually we would sit, introduce the topic, and he would teach us. We’d nod in agreement and continue. In many ways he was a better disciple than I am today (though maybe I’ll get there given a few decades). He also did become a member before he died. But I picture what would have happened if we had never knocked on his door in this lifetime to deliver a video. I know it wasn’t the first time he’d heard of our church. I also have no doubt his trajectory would have had him anywhere but in a celestial embrace. That embrace was inevitable because of who he was. I just pointed him to some spit and dirt. I don’t know you, I have your words to define you. I largely agree with your testimony. The areas I don’t are minute. If you are like me and have become willing to follow the light of Christ wherever it takes you and do what’s asked of you by God, I have a hard time believing you wouldn’t accept one more small thing from the source of all truth and light. Because it would simply just be who you are.

 For me in my understanding of God, we will all be corrected and should expect to receive greater light and understanding according to our capacity and willingness to do so …here and in the next life. So I don’t see you as inherently different from me and I accept and believe the core of your testimony. I’m sure there are members who are more rigid and would say something more exclusionary. But that is my testimony, one of my most fundamental beliefs. I, a Latter-day Saint, you a Mennonite, my bro the conservative Christian, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the catholic, and whatever people identify here with, etc we will be stripped of earthly title at the end. What will be left is our relationship and desire to accept light and truth and overcome all in the name of it …even if we didn’t know the name of Christ on earth, let alone if we did or didn’t accept baptism as needed. Obviously I don’t know what I will be corrected on, further healed, or expanded in the next. But I’m open to do so. If it turns out for whatever reason that i need to sit and learn Buddhist chanting to grow, I’ll do so. If it means I must learn and connect and become through taking in the experience and lives of others who held another piece of the cosmic pie, I’ll do so. If it’s something I can’t imagine because I’m still blind by my own temporal worldview, my desire and hope is to grow in a way here that I can be humble enough in the next to accept it. I hope that for every person I meet. I try to help that along when I’m called to do so in the ways that I can. Sometimes that is helping a person sort through their baggage with my job to help them find more peace and stability where they’re at now. Sometimes that’s been actively preaching Jesus and the gospel as I know it. Sometimes that’s included temple work for the living and the dead. The spirit is still the same. Doing so has taught me that I can’t fully know what will happen to another person. I get a snapshot of their life and choices and souls. I can point out when choice are likely damaging them. But God has the full picture so only he can judge their salvation. 

 

This isn’t exactly a yes or no. But it’s also not a hesitation. I couldn’t answer because the underlying premise to the question doesn’t fit how I view and understand my own beliefs of heaven, god, and learning in the next life. I hope this explained it somewhat. 

 

To me that is very different than what my brother has presented me in his newfound beliefs. I’ve known somewhat about evangelical and/or fundamentalist groups before this, but to be honest minus the bias I had (have?) it didn’t have a major effect on me beyond mild annoyance or discomfort…probably a little distrust if I’m to be honest. But seeing it from my brother is a different thing. I have exclusionary views…but mine ends with a more heavily inclusionary one as I hope I’ve illustrated. My brother had to be convinced that I was saved. I assume just about everyone I will ever meet will partake to some degree in salvation in the end. My brother’s view assumes a very eternal and terrible end for those who don’t accept Jesus as their savior in this life and no gives no answer if they can in the next. Just that we all are lost and inherently fallen and therefore condemned to hell if we don’t get some JC fast. In short it’s more exclusionary with a simple litmus test that is fairly easy to assume failure in. Doing so then denies the goodness of humanity whose views and experiences differ, because the focus is on just how big of a failure we are, just how filthy we are, just how wrong. I am not fully comforted by him now believing I’m saved. My problem wasn’t that for a little bit he assumed I was hellbound. My problem is that he has a belief that still assumes at best a tenuous eternal existence for 2/3 of mankind. A belief that’s so focused on personal salvation it misses much the work of good found in  just about all groups of people. It casts judgment, not for who they truly are but for a singular belief they do or don’t have.  My belief in the need for baptism doesn’t change my belief that the crux of who you are will be accepted by god. It doesn’t give me any form of certainty that I could judge where you’re headed and gives me a lot of reasons to reserve that ultimate decision for God to avoid hubris and pride. I don’t even think it will make you a Latter-day Saint, because that’s not the real end goal. 

 

I know there are Latter-day Saints who likely take a more black-and-white or at least rigid interpretation to theological practice and claims. They may have more comfortably answered the question differently from me. But nothing I just mentioned is a heretical variation in my faith. I based this on years of active service and studying. I’ve shared this in lessons at church. The mercy and fairness of god was one of the first things I had a testimony in that we are ALL his precious children was the first. And years of experience have done nothing but to cement and expand it. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Orthodox Christian]

On 1/9/2022 at 3:23 PM, GingerRed said:

declare to all that she left our church, to become....a Christian! 

I had a friend, an evangelical sort of Christian who regularly judged people in her church congregation as not being Christians. These people were regular and faithful church attenders but they didn't meet her criteria for being a Christian. It seems that in some evangelical circles, they have this notion that if you haven't had that eurika moment where to ask Jesus into your life and declare yourself a follower of His then you are not a Christian. This is seen by them as being born again. So it doesn't matter if you or I live a virtuous life, believing in Christ as our Lord and Saviour, and live by His commandments, unless you have had that moment and made that declaration, you are not a Christian. So it looks as though your friend has been convinced that she has never been a Christian and neither are those of us who have come to the Lord any other way. Of course then there are the theological differences, where anyone who doesn't follow the belief in Sola Scriptura alone is obviously not Christian. So be prepared for many more confrontations with your friend.

[Stargazer]

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

I don’t see how this is any different from those who would say we do temple work for the dead because we are unwilling to rely on the hope God will be merciful to those who are not baptized.  Can they not say we are worried God won’t be merciful unless we perform the right rituals?  In fact we state that God won’t allow exaltation without baptism, so in that sense the critics are right.

Yes, they can say that -- and have. There are plenty of Christians out there (such as Navidad) who think it's completely unnecessary, and some even regard it as a near apostate practice. 

I don't think the ritual itself is necessarily of the essence, though it may be, somehow. It is what the ritual represents, which includes (among other things) being a symbol of willingness to obey God's law, and of submission to God. But having told Nicodemus "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", the Lord is lying if He says that it's unnecessary. And when He Himself was baptized, His declaration to John "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" it seems an utter necessity -- because if the sinless Christ saw it as necessary for Him, of all people, how can anyone say it's unnecessary for anyone. For those who might say, "Jesus's baptism fulfilled all righteousness, but I'm not Jesus so I don't need it", Jesus also said "Follow me." And then proceeded to command his disciples to baptize every convert to the faith. The evidence is overwhelming that, despite the seeming piddly nature of saying symbolic words as one dunks someone in water, for some reason God thinks it is overwhelmingly necessary.

It should be clear from the New Testament and early Christian history that someone, namely God, didn't consider it optional. It's not our commandment, as I am sure the Catholics will agree, it's GOD's commandment. 

For some reason not made clear, God says that the rituals ARE essential. The critics can equivocate and make disapproving noises all they want.

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

They do baptisms when they can because they are commanded and hope that God will be merciful to the rest.  We do live baptisms of those who choose for themselves and do proxy baptisms of those we can find names for, while realizing we won’t be able to do the vast majority of those who Iived and died without record or whose records were lost to us.  The only difference I can see is we believe that God will eventually provide names so all may be baptized, either themselves or by proxy because all must be participate in the ritual of baptism while they believe God will take care of it himself in some fashion unknown to them for whom he wills.  

I don't object to their faith that God will be merciful to those who had no chance. 

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

Unless official Catholic doctrine is God is somehow forced to accept every soul that is baptized properly whether he wills it or not AND that any soul not baptized will perish no matter whether they were decent people or innocent even if God desires to save them, I don’t see how emergency baptisms are a reflection of a belief that God won’t be merciful and more than our commitment to temple proxy work is our belief that God won’t find another way if we turn away in apostasy and refuse to obey his word to baptize all.

Well, I'm pretty sure that official Catholic doctrine doesn't say that baptism is an instant free-for-all ticket to heaven. The fact that they consider confession to be one of the seven sacraments along with baptism, confirmation, holy communion, and the others, is evidence that they don't. If you don't regularly confess your sins, then those sins are retained, and can God accept you in your sins? That's why there is the last rites/extreme unction, to aid you in shedding those sins you haven't yet confessed before you go to the next place.

The reason why I say emergency baptism is a reflection of a lack of belief in God's mercy, is this: if one truly believes that God will be merciful if, through no fault of its own, a child is not able to receive baptism, then emergency baptism is completely unnecessary.

As for we Latter-day Saints and our temple proxy work, as you point out, there's an entire Millennium set aside to take care of those whom we can't do the work for, as well as for those for whom we refuse to do the work for. God will get it done, regardless of whether you, me, or our Aunt Sylvia, brush it off like it wasn't important.

D&C 3:3 - "Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;"

God has made it very clear that if we refuse to do what He commands in helping to redeem His children from sin, through proxy ordinances, it is we who will suffer, not those who are dead. It's a commandment to us, and if we fail, the sin will be upon our heads, not the heads of the dead, nor His. It's OUR test.

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

If you asked any Saint if they think most of mankind is doomed to eternal death if we stop doing proxy work and no one else took our place, what do you think they would say?

Malachi 4:5,6 - Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

They'd be wrong to think that most of mankind is doomed to eternal death if we stop doing proxy work. The curse is on those who refuse to take up the work, not those whose work is not performed by those who refuse. Because they would have broken the commandment of the Lord. And no matter what, it is the work of men which can be frustrated, not God's. Joseph Smith was quite plain when he taught that the salvation of the dead is essential to our own. If we don't see to theirs, then ours is at risk.

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

 Me, I think God would find a way to ensure the way he had commanded it be done was done.  God’s Wil wil be done no matter what I or anyone else chooses to do. He will find others to do his work if he doesn’t do it himself. I don’t see this as different than Catholics saying God’s will be done by baptizing when they can, but saying the rest are in God’s hands according to his will.  After all, baptism isn’t a get out of hell free card in Catholicism any more than it is in the Restored Church.

Yes, it's of a similar nature as Catholics "saying God’s will be done by baptizing when they can, but saying the rest are in God’s hands according to his will." 

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

And there have been some Saints (I have known some) who since our doctrine is unclear on what a ‘chance’ involves, they believe if missionaries knock on a door and the Spirit tells those who live there to invite them in (and some don’t even require the spirit to be witnessing…somehow the badge and declaration has enough authority to provide anyone with all the necessary chance they need to recognize the gospel for what it is and accept it), but then no invitation is offered.  The story concludes with those who answered the door being killed the next day never having accepted the Gospel when alive, the dead have lost their opportunity for exaltation because that one time of the Spirit telling them to learn of the Gospel was their chance that they rejected…perhaps they might end up in the Terrestrial depending on if they repent or not.  Think I heard that story in Primary as an admonition to the young men there to prepare to be the best ever missionary so no one would be lost to God because they couldn’t convince someone to invite them in.   So again not seeing a difference because some Catholics interpret their doctrine as more rigid than it is because it happens among Saints as well.

I've been around enough to have seen this, too. We are all children (at varying levels) in our understanding of the mercy of God. What is a "chance"? I would not like to be arrogant enough to claim that I know. In my first missionary city we taught two lessons to a man whom I really liked, who was really interesting to talk to, but after two discussions he very kindly let us know that there was no way he could join the church because how could he tell his family and friends that he was changing churches? When I passed through that town several years after my mission (this was in Germany), I stopped by his house just to say Hello, but his wife said that he had died. It was sad, but I would be arrogating to myself an unconscionable amount of hubris if I imagined that I knew that he was doomed. It's not up to me. I doubt that he felt anything more than a fluttering of the spirit. I can imagine that he would hear the message in the spirit world again, and this time he could accept it.

And then, in the same town we taught an elderly lady who by the time we taught her the third discussion told us that she had a testimony that the Book of Mormon was true. I got transferred at that point, and looked forward to hearing that she had been baptized, but my then-companion told me that she had been persuaded by her older sister to stop seeing the missionaries, and she apparently reluctantly, severed contact. Was that her "chance" and she blew it? I hope not, but how am I to know?

So there I am: hoping that in God's mercy that both of them hadn't used up their "chances"!

There is one big difference between the Catholic and the LDS on this: the ones in the Catholic view who fail go to hell; but the ones who fail in the LDS still have a chance at salvation, if not exaltation.

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

There may be Catholics who fill in the gaps of their revealed knowledge and doctrine with fearful beliefs, but plenty of Latter-day Saints do as well in my experience while I don’t see anything that inherently requires them to choose fear over trust in an all merciful God in either faith.

Of course there are. Nothing inherently, though the mercy taught in LDS theology seems to be more generous in the Catholic. Or so it appears to me, anyway.

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

There are LDS parents out there convinced their kid is going to end up in hell and then the Telestial because they walked away from the Church and withdrew their membership or were excommunicated no matter how decent and generous and kind their child is and they are doing all they can trying to convince their child to come back to the faith and be rebaptized, frightened it won’t happen before their child dies an apostate.  There are grandparents who used to baptize their grandchildren against the parents’ wishes and who probably would now if the rules aren’t enforced.

And there are Saints who believe that spirits are in essence in limbo in paradise, they cannot be resurrected or progress until baptism and other temple work is performed for them.  

There are lots of Saints who believe lots of things. Including me. The bit about being in limbo in paradise, though... 

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

How easy is it to portray that belief as a lack of belief in God’s mercy, that God cares more about ritual and us living by his checklist than the goodness and charity of a spirit?

Of course it's easy. There are people who believe that everybody eventually goes to heaven, too, and no ritual or confession of faith stands in the way of that -- eventually we all get there. It's not true, of course, except that it turns out that the Telestial Kingdom is a Kingdom of Glory, so in a sense they're right.

On 1/11/2022 at 1:19 PM, Calm said:

As a side note, I believe we differ in how we perceive baptism working in humanity, but I am not seeing that as directly tied to why both of us baptize, which is to obey God’s command to be baptized.

True.

[3DOP]

On 1/10/2022 at 1:41 PM, 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?

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.

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.

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. 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.

 

 

Hi Stargazer,

For those who might be interested in context, these remarks by Stargazer are in reply to my claim that the Catholic Church has never taught that infants who die without baptism go to a burning hell.

Stargazer, I shall attempt to defend my claim in this post replying to your presentation in the order it was written. For sake of space and time, I will not repeat your words here, but it should be obvious which of your remarks it is to which I am replying.

1) I concede that St. Augustine was not censured for his speculation regarding the fate of unbaptized infants. I do not know how widely his private correspondence was known and received. Nevertheless, it seems likely that some Catholics held this point of view. Tradition taught them that infants needed to be baptized, orthopraxy, as many LDS call it. The orthodox reasons were not as clear and speculation was permissible during the Age of the Fathers.

2) The reason that infants need baptism is because except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God, as Christ explains in St. John's gospel.  

3) Lutheran teaching about the state of unbaptized souls differs quite a bit from the Catholic. I think it would be a distraction to discuss Lutheran baptism, and in any case, I do not know all the motives for Lutheran parents to seek baptism for their infants.

4) Yes, something dire happens when all souls, even babies die without baptism. They cannot see the kingdom of God, as we saw from above.

5) From the Vatican website today, one learns that at worst, infants who die without baptism "neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin." Since the Middle Ages, there have been many permissible theological speculations that permit parents of unbaptized babies to hope for a non-sacramental baptism, connected to the Sacrament, such as baptism of blood (the children who were killed by Herod are officially taught to be in heaven by the Catholic Church who celebrates their martyrdom during Christmas week, which could be applied to aborted infants today). Another permissible theory is that an opportunity is given to the soul of the child for the use of reason at the moment of death. St. Cajetan held that the desire of the parents for their child's baptism would suffice vicariously.

6) I concede that to oppose infant baptism is internally consistent with the chronology of the Book of Mormon and St. Augustine's teaching, at least his private correspondence.  I apologize for mocking Moroni 8, as though it were certainly a 19th Century document. Of course, I do not believe it dates from the 4th Century, but I regret my lampoon that in the New World, the only reason given for infant baptism was that otherwise they would suffer the sense pain of hell. St. Augustine's view, that unbaptized infants, suffer the mildest of sense pain has never been universal. It was opposed in Augustine's own era by other Fathers of the Church, of whom Moroni could have been aware also. 

I must pause for a while. I hope to be back later today to explain what the Council of Florence taught and how it contradicts St Augustine's teaching.

Thanks you,

Rory     

Edited January 16, 2022 by 3DOP

[Olmec Donald]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But having told Nicodemus "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", the Lord is lying if He says that it's unnecessary. And when He Himself was baptized, His declaration to John "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" it seems an utter necessity -- because if the sinless Christ saw it as necessary for Him, of all people, how can anyone say it's unnecessary for anyone.  [emphasis Donald's]

My understanding is that proxy baptisms are not performed on behalf of children who die before the age of accountability.  

I can see how the "forgiveness of sins" aspect would not be applicable, but it is not obvious to me why the other reasons for baptism wouldn't apply regardless of the person's age at the time of death.

Anyway if my understanding is correct then apparently there is at least one group for whom baptism is unnecessary.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Olmec Donald]

@Stargazer, consider also this unexpected chronology:

November 1923 (four years before Joseph Smith gets the golden plates), Alvin Smith dies at age 26.

January 1836, Joseph Smith sees Alvin in "the Celestial Kingdom of God."

September 1842, Joseph Smith receives the revelation about baptism for the dead.

Notice that Alvin was already in the Celestial Kingdom at least six years prior to the introduction of baptism for the dead.  

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[3DOP]

----continued from above

Further remarks about whether the Catholic Church ever taught that unbaptized babies burn in hell:

7) St. Gregory of Nyssa, born in 331 AD, wrote a treatise, On Infants' Early Deaths, in 395 AD. His essay and and reasoning on this subject. He takes the position that it is incompatible with the faith of Christ to hold that those who have never partaken of actual sin should be eternally punished for what they never did. But he also affirms that it is incompatible with the the faith, that those who never practiced actual virtue. should be eternally rewarded for what they never did:

"Having, then, all these considerations in our view, we hold that the soul of him who has reached every virtue in his, and the soul of him whose portion of life has been simply nothing, are equally out of reach of those sufferings which flow from wickedness."

"Nevertheless, we do not conceive of the employment of their lives as on the same level at all...in the two supposed and completely opposite cases, the one who has taken no part in life is more blessed than the one who has taken a noble part in it." [here Gregory is judging how it would be if unbaptized infants attained to the highest status of exaltation in the kingdom of God].

---St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants' Early Deaths, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 5, pp. 377, 378, Hendricksen Publishers (1994)

St. Paul says that if he faith to move mountains, and lacked charity he would be nothing. Love of God and our neighbour is what suits the soul for the glories of heaven. It would be as unjust for the soul that has done nothing, has never humbled itself, has never fed the hungry, has never instructed the ignorant, has never offered a cup of cold water to a stranger, to receive the rewards of the same, as it would be to receive the punishments of those who oppress the weak and the weary. Apparently St. Augustine was a little too quick to attack Pelagianism at every point, including this middle position which his brother in the East, St. Gregory proposes. Nobody is wrong about everything, even Pelagius...apparently. 

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by 3DOP