Re: Infant baptism? Yes? No? -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:38:48 10/19/11 Wed
Author: George
Subject: Re: Infant baptism? Yes? No?
In reply to: Mamusz 's message, "Re: Infant baptism? Yes? No?" on 13:19:48 10/16/11 Sun

>>Supposedly the c-not-of-c will not
>>accept infant baptisms. But they have contradicted
>>themselves so many times that nothing they say means
>>anything to me anymore.
>>-------
>>
>> >>href="http://www.cofchrist.org/policy/10-01Offi
>c
>>ialPolicy.pdf">http://www.cofchrist.org/p
>;
>>olicy/10-01OfficialPolicy.pdf
>>page 3
>>
>>Infant Baptism
>>
>>Community of Christ will not accept infant baptism as
>>meeting the church�s criteria for becoming a member
>>through confirmation.
>>-------
>>
>>Catholics baptize infants you know. And now the
>>c-not-of-c is a member of the National Council of
>>Churches. It was Dr. Michael Kinnamon who was
>>at the 2010 cofc world conference.
>>-----
>>
>> >>href="http://www.ncccusa.org/news/110713commonbaptism.
>h
>>tml">http://www.ncccusa.org/news/110713commonbaptism.h
>t
>>ml
>>
>>Catholic Church and four Reformed churches recognize
>>validity of one another's baptism
>>
>>New York, July 14, 2011 � The general secretary
>>of the National Council of Churches today celebrated
>>an historic agreement among the Roman Catholic Church
>>and four historic Protestant reformed churches to
>>recognize the validity of one another's baptism.
>>
>>The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, staff head of
>>the nation�s leading ecumenical body, said, "these
>>five churches have taken a significant step on this
>>road to unity."
>>------
>>
>>Submitted by Lois
>>
>> THE SILENCING OF RICHARD PRICE
>>Transcript of tape recording of "settlement
>>conference" with O.C. Hinson March 12th, 1985
>>O.C Hinson (to Richard Price) Well, even though the
>>Presidency denied they were taking the church into the
>>World Council and National, you persisted in saying
>>that they do.
>
>That is one of the things God will change His mind
>about in the near future. Don't you wish God would
>get a little more intelligent and not have to change
>His mind so many things? ;-)

Mamusz, this happens in the LDS church all the time. Under Brigham Young, the controversial Section 132 was canonized, stating that no man could be in the presence of God in the afterlife, unless he took multiple wives. This was a commandment, which was part of what God said (in the revelation) that would be an "Everlasting Covenant."

Then, when the heat was on, God and the President of the Mormon church took a walk, and God said that He couldn't prevent the U.S. army from destroying the church, so the church should cease and desist from practicing polygamy for the time being.

In fact, John Taylor had two revelations printed in the foreign language editions of the Utah D&C that pretty much said, "Damn the torpedos, polygamy forever." These were Sections 137 and 138 of the Utah D&C. Luckily there was not a shortage of English D&C volumes, or the Sections might have been printed in English. But as it was, since there was no internet, and hardly anybody in Utah could read a book in German that had never been brought to U.S. soil, Utah Sections 137 and 138 disappeared until the numbers were reassigned to completely different revelations in 1977.

It would have been nice if God had changed his mind about eating pork in time to save all those Jews who had their entrails ripped out in First, Second, and Fourth Maccabees. The difference there was that the Jews knew that God could save them, but that it didn't really matter if God chose to do so or not, they would not disobey what was to them an Everlasting Covenant.

I guess if I had a priesthood card, my immediate superior would be telling me that I have persisted in saying that there are avowed homosexuals serving in the priesthood, and that adulterous, and fornicative and sodomitical unions are solemnized in the church, when all members have been told that this does not happen.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]