thesometimesaint Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Altersteve:Little children can not sin. For any act to be a sin one must know that it is a sin, and still do it anyway.
seriously honestly Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 You know my Uncle was given the name Stephen Lawrence Cooper, my oldest brother was named after him, and almost died of the same thing, but in 1954 medicine had progressed enough to save him. As for original sin, what to you think of the OT Scripture that Christ would make a new covenant, do away with this. Christ atoned for "original sin".I believe Christ atoned for original sin (and everyother sin out there), but that doesn't erase that we are born with a sin nature and have to deal with the effects of original sin. Even so, I don't believe infants and young children are accountable for their sins (I should also add that I don't believe there is a certain age--8 for example--when they all of the sudden become accountable; I think that is different for each child).
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Altersteve:Little children can not sin. For any act to be a sin one must know that it is a sin, and still do it anyway.I define "sin" as doing or thinking anything that is wrong; even if you don't know what you're doing is wrong, you're still doing something wrong. And, technically, little children can do things that are, technically, wrong. God simply won't hold it against them, because the grace of Christ covers those sins automatically without the need for anything on their part. Edited October 5, 2011 by altersteve
3DOP Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I am not seeking to write a book, this is why I noted the teaching they each have as it related to "original sin". I am posting on Mormon belief's from a number of sources...this is a Mormon site; correct?Hi Pa PaI am not telling you to believe non-LDS doctrine. I am not telling you to say that our doctrine is correct. I am telling you not to make error appear more sinister than it is. Even error has rights. It has the right to be properly represented. Cobalt-70 and I offer information to show that the contemporary doctrines of pedobaptists are more acceptable and compatible with Mormonism than those being examined by Moroni. Don't ignore those considerations.Overcome evil with good. It isn't right to lump in every pedobaptist with those of Moroni's day. I gave an example of how I know that Catholics carry a different doctrine. I plainly explained that Catholics teach that no dead unbaptized baby is punished with ANY kind of sense pain experience, since they are innocent of any actual sin. Cobalt-70 took it further and explained how LDS, Catholic, and Protestant views are upon analysis, much closer than those being critiqued in the Book of Moroni.Since you want the sympathy of the Catholics and Protestants who hassle you so much on this website of yours, you might try yourself to understand and explain accurately what non-LDS really teach. It isn't always easy. Sometimes it appears to me that it isn't faith in the beauty of truth to which we hold that is strong, but rather faith in the blackness of the error we reject. That is a terrible mistake because it makes us susceptible to infidelity so soon as that darkness is made a little brighter. We begin to have a stake in needing error to be as black as possible. I hope that next time someone comments to you about how puzzled they are that pedobaptists could believe that dead unbaptized babies actually sinned and therefore burn in hell, you'll be willing to defend us with what we really believe.3DOP
Cobalt-70 Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Little children can not sin. For any act to be a sin one must know that it is a sin, and still do it anyway.That's what the Book of Mormon says. See Moroni 8:5 ("little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin"). However, also according to the book,children still need the Atonement because of original sin--they are born with a sinful nature, but "the curse of Adam is taken from them in [Jesus]." (again, Moroni 8:5).
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 5, 2011 Author Posted October 5, 2011 I believe Christ atoned for original sin (and everyother sin out there), but that doesn't erase that we are born with a sin nature and have to deal with the effects of original sin. Even so, I don't believe infants and young children are accountable for their sins (I should also add that I don't believe there is a certain age--8 for example--when they all of the sudden become accountable; I think that is different for each child).I agree with the sudden age of eight; that is when baptized, different children become aware and accountable at different ages. But I have to ask, how an infant could be held accountable for his or her sins. By this do you mean that if they die as infants they will be judged? Judgment means the possibility of punishment. For many Christians denominations that can mean only one of two things. We can rule one out via Christ’s words…”for such is the kingdom of God”.
Zakuska Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 That's what the Book of Mormon says. See Moroni 8:5 ("little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin"). However, also according to the book,children still need the Atonement because of original sin--they are born with a sinful nature, but "the curse of Adam is taken from them in [Jesus]." (again, Moroni 8:5).Thats the whole point of Romans 4. That Christ took away Adams transgression and the punishment thereof. The second Adam from heaven.
thesometimesaint Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Cobalt-70:Little children are alive in Christ. They are automatically covered by the atonement to the renewing of their bodies. They unlike us have nothing to repent of.
Calm Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Even so, I don't believe infants and young children are accountable for their sins (I should also add that I don't believe there is a certain age--8 for example--when they all of the sudden become accountable; I think that is different for each child).most LDS would agree with you. The age of 8 was likely chosen by the Lord as when the vast majority understand laws and consequences and right and wrong to be held accountable for most of their actions (expecting a child of that age to be able to discuss the morality behind stealing food for someone else who is starving when there is no other way or lying to save someone's life may be appropriate would be misguided, but for most decisions a child needs to make, most are culpable by that age in my opinion). Some children never reach the age of accountability, in those cases a baptism would not have the same meaning. For those who are less accountable, baptism would cover whatever amount they are accountable and as we grow in knowledge and spirituality and morality, one could say the baptism applies to that greater development. Simply because a child is baptized, LDS do not see them as fully accountable beings as we would an older person well schooled in the Gospel.
seriously honestly Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I agree with the sudden age of eight; that is when baptized, different children become aware and accountable at different ages. But I have to ask, how an infant could be held accountable for his or her sins. By this do you mean that if they die as infants they will be judged? Judgment means the possibility of punishment. For many Christians denominations that can mean only one of two things. We can rule one out via Christ’s words…”for such is the kingdom of God”.(Bold mine)I don't believe they are held accountable for their sins.
3DOP Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Hi Pa PaI am not telling you to believe non-LDS doctrine. I am not telling you to say that our doctrine is correct. I am telling you not to make error appear more sinister than it is. Even error has rights. It has the right to be properly represented. Cobalt-70 and I offer information to show that the contemporary doctrines of pedobaptists are more acceptable and compatible with Mormonism than those being examined by Moroni. Don't ignore those considerations.Overcome evil with good. It isn't right to lump in every pedobaptist with those of Moroni's day. I gave an example of how I know that Catholics carry a different doctrine. I plainly explained that Catholics teach that no dead unbaptized baby is punished with ANY kind of sense pain experience, since they are innocent of any actual sin. Cobalt-70 took it further and explained how LDS, Catholic, and Protestant views are upon analysis, much closer than those being critiqued in the Book of Moroni.Since you want the sympathy of the Catholics and Protestants who hassle you so much on this website of yours, you might try yourself to understand and explain accurately what non-LDS really teach. It isn't always easy. Sometimes it appears to me that it isn't faith in the beauty of truth to which we hold that is strong, but rather faith in the blackness of the error we reject. That is a terrible mistake because it makes us susceptible to infidelity so soon as that darkness is made a little brighter. We begin to have a stake in needing error to be as black as possible. I hope that next time someone comments to you about how puzzled they are that pedobaptists could believe that dead unbaptized babies actually sinned and therefore burn in hell, you'll be willing to defend us with what we really believe.3DOPIn keeping with the original post, which begins by referencing how awful people who call themselves Christian can behave, I want to expand on what I mentioned above about how we sometimes take solace in believing that others are spiteful, arrogant, and more menacingly wrong in their doctrines than they really are.There was a guy at our Bible school when I was in ministerial training who seemed outwardly zealous. One of his activities took place at work. He worked at a facility that made railroad box cars. He would go into these boxcars and start singing Baptist hymns so loudly that they would echo enough as to arouse the antipathy of his fellow employees who were not so appreciative of his musical talents and inclinations. He always took it for granted that they despised him because he was representing the Lord, and explained proudly that those who "live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."True enough. If we are not facing some kind of persecution, we might need to do some self-examination. But all antipathy, all persecution isn't necessarily because we are "living godly in Christ Jesus". I remember this guy as someone who borrowed without returning and who eventually dropped out. He was unstable. Eventually he got into trouble for doing something stupid at school. I forget what. It was bad enough that the Dean of Men's office decided to make an example of him and made the "turkey award" especially for him. I am not commending the prudence of making of him a public example, but they did. Thirty years later I can remember seeing him stand up on the stage with his head high and chest puffed out while someone put some turkey symbol on a string around his neck. I am pretty sure he still thought he was "living godly in Christ Jesus" since he was being persecuted. I don't know what happened to him after he left without returning what he borrowed. He had a need to be despised that gave him assurance of faith. Faith in the darkness of his enemies.I am thinking that people who deliberately go places and do things where they know they are sure to be mocked and despised might be doing so out of similar motives. To be sure, Jesus knew that He would be scourged, mocked, and abused and deliberately went where that would happen. I can not know that there is not some salvific purpose behind returning time and again to a website that seems hateful. I am merely suggesting that it is possible that we deceive ourselves on purpose sometimes about how nasty our enemies, imagined or real, are, because that helps us to believe more certainly in whatever beliefs we hold.I am not suggesting that my Catholic doctrine of infant baptism should be completely acceptable to Mormons. I am just trying to explain to myself why, in over ten years of mostly amiable relations with LDS on the internet, I have on more than one occasion come away with a sense that my counterpart was disappointed to learn that I did not believe dead unbaptized babies were being tortured in hellfire. One can tell that this is the case if the next step is to turn to our doctrine to discover whether or not dead unbaptized babies are assigned the best places in heaven. When I admit that I doubt that to be the case (although I cannot know for sure), THAT doctrine begins to be analyzed so as to make it appear in the most cruel light. Edited October 5, 2011 by 3DOP
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 5, 2011 Author Posted October 5, 2011 Hi Pa PaI am not telling you to believe non-LDS doctrine. I am not telling you to say that our doctrine is correct. I am telling you not to make error appear more sinister than it is. Even error has rights. It has the right to be properly represented. Cobalt-70 and I offer information to show that the contemporary doctrines of pedobaptists are more acceptable and compatible with Mormonism than those being examined by Moroni. Don't ignore those considerations.Overcome evil with good. It isn't right to lump in every pedobaptist with those of Moroni's day. I gave an example of how I know that Catholics carry a different doctrine. I plainly explained that Catholics teach that no dead unbaptized baby is punished with ANY kind of sense pain experience, since they are innocent of any actual sin. Cobalt-70 took it further and explained how LDS, Catholic, and Protestant views are upon analysis, much closer than those being critiqued in the Book of Moroni.Since you want the sympathy of the Catholics and Protestants who hassle you so much on this website of yours, you might try yourself to understand and explain accurately what non-LDS really teach. It isn't always easy. Sometimes it appears to me that it isn't faith in the beauty of truth to which we hold that is strong, but rather faith in the blackness of the error we reject. That is a terrible mistake because it makes us susceptible to infidelity so soon as that darkness is made a little brighter. We begin to have a stake in needing error to be as black as possible. I hope that next time someone comments to you about how puzzled they are that pedobaptists could believe that dead unbaptized babies actually sinned and therefore burn in hell, you'll be willing to defend us with what we really believe.3DOPPlease understand that it was not my intent to say something anti-Catholic; since they are a targeted group by CARM...what I apparently did so (with to little explanation) was to link the idea of "original sin" with other groups, not the ravings of a few who said the things I listed about motherhood and children. I am quit aware of the Catholic Church's position on marriage and children...God bless them. I just don't understand child baptisms however. Too often I edit my own thoughts when posting without seeing how it might be received.
3DOP Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Please understand that it was not my intent to say something anti-Catholic; since they are a targeted group by CARM...what I apparently did so (with to little explanation) was to link the idea of "original sin" with other groups, not the ravings of a few who said the things I listed about motherhood and children. I am quit aware of the Catholic Church's position on marriage and children...God bless them. I just don't understand child baptisms however. Too often I edit my own thoughts when posting without seeing how it might be received.Okay Pa Pa. Thanks. I am sure you'll note my follow-up to my original post came before you made this one which satisfies me. While I cannot deny that it was pretty obviously written with you in mind, I was most sincere in using the plural "we" in my follow-up comments which speak about how all of us can sometimes take comfort in how wrong, ugly, or bad somebody else's beliefs are. I think I see this everywhere, and you may be assured that I know that neither myself, nor other Catholics are ever immune to the disease. I think all of us need to keep constant watch against the desire to make the beliefs that are not ours appear in their worst light.On the other hand, after we have done all that we can to understand the other party, we are obligated to ignore any sympathies that may crop up in the process of seeing how close our doctrines are and admit that those we have come to admire and hopefully love, still hold to this or that unacceptable error. I am not advocating indifference to error when I say that "error has rights". We still must condemn the error. I expect that from anyone I could take seriously. I am closer in worldview to one who says my church is from the devil than I am to the one who says that whatever I believe is okay.
mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 On a website that I frequent and frequently get banned from for days, sometimes weeks our (LDS) view concerning marriage and children is a topic of scorn. Once, there was a long running thread that spoke of children as young as 8 months being just as evil as any adult. Women in the LDS Church are referred too as “baby machines”, “having “litters” (like they are dogs) and babies referred to a gluttonous, violent, brats, nose miners, etc.Golly those sound like nice folks!I really can see why you like to hang out with them! You're a lucky guy!
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 7, 2011 Author Posted October 7, 2011 Golly those sound like nice folks!I really can see why you like to hang out with them! You're a lucky guy!Hangin in...
mfbukowski Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Hangin in...Was it Ben Franklin who said "We must hang together, or we most assuredly will hang separately"?
Calm Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Apparently:http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote71.htm
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Dang, am I good or what?My wife would immediately say "WHAT!"
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 10, 2011 Author Posted October 10, 2011 Dang, am I good or what?My wife would immediately say "WHAT!"Why are w married to the same woman? That is a long running joke in my house.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 10, 2011 Author Posted October 10, 2011 Golly those sound like nice folks!I really can see why you like to hang out with them! You're a lucky guy!In my absence they are still arguing as to why children are not sinless...
seriously honestly Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 In my absence they are still arguing as to why children are not sinless...But how many of them believe they are condemned?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 11, 2011 Author Posted October 11, 2011 But how many of them believe they are condemned?But even among many (even if they say they are “not” condemned) they freely admit that they are ‘worthy” of hell but redeemed by the grace of God. Infants are not worthy of hell in any way. This type of thinking and teaching as the BoM teaches leaves the adherents in this condition…Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent.
mfbukowski Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Why are w married to the same woman? I thought we gave that up over a hundred years ago!
Recommended Posts