Why Are 8 Year Olds Banished From God'S Presence?

[theplains]

Can someone comment on this quote from Doctrines of Salvation.

Does the child get banished right on his 8th birthday or is it some sinful act that he commits right after which is

the cause of his banishment? And how is a 5 year old child considered to be in the presence of God when he

has already inherited a spiritual separation from God and physical death from Adam?

Thanks,

Jim

[BCSpace]

He is referring to the doctrine that little children are innocent until they become accountable at 8 years old. See also Moses 6:54-56 and JST Genesis 17:11. D&C 68, 25,27.

Being accountable, they (and their parents) now must be obedient to the command. I suppose one could note here that not being obedient is sin as the unbaptized, 8 and up, are in a condition that precludes eternal life.

Edited June 9, 2012 by BCSpace

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Joseph Fielding Smith can speculate all he wants, doesn't make it the truth though.

We become accountable (ie "banished <spiritually> from God's presence") when we can truly distiguish from right and wrong, not automatically when we reach 8 y.o.

Edited June 9, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Freedom]

Can someone comment on this quote from Doctrines of Salvation.

Does the child get banished right on his 8th birthday or is it some sinful act that he commits right after which is

the cause of his banishment? And how is a 5 year old child considered to be in the presence of God when he

has already inherited a spiritual separation from God and physical death from Adam?

Thanks,

Jim

I do not consider this book to be of doctrinal value. As stated, we are accountable according to our ability to understand. All require baptism once they reach the age of accountability. What is missing from the puzzle is that all will receive this ordinance so none will be left out if they seek to follow to the of their ability.

[Log]

All require baptism once they reach the age of accountability.

Here's a question, open to all - why is this so? How can it be guaranteed that all shall fail in their first encounters with the temptations of the devil?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Here's a question, open to all - why is this so? How can it be guaranteed that all shall fail in their first encounters with the temptations of the devil?

My children (if we are so blessed) will be baptized when THEY decide, not after intense pressure from everyone around them telling them, "You're 8, you know what that means!"

[CASteinman]

Here's a question, open to all - why is this so? How can it be guaranteed that all shall fail in their first encounters with the temptations of the devil?

It isn't tied to necessarily failing. Jesus was baptized. It is a requirement.

Edited June 9, 2012 by CASteinman

[Carborendum]

I state as my opinion that 8 years old is a rule of thumb only (as far as eternity is concerned). But as a matter of policy on earth, we need to be relatively uniform. Can you imagine the disorder if every bishop had to justify each month and day that each child was to be baptized?

As to the two parts of the OP in general:

1) Does a child get banished immediately on his eight birthday? I believe you are asking whether there is a line that is drawn at a precise moment. At what point is accountability going to get you banished? We are straying far into the realm of opinion and heavy interpretation. But if we accept these terms, then I will proceed with my opinion:

I believe we are expelled from God's presence far before the age of accountability. As I understand it, the veil is not drawn over our eyes at the moment of birth. It is gradually drawn over our eyes as we begin to focus more on the physical rather than the spiritual. We learn to walk, talk, breathe, run, play, smile, laugh, cry. As we focus on these things, we lose focus on the Father. Certainly it was a different process with the Savior. But He is of course the special case.

2) How is a 5 yo in God's presence when he inherited the effects of the Fall? As stated above. I don't think he necessarily is. On the other hand I don't see what that has to do with the Fall. We inherit the Fall. We also have the Atonement. The Atonement allows us to be forgiven and regain the presence of God. So, the Fall is nullified and is of no effect.

Understand my definitions of transgression vs. sin. A transgression is any breaking of the law. An accident can be a transgression. But a sin is a smaller category. It is breaking the law with knowledge and understanding of the law and of the decision you are making. the Atonement AUTOMATICALLY covers our transgressions. But you have to apply for the atonement to cover our sins.

We have been told that there are two things that are definitely not considered sins. Adam taking of the fruit, and little children who are unaccountable (again, see my comment about 8 yo being a rule of thumb).

Anything else is a judgment call that only the Lord can make. So, in the end, your question is "How does the Lord judge these things?" Well, that's why he's going to be our judge.

[Log]

It isn't tied to necessarily failing. Jesus was baptized. It is a requirement.

I'm not so sure: "... he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing..."

[Log]

Understand my definitions of transgression vs. sin. A transgression is any breaking of the law. An accident can be a transgression. But a sin is a smaller category. It is breaking the law with knowledge and understanding of the law and of the decision you are making. the Atonement AUTOMATICALLY covers our transgressions. But you have to apply for the atonement to cover our sins.

We had a thread recently in which the surprising conclusion was that that distinction does not actually exist in the scripture - transgression is a willful rebellion, whereas a sin is simply missing the mark. Transgression, in other words, is worse than mere sin, scripturally speaking. The dictionary does not recognize the distinction between the two either.

transgression

sin

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

I'm not so sure: "... he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing..."

its pretty much the well established doctrine of the Church that Baptism (for the Remission of Sins) is a requirement even for Jesus who was not in need of a remission of sins. This is described in the Book of Mormon.

[Log]

Ah, but that does not address my citation, which implies it is, in fact, connected to necessarily failing.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

Can someone comment on this quote from Doctrines of Salvation.

Does the child get banished right on his 8th birthday or is it some sinful act that he commits right after which is

the cause of his banishment? And how is a 5 year old child considered to be in the presence of God when he

has already inherited a spiritual separation from God and physical death from Adam?

According to the Book of Mormon, which is basically Arminian soteriology, "all mankind" are in a natural state of being "carnal, sensual, [and] devilish." (Mosiah 16:3). This includes children. (Mosiah 3:16) However, "as in Adam, or by nature, [children] fall, so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins." (Ibid.)

So it is not that suddenly at the age of eight, you can sin and you are cast out of God's presence. Regardless of your ability to sin, you are fallen from birth, and have a carnal and corrupt nature which is incompatible with returning to God. You are cast out of God's presence at birth. However, if you are below the age of accountability, Jesus will automatically save you from your corrupt state.

I don't believe that there is some switch that goes on at age eight, so that Jesus will automatically save you at 7, but the minute you turn 8, depending on your time zone and the timing of your birth, Jesus suddenly denies your right to automatic salvation. I think the level of "accountability" is going to be different for each child. But since it is impossible to get baptized in the LDS Church before age 8, I don't think Jesus is going to deny you automatic salvation if you are are an accountable seven-year-old who happens to die before your eighth birthday.

[CASteinman]

Ah, but that does not address my citation, which implies it is, in fact, connected to necessarily failing.

Your quote -- which is only partial -- refers to accountability and waives the requirement for those not accountable. Otherwise it is a requirement. Regardless of failure.

[Carborendum]

We had a thread recently in which the surprising conclusion was that that distinction does not actually exist in the scripture - transgression is a willful rebellion, whereas a sin is simply missing the mark. Transgression, in other words, is worse than mere sin, scripturally speaking. The dictionary does not recognize the distinction between the two either.

transgression

sin

I'd like to see a link to that thread.

I understand that the dictionary does not recognize a difference. That is why I said "my definitions".

My basis was that Adam transgressed (per 2nd AoF). Yet it certainly wasn't willful rebellion. He was faced with a decision to break either one law or the other law. He realized that of the two, one was more important than the other.

Yet we also read "it is impossible for little children to sin." This obviously means the willful rebellion because they just don't know better. So, again, I'd have to see that other thread to know how on earth these gems got overlooked.

[Log]

I'd like to see a link to that thread.

I wish I had kept a link around... sorry. I'll keep looking. I may never find it, but here is a source on the concept: http://topicalbible....ansgression.htm and http://topicalbible.org/s/sin.htm

I understand that the dictionary does not recognize a difference. That is why I said "my definitions".

Understood. My point was simply that, if there is a distinction in the scriptures between the two words, it's actually reversed from your useage. I also acknowledge that your useage is not unique to yourself.

My basis was that Adam transgressed (per 2nd AoF). Yet it certainly wasn't willful rebellion.

Ah, but it was. It certainly wasn't an unconscious rebellion.

He was faced with a decision to break either one law or the other law. He realized that of the two, one was more important than the other.

Actually, that's not how I "read" the text on that one. If you consider very carefully the literal meaning of what Adam says, you'll see that there's more going on there.

Yet we also read "it is impossible for little children to sin."

That's correct - they cannot sin because they cannot yield to the devil, specifically because he isn't permitted to tempt them. This is also why they haven't got agency, in the scriptural sense of the word agency, even though they have both free will and the power to act on their choices.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Log

[Maidservant]

I find this thread rather disturbing and sad and cynical.

The opportunity to make our first covenant at the age of 8--the trust that this involves and the capacity that our Father in heaven must believe that children have to do so--is rather miraculous and delightful to me. It's not all about sin and forgiveness of sin, although certainly that is an amazing blessing.

It's about climbing Jacob's ladder and becoming sanctified, starting AT BIRTH, and taking a SECOND step at the age of 8.

Covenants are curious things. We make them without an ability to keep them, intially. It's like birth, it IS a birth. When we are born, our potential is to be a man, but we don't start out that way. We can't even walk and talk! Being born again (baptism and its associated covenant) is also to become an infant and have things we CAN'T do, but to have entered a gate to eventually be able to do them as we obey and repent, both.

The marvelous, delightful thing is that the atonement ALREADY IS EFFECTED. It's THERE. An infant born into this world is provided with a REMISSION of sin, doctrinally speaking. Mechanically how this works (i.e. what constitutes separation from God, etc etc etc) I am not going to speak on. But the doctrine does correspond at least somewhat with the mechanics, or at least represents what the mechanics of separation and atonement do.

At the age of 8 when accountability generally tends to be developed to the degree where we can STILL HAVE REMISSION OF SIN! Not CAN'T, but CAN. Due to the doctrine of baptism and the mechanics related to baptism. Every week we partake of the sacrament prepares us for ANOTHER WEEK of SINLESSNESS. Thus, if we live in our covenants and ordinances right, then NONE of us have any sin. That's the point! We have become justified; and in a preparatory state to be sanctified. Now, obviously, it's not simply about the tokens. We cannot be justified by the law and God does not want the sacrifice of rams when we aren't even willing to be obedient. But taking the whole picture of the gospel and the atonement and stepping stone-pathway, the point is that there is the opportunity for us NEVER to be in sin and ALWAYS to be out of Satan's grasp.

This is joyous!

Why are we parsing the atonement into small grains and weighing it out as if there was any person--infant, child, adult--ever who is going to fall through the cracks of being able to be rescued if that is what they want?

Sitting here right now, I have been redeemed. I HAVE a remission of sins, right now. There is no waiting for the afterlife for this. Obviously, I still have my weaknesses and I am far from perfect. But these are not being counted to me in the sense that the Savior is forgiving me of this as long as I repent (keep repenting). It's something for NOW, not LATER.

And children who are 8 years old, especially if they have been taught diligently in the home about such things, are completely prepared and raring to go on such an adventure.

It's not about condemnation! That is a farce and deep misunderstanding of baptism.

[Nominee]

Ah, but that does not address my citation, which implies it is, in fact, connected to necessarily failing.

Just tapping in here, baptism is representative of resurrection ~ which applies with or without failing. All will be resurrected. Right? So failing would not really be necessary although the point is moot because who doesn't fail after the age of accountability with the exception of Christ?

~ Naomi

[Log]

That does not address my citation either. If, as Mormon says, baptism only availeth - is effective - for those who are under condemnation, the specific case of Jesus being commanded by the Father to be baptized to set the example for us notwithstanding, then it must be the case that by the age of 8 each accountable human being of necessity has sinned.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

That does not address my citation either. If, as Mormon says, baptism only availeth - is effective - for those who are under condemnation, the specific case of Jesus being commanded by the Father to be baptized to set the example for us notwithstanding, then it must be the case that by the age of 8 each accountable human being of necessity has sinned.

So then you believe Jesus sinned.

[Log]

No, I do not believe Jesus sinned. I believe he was specifically commanded of the Father to be baptized to set the example before us, as I said in that post which you quoted in its entirety.

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

Here's a question, open to all - why is this so? How can it be guaranteed that all shall fail in their first encounters with the temptations of the devil?

To fulfill all righteousness. (Why all require baptism once they reach the age of accountability).

RE: the OP, D&C 68:25 & 27 refer to God’s commandment to parents in relation to teaching their children to be baptized at eight years old. It is a “familial-covenantal” age of accountability. “Eight years old” gives everyone at least a year’s time to determine whether they have done their best to ensure an accountable child is ready. This instruction is primarily about the parents’ accountability (responsibility) and not the children’s. Eight years old seems to be a safe if not imperfect/imprecise target that the saints can work with for assessing accountability, just as the Word of Wisdom is a safe standard for assessing intake and spirituality.

Of course only God knows the real score, which is why D&C 18:42, 20:71, 29:47, 137:10 and Moroni 8:10 all indicate that the determination of the “age” of accountability in the Lord’s eyes, is really determination of accountability. While given to be eight years for the sake of the parents’ covenant, accountability is really dependent on individual, personal attributes and God’s judgment, and He has indicated that eight years of age (with some exceptions) should usually cover it.

Only God perceives the real exceptions from the eighth birthday, and shares these with those who are prepared to receive them. In the vast majority of cases He simply allows His Atonement to work for both parents and children after all they can do. Faith in the Atonement helps parents prepare their children for baptism at eight years old and helps the children, once accountable (and generally they already are) to forgive them for any poor teaching or improper influence resulting in rush or delay, miscalculation of their true accountability, or anything else they will undoubtedly need to forgive them for.

[Log]

To fulfill all righteousness. (Why all require baptism once they reach the age of accountability).

That's not what the scripture says. "... he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing..." This means, unless someone is condemned, they are not under the requirement to be baptized. Therefore, how is it possible that all are guaranteed to be under condemnation by age 8 or whatever age they actually hit accountability?

[CASteinman]

That's not what the scripture says. "... he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing..." This means, unless someone is condemned, they are not under the requirement to be baptized. Therefore, how is it possible that all are guaranteed to be under condemnation by age 8 or whatever age they actually hit accountability?

You keep misquoting the scripture. Also cherry picking.

Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman

[Storm Rider]

Can someone comment on this quote from Doctrines of Salvation.

Does the child get banished right on his 8th birthday or is it some sinful act that he commits right after which is

the cause of his banishment? And how is a 5 year old child considered to be in the presence of God when he

has already inherited a spiritual separation from God and physical death from Adam?

Thanks,

Jim

Hello Jim, I did not have time to read all the responses, but did want to add my two cents. LDS teaching is that all those who reach the age of accountability must be baptized. The section in this book could just as easily have read those who are 30, or 65, or 10, or 21. The writing style is a bit of hellfire and brimstone, but it remains accurate. Baptism is a required ordinance of salvation is the way that I prefer to state it.