I recently saw a GRAPHIC demonstration of the advantage of adult baptism vs infant baptism when we baptised one of each at the same time: the baby cried louder.
That’s usually the case dropzone.
And is there REALLY a difference between sprinkling some holy water on the head of a person (adult or child) and the full immersion cold water bath baptisms some churches practice?
IDBB
I am an Orthodox Christian. We are so conservative and stuck in our ways that we often consider Baptists to be theologically indistinguishable from freaked-out hippies.
What you describe is sick. It is bizarre. It is some crazed newfangled mind control behavior.
Symbolically, there is. Baptism by immersion is supposedly symbolic, both of being “washed clean” and of dying (going under) and being raised to new life. I’ve never heard of any churches insisting that the water be cold, though.
This is, I think, pretty much the reason why some churches (such as the Baptists) do reject infant baptism. The other churches that do practice infant baptism might liken it to giving a baby its vaccinations (which it has no choice about), or to accepting the baby into the Church “family” (you didn’t get to choose what family you got born into, either).
When you are married in the Catholic Church, you pledge that your kids will be raised Catholic. Bapitsm is the first Sacrament in the Catholic Church and must be completed before any of the other Sacraments. We believe the Sacrament of Bapotism washes away original sin and cleans the slate and bestows the grace of the Holy Spirit which is a precious gift. Why not do this right away? Confirmation is the Sacrament that (is supposed to) allows the person to, for lack of a better word, confirm their beliefs when they are old enough to really understand through education and prayer what they are doing and what the commitment means.
What do you think about the mormons baptizing the dead?
hilltopper: Well, it’s essentially just a prayer, albeit a very specific prayer requiring very specific actions on the part of the person praying, so I don’t see a problem with it (being LDS myself). It’s not like we go down to the local graveyard and dig up a coffin or two.
I can’t imagine Jerry sitting still for such a ritual! 
Well I would just assume you wouldn’t.
Hilltopper, [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=188384]this thread** covered the topic more than thoroughly. Enjoy.
Dang. fixed link.
It’s not new. This was about maybe 10 years or so ago, when I was in Jr. High.
IDBB
IDBB, the Orthodox sometimes consider the Catholics to be young upstarts. Orthodox get to say that Baptists are newfangled. I, as a Mormon, do not. 
Well, speaking as one raised Lutheran, who turned semi-sorta Wiccan who lives in the South where Baptists are predominant… I have nothign to say to that.
IDBB
IDBB, the Orthodox are still annoyed about the destruction of Constantinople at the hands of Catholic Crusaders in 1204. Anything that began in the last 500 years or so is “new”.
Well, what would Alma or Moroni’s perspective be? 
Ten years ago? That’s brand-spanking new. That’s essentially yesterday. Was it done 1,000 years ago?
I have yet to see toddlers scared to tears by hellfire and brimstone (although some of those screaming preachers could sure scare a kid), but I have seen young children (say, under age 10) scared witless by hellfire and brimstone threats many a time. If a kid at that age gets scared of hell and therefore goes to the altar, gets saved, and gets baptized, how much more of an informed decision is that than the baby getting baptized?
In other words, what churches practice the rite of baptism while still maintaining a belief in informed adult (or at least teenage) consent to the practice?
Hopefully not too far aside from the main topic, how does this work? Is it more proper to say that the LDS church began in the 1800s (say, from the time that the golden plates were revealed to Joseph Smith), or that it began back in the times of the Book of Mormon and simply lay dormant for many years until the golden plates were entrusted to Joseph Smith?
Thanks for the relay. I read alot of the thread. I can see why you would not want to have to re-cover all that ground.
Well, my comment was something of a joke. There’s a big difference between how everyone else sees the LDS Church, and how the Mormons see themselves. In one sense, you can say that the Mormons started in 1830, with the organization of the LDS Church, along with the many other odd little sects that were starting at the time.
Mormons, however, call themselves Restorationists (as opposed to Protestants or whatever), because we didn’t start as a splinter group from another church, but as a restoration of the gospel from the loss that happened hundreds of years ago. We believe that the people who had the golden plates had the true gospel. So did the early Christians in the Bible. Both groups eventually lost a lot of truth in the contention and fighting that went on. A key part that was lost was the priesthood, which we believe to be essential.
Not only that, but we believe that the Old Testament prophets were part of that. All the way back to the beginning, in fact. So we do actually see ourselves as the latest part of a chain that goes all the way through the history of the whole world, but was sometimes lost and then restored. Obviously, however, we don’t expect anyone else to agree with us. And since we’re only the latest chapter, with no continuous history prior to that, we still have a lot of the early-rural-American sensibility with us. So you can say both.