CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Sorry, I didn't realize the black and white of it was ness. here. I should have added an "etc." to the back of the 3.Let me try again."Little children" are the children not yet at the age of accountability. And before it comes up again, I posted how I feel about the borderliners in a previous post #29.~ NaomiI didn't say it was black and white. I don't agree with black and white thinking, but I accept what the scriptures say on the matter -- and sometimes I do not understand some things. I'm not upset when I do not understand some things about the Lord's plan that are, perhaps, esoteric.I agree with what you said in your post #29. I thought it was an excellent post. I also think 8 years old is a good age. Seems like that is just about the earliest time frame when most of us start to be come a bit insightful.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I think the discussion with Log had two elements...1 Applying standards of "those without the law" to "little children" 2. A focus on the boundary time between "sinlessness" and no accountability to condemnation and accountability. I just do not see how little children who are baptized at age 8 are under condemnation -- before or during their baptism. But I can imagine it not too long afterwards in at least a few cases.
Carborendum Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 My point was simply that, if there is a distinction in the scriptures between the two words, it's actually reversed from your useage. From this I believe you are saying that the "scriptural" definitions of the two are reversed from my definitions. I've heard someone else say that as well. But they were unable to provide the scriptural basis for such definitions. Again, I'm open to learning. But thus far I have not seen them.Ah, but it was. It certainly wasn't an unconscious rebellion....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. Maybe you're playing a semantic game with the word "rebellion". I can see that scriptural accounts don't do the characterization of the decision process justice. But the temple ceremony spoke to me as a decision he did not want to make, but he felt he had to. If that's not what you got out of it, I'm not going to discuss it further on a public board.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. Boy, I pretty much disagree with everything in these sentences. But when I try to put it to words, I find that the disagreement is on such a fundamental level that it would be impossible to really carry on a productive discussion about it.
Maidservant Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Again: whoever is not condemned cannot repent, and for such baptism is a dead work, being of no effect. Notwithstanding everything you have brought up--I know that in the case of some mentally challenged children an individual case by case basis is made as to whether or not they should or CAN be baptized. It would be impossible to decide how accountable they are in sin, but they are aware enough to have a desire to obey like the other primary children, they are looking forward to participating, so if they are that aware, I don't think things are denied them.But for your logistics, if you are uncondemnable but aware such as Jesus as soon as you DON'T get baptized, then you have done your first condemnable act? A catch 22, and I don't care about thinking like this, but I thought it might be interesting way of thinking about it for you.
Maidservant Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 The law of noncontradiction is not optional. A statement and its logical negation cannot be simultaneously true. But a contradiction in your thinking would go far to explain why you object to my argument.Since I am simply quoting him, your attempt to draw a distinction between what I say he says and what he says is interesting, to say the least.Truth always contains paradox. If you only have half the paradox, you have half the truth. Paradoxes often look like contradictions at first glance.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I was probably surly and unkind yesterday. I want to apologize to Log and to anyone else I offended. Turns out .. well OK, I knew I was not feeling well, but it turns out I was a bit worse than I had thought. Not to excuse it, but I think the illness affected my patience. I am sorry.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 No problem, CS. I humbly beg your forgiveness for my late-night testiness too.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) But for your logistics, if you are uncondemnable but aware such as Jesus as soon as you DON'T get baptized, then you have done your first condemnable act? A catch 22, and I don't care about thinking like this, but I thought it might be interesting way of thinking about it for you.Here's why there is no catch-22: baptism is the first fruit of repentance - and if you have no sin, you cannot repent, and hence have no need of baptism, and are not commanded to be baptized. Awareness isn't the issue - sin is. Christ, again, is the sole exception, he being specifically commanded to be baptized as an example to us of what we, as sinners, need to do to become acceptable to God. Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
Minos Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I am going to spend a few minutes deleting most of my posts above because this has become an exceedingly pedantic, tedious conversation that will really annoy other people on this board. So I am going to try to make my posts become as small and unobtrusive as possible. Then I am going to see if you have gotten back on track.If you have a complaint send in a report. If you disrupt the conversation by deleting posts again you will be thread banned or worse.
CV75 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 There is an irony or a catch-22 situation.Children are to be taught all their lives to understand the doctrine (the first principles and ordinances of the gospel). They do not have to be accountable for the parents to teach them or to develop a moral understanding. Children at a very early age can understand these principles, even though they do not have the wherewithal on a number of levels and points to practice them at a covenantal level.They are taught to be baptized for the remission of sins when eight years old. This remission, as they later realize, includes sins yet to be committed, including the sin of not agreeing to baptism to fulfill all righteousness in those cases where the child may have been sinless at the time, or later rejecting the baptism they received as a child under the oversight of parents or priesthood leaders.
KevinG Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 It is the parents that are under condemnation if a child is not taught the Gospel by the age of accountability - not the child.D&C 68:25 And again, inasmuch as aparents have children in Zion, or in any of her bstakes which are organized, that cteach them not to understand the ddoctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eeight years old, the fsin be upon the heads of the parents.
CV75 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 It is the parents that are under condemnation if a child is not taught the Gospel by the age of accountability - not the child.D&C 68:25 And again, inasmuch as aparents have children in Zion, or in any of her bstakes which are organized, that cteach them not to understand the ddoctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eeight years old, the fsin be upon the heads of the parents.Yes—God has shared that parents who fail in this obligation are condemned. Perhaps part of it is because they impose upon their children, disadvantage them, or condemn them, to a life without understanding and timely baptism. Of course everyone can still repent.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Therefore, the question remains: how is it that it is guaranteed that all who hit the age of accountability, whatever that is for each individual, have already yielded to the temptations of the devil, wherein they are condemned before God?That's not the issue. The issue is that, according to the Book of Mormon, everyone from birth, as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve, is in a fallen state, and has become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and will remain that way until they are redeemed by Jesus. Children have fallen into a carnal state regardless of whether or not they actually sin (Mos. 3:16: "even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved."). Little children need redemption even though they cannot sin--it's just that if they die before age of accountability, redemption is automatic.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 The "little children" in the scriptures are NOT the accountable 8 year olds and up! They are LITTLE children ~ newborns, one, two and three year olds that in some religions are baptized at this age because it is believed that they started sinning the moment they were born. This is what the scriptures are disagreeing with.Faiths that baptize infants do not do so because they think babies can sin. The reasons for pedobaptism are varied. Catholics baptize infants because they believe that the sacrament of baptism regenerates the soul and reverses the carnal and fallen state into which humans are born as a result of the Fall. Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans baptize infants as a symbolic admission to the fold of God.
Aliwe Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Faiths that baptize infants do not do so because they think babies can sin. The reasons for pedobaptism are varied. Catholics baptize infants because they believe that the sacrament of baptism regenerates the soul and reverses the carnal and fallen state into which humans are born as a result of the Fall. Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans baptize infants as a symbolic admission to the fold of God.Paul described baptism as the anti-type of circumcision, and circumcision was performed on infants without their profession of faith.Colossians 2:11-12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
maxrep12 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Covenants are curious things. We make them without an ability to keep them, intially.And perhaps without an ability to understand them.Lets be clear, at age 8, baptism is the initiative of the parents and the church community. It is a faith tradition. What percentage of 8 year olds opt to decline baptism in our faith? Roughly the same percentage of infants who opt to decline baptism in other faiths. Edited June 23, 2012 by maxrep12
thesometimesaint Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 maxrep12:Though pretty rare I have known of cases where 8 year olds have said they wanted to wait.
Recommended Posts