Unaccountable People-Who And How Do You Determine Who That Is?

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

About one percent of the general population has Autism, Aspergers, or the associated complex. No more than 11% of those are of normal or better intelligence. It isn't that hard to determine intelligence either. We expect a 2 year old to act/react like a 2 year old. What we don't expect is a 22 year old to act/react like a 2 year old. While it is possible for a high IQ person to score low on an individual IQ test, it is not possible for a low IQ person to score high on it.

See http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html

[Zeta-Flux]

How do you know the second sentence is not true in general? In any event, it is specific to this case - ie, "this one."

As you know, I don't know the particulars of your case. Thus, I am unqualified to judge whether or not your analysis is correct in your case, and which is why I moved to the general case.

How do I know the second sentence is not true in general? Because we have examples of people putting trust in dead works (ala the people mentioned in Moroni 8 and making solemn mockery of the ordinance of baptism.

What I said was "I see no doctrinal reason that the unaccountable, who are of an appropriate age greater than eight years old, if they express an independent desire for baptism, that they could not be baptized." I thought it was clear from the context.

You said that? I couldn't find it. (I could find parts of it.)

And no, it wasn't entirely clear (at least to me) from context either, which is why I asked my question. Thank you for clarifying.

Follow-up question: Why make the restriction on 8 years old? In other words, do you see a doctrinal reason that makes you add that qualifier, and if so what is the underlying principle behind that doctrinal reason?

I knew what the word "worthy" meant at the time.

I'm intrigued. What did it mean to you at the time? It meant something quite different to me then than what I think of now. Edited May 17, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo1969:

About one percent of the general population has Autism, Aspergers, or the associated complex. No more than 11% of those are of normal or better intelligence. It isn't that hard to determine intelligence either. We expect a 2 year old to act/react like a 2 year old. What we don't expect is a 22 year old to act/react like a 2 year old. While it is possible for a high IQ person to score low on an individual IQ test, it is not possible for a low IQ person to score high on it.

See http://www.autreat.c...sm4-autism.html

No disrespect, but I don't see how most of that is responsive to what I said. First of all, I'm not talking about anyone on the Autism Spectrum or anyone with mental retardation. (It's obvious that someone with mental retardation, provided the instrument used to measure intelligence is valid and the person using it is appropriately qualified, by definition is not of normal intelligence.) I said that it is difficult to measure intelligence among those who have speech and motor-control difficulty, and it is. I implied that many people with such difficulties are improperly determined to have below-average intelligence, and they are. You admit as much when you say that it's possible for a person with a high IQ to score low on an IQ test.

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

Is the profession perfect? Nope. As I already said no more than 11% fall into that category.

[Log]

[D]o you see a doctrinal reason that makes you add that qualifier, and if so what is the underlying principle behind that doctrinal reason?

I see a canonized, general commandment to parents to ensure that children should be taught of faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by water, and baptism by fire, no later than the age of 8. This has been interpreted to mean that children should be baptized at the age of 8 as a matter of policy. I do not know what the underlying principle is that 8 should be set as the generalized age of baptism. I know the scriptures say that little children cannot sin save they be tempted of the devil, and power is not given to the devil to tempt little children until they begin to become accountable before the Lord. Therefore, them who are unaccountable are not under commandment to be baptized.

But, there is also a verse somewhere about needing to be commanded in all things...

I'm intrigued. What did it mean to you at the time? It meant something quite different to me then than what I think of now.

It meant I felt both unworthy and guilty at the prospect of being baptized. Some things are known by experiencing them. Now, I would express those feelings as "being under condemnation." It has the same meaning, emotionally/spiritually to me, now, as it did then.

[mfbukowski]

I'm trying to understand why, exactly, you would think I was unaware of the general rule, or why you would think I would disagree with the general rule. I'm coming up zeroes on that question. Care to enlighten?

See, I assumed that any person who had read any of my posts for any length of time on this board would probably have been aware that I was both LDS and aware, on perhaps some precognitive level, of some of the doctrines of the Church. On that reasoning, a response to my post like yours would scream condescension, as of course any LDS would be aware of the canonized requirements for baptism. Strangely, I guess it's not the case that I am known to be LDS.

I'm LDS. If it matters.

Do you have any reason to believe it would displease God if one who was of an appropriate age and who expressed a desire for baptism were to be baptized, even if that individual was unaccountable before God for his sins?

For what it's worth, I had about the same reaction. Just in case the mods want to ban you for that one.

Not that they would care what I say anyway.

Edited May 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Does your son agree with you that he is unaccountable?

And he would know because....

Have you ever heard of the "Liar's Pardox"? It requires a "metalanguage" to break out of the cycle- in this case represented by another person, otherwise even asking this question leads to an infinite regress.

But that is perhaps for another thread.... or something.

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo1969:

Is the profession perfect? Nope. As I already said no more than 11% fall into that category.

Sigh! We're talking past one another about different things. (It's bad enough when two people do that about the same thing, but we're doing it about different things.)

Edited May 17, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Zeta-Flux]

And he would know because....

Well, he might not know but he might have formed an opinion if his parents had discussed the issue with him. I would think it relevant to discuss it since he wants to be baptized, but that's my armchair me talking.

Have you ever heard of the "Liar's Pardox"? It requires a "metalanguage" to break out of the cycle- in this case represented by another person, otherwise even asking this question leads to an infinite regress.

Yes. I'm writing a research paper about the surprise examination paradox right now.

[Louis C. Ferr]

Who are truly the un accountable? That is a great question. Are the un accountable those who by some strange hapstance bear no repercussions for their actions, even when their actions are directly contrary to the rules decreed by a higher power?

Why do they get a pass? Apparently that lack mental facilities sufficient to be aware of right or wrong.

But is this truly because of something they did previa?

Thanks,

-Lou

[thesometimesaint]

Louis C. Ferr:

Who are truly the un accountable? That is a great question. Are the un accountable those who by some strange hapstance bear no repercussions for their actions, even when their actions are directly contrary to the rules decreed by a higher power?

Why do they get a pass? Apparently that lack mental facilities sufficient to be aware of right or wrong.

But is this truly because of something they did previa?

Thanks,

-Lou

In LDS Theology those who are under 8 years of age, those that are developmentally disabled to such an extent they don't know the implications of right and wrong, and personally I believe those that are severely mentally ill.

God takes EVERYTHING into account.

[mfbukowski]

Well, he might not know but he might have formed an opinion if his parents had discussed the issue with him. I would think it relevant to discuss it since he wants to be baptized, but that's my armchair me talking.

Yes. I'm writing a research paper about the surprise examination paradox right now.

Mazel tov.

[mfbukowski]

But is this truly because of something they did previa?

I haven't heard anyone saying that here, though it might be a caricature of a Mormon position.