What does this chapter teach me about God's relationship with His children?
What does this chapter teach me about my Savior?
How can I use the principles and examples from this chapter to improve my own relationship with the Savior and my Heavenly Father?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO PONDER
In verse 8, the Savior addresses the question of infant baptism by explaining that he "came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick." How does this doctrine affect your attitude and behavior toward little children? What does this teach us about God's plan?
Mormon declares in verse 16, "I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear." How have you seen this principle in your life? How would you like to see it more in your life?
I love the verse - "pure love, casteth out all fear." The only way to have pure love is to be enveloped in the love of God. When you feel the love of God you don't care about rejection, your needs, or how it will turn out. You just do the right thing out of love and you can let the consequence follow. I can tell you I have felt that love a few times in my life. I wish it wasn't so rare.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------
This chapter has so many beautiful promises but I really struggle with why the Lord is so angry about infant baptism. The closest I can come is that it must be considered a blasphemous denial of the atonement.
The wording is so harsh. If you haven’t read it lately see the wording. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng
I read everything I could find in the topical guide and guide to the scriptures online about infant baptism and circumcision. I did find it interesting that circumcision was no longer required after Jesus was crucified.
Why it is OK to circumcise a baby at 8 days but it is pure evil to baptize? I realize why it is unnecessary but it uses words like abomination and damnation.
I am still pondering but I would love it if someone has already studied the topic… Here are the two scriptures that I feel say the most on the subject.
JST, Genesis 17:11
11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.
Moroni 8:8
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
In response to Karen's comments on infant baptism, I think it is considered so abominable because it is, as you said, such a direct rejection of the Atonement's power and of the role of agency in the Plan of Salvation. I see circumcision as different because 1. It isn't doctrinally wrong in principle - In the Genesis scripture you cited, we learn that it was, in fact, a reminder that children aren't accountable until eight years old, and 2. There are other health reasons one might circumcise a child that don't have anything to do with the original covenant. It isn't by nature bad, it's just unnecessary now, since that law was fulfilled. Kind of like celebrating Passover. Those are just my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI think of my extended family members who still believe in infant baptism, and while I know their hearts are good and they just want to do what's right, the doctrines motivating that action are so removed from our Father's loving plan. It implies original sin, which completely denies the agency we know to be central to the plan, as well as the truth behind Adam and Eve's fall, which is key to our entire purpose on earth! It also implies that God is horrifically unfair. It indirectly mocks the infinite nature of the Atonement, and my guess is that, while most people today who believe in infant baptism probably have the best of intentions, since the JST you cited shows us that this was a precious truth removed from the scriptures, it was likely originally removed with selfish intentions, which I'm sure made the Lord very unhappy. I don't know for sure, but that's my guess on the issue. I suppose I liken the Lord's harshness regarding this issue to that of his "harshness" in telling Joseph Smith that all the churches are untrue. It's not to mean that all the people are bad, but without the doctrine, there just isn't the same promise. Does anyone else have thoughts on this...?
My thoughs regarding infant Baptism - I also wonder if the harsh word were not meant for that time. For example: What if we as members of the curch started this practice? Wouldn't it be an abomination, given all that we know of the Lord's atonment? So, I have always felt it was due to the fact that the church of that time was letting incorrect practices in after having been taught the truth.
ReplyDeleteWhereas the many religions in our day, who believe they are doing the right thing by having infant baptims because of a lack of understanding, I cannot believe the Lord will feel so harshly toward them.
Well, those are my thoughts anyway....