Stargazer Posted January 16, 2018 Posted January 16, 2018 18 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: Joseph Smith said the Trinity is three gods. "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370) The Godhead consists of the three distinct personages and three gods.. The Father Son and Holy Spirit. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones, while the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit. Robert Millet A Different Jesus page 198 The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35). Bruce McConkie states: "There are three Gods...separate in personality, united in purpose, in plan, and in all attributes of perfection" (Mormon Doctrine, p.270). Fine, they're separate. And they are one God. Question: How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Answer: As many that want to. 3
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 On 1/14/2018 at 8:49 PM, Josh Khinder said: You seem to have both wrong, The Mormon Trinity is 1+1+1 = 3 gods The Christian trinity is 1X1X1 = 1 GOD One Substance means ONE GOD Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ] Which are meaningless obviously as is clear in this post. When you have 8 words all synonyms which are undefinable, you've got logical problems. Why is this still going?
Calm Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Which are meaningless obviously as is clear in this post. When you have 8 words all synonyms which are undefinable, you've got logical problems. Why is this still going? And as if multiplication of persons actually means anything.... In math, multiplication means adding a number of somethings to the same number so many times. 1x1x1 therefore means taking one thing and not adding anymore to it, but just counting it once and then doing the same thing over again. 2x2x2 thus would be counting two two times (or having two groups of two) or four and then taking four and counting it twice (two groups of four). The only reason they even think that using 1x1x1 makes sense is because anything multiplied once is itself...Iow, counting something once. If there were 3 groups/sets of two persons as one being three sets of 1 and they used 2x2x2, it would not equal 1 or even equal 2. 2x2x2 does not represent 3 groups of 2 and thus 1x1x1 cannot represent in any way 3 separate persons or groups of 1. 1x1x1 cannot mean three different things/persons or even three identical things. It means only 1 thing. Edited January 17, 2018 by Calm 1
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: Fine, they're separate. And they are one God. Question: How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Answer: As many that want to. Actually the issue there was about "immaterial matter" in our parlance, or whether or not angelic bodies could occupy the same space. It's actually a pretty good example of medieval reasoning by one of the greatest minds ever, Aquinas. And also an example of how such brilliance becomes irrelevant today. This is precisely the kind of reasoning which leads to the Trinity. I think it's a fun read but your mileage may vary as we say hereabouts, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm This is an example of how they thought about substance and some of these issues other than the Trinity- and shows the convoluted logic which was part of the time "The Philosopher" is Aristotle- which also underlines the fact that substance theology is not biblical- it is based on pagan Greek philosophy. Quote Article 1. Whether an angel is in a place? Objection 1. It would seem that an angel is not in a place. For Boethius says (De Hebdom.): "The common opinion of the learned is that things incorporeal are not in a place." And again, Aristotle observes (Phys. iv, text 48,57) that "it is not everything existing which is in a place, but only a movable body." But an angel is not a body, as was shown above (Article 50). Therefore an angel is not in a place. Objection 2. Further, place is a "quantity having position." But everything which is in a place has some position. Now to have a position cannot benefit an angel, since his substance is devoid of quantity, the proper difference of which is to have a position. Therefore an angel is not in a place. Objection 3. Further, to be in a place is to be measured and to be contained by such place, as is evident from the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text 14,119). But an angel can neither be measured nor contained by a place, because the container is more formal than the contained; as air with regard to water (Phys. iv, text 35,49). Therefore an angel is not in a place. On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [Prayer at Compline, Dominican Breviary]: "Let Thy holy angels who dwell herein, keep us in peace." I answer that, It is befitting an angel to be in a place; yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place in quite a different sense. A body is said to be in a place in such a way that it is applied to such place according to the contact of dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one. Consequently an angel is said to be in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place. Edited January 17, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
Josh Khinder Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 15 hours ago, snowflake said: The BOM agrees with the bible on many doctrinal topics, this being one of them. That being said, there are many doctrines in the BOM that the current Salt Lake LDS sect don't recognize or practice, being born "fallen" would be one of them. Article of faith #2 would deny what the BOM and Bible teach about being under the curse of Adam. AOF #2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Looks like the Articles of Faith deny the original sin idea voiced in the Book of Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe said, "In the true gospel of Jesus Christ there is no original sin" (E. & R., p. 195). Mosiah 16: 3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. 4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state. Mosiah 3 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. 2 Nephi 2: 21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: Looks like the Articles of Faith deny the original sin idea voiced in the Book of Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe said, "In the true gospel of Jesus Christ there is no original sin" (E. & R., p. 195). Mosiah 16: 3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. 4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state. Mosiah 3 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. 2 Nephi 2: 21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. If the Book of Mormon teaches men will be punished for Adam’s transgression, how do you account for the following verses from the book of Moroni? 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! (Moroni 8:8-12) Edited January 17, 2018 by Bobbieaware
Stargazer Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Which are meaningless obviously as is clear in this post. When you have 8 words all synonyms which are undefinable, you've got logical problems. Why is this still going? Why? Because some of us seem to think that at some point Josh will suddenly realize that he's wrong. Or will give up and go pester someone else. Neither of which is likely to happen in the short term, it appears. And probably not the long, either, though the latter outcome is more likely. I'm sure getting tired of trying to enlighten him. And I think I've come to the end of my participation in this particular thread, or subthread. See you on the flipside. 2
Stargazer Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: If the Book of Mormon teaches men will be punished for Adam’s transgression, how do you account for the following verses from the book of Moroni? 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. 9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! (Moroni 8:8-12) I've already put these verses to him when he brought up original sin the first time. He ignored it. As you can tell, he doesn't care if he's been shown to be wrong. You're wasting your time, as we all are. 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: I've already put these verses to him when he brought up original sin the first time. He ignored it. As you can tell, he doesn't care if he's been shown to be wrong. You're wasting your time, as we all are. Thanks. What he doesn’t seem to understand is we do indeed believe we inherit the fallen nature from Adam, but just not legal responsibility for his transgression. He also seems to fail to understand we do believe there is a very real curse of Adam that WOULD HAVE damed us all to a state of total estrangement from God forever, but because of the atonement of Christ the effects of the curse of Adam (unending total estrangement) have been mitigated so that we enjoy the presence of the light of Christ from birth and by this means we are made perfectly free to choose between good and evil and ultimately chose Christ as our Savior, either while on earth or after death in the spirit world. Edited January 17, 2018 by Bobbieaware
snowflake Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said: Thanks. What he doesn’t seem to understand is we do indeed believe we inherit the fallen nature from Adam, but just not legal responsibility for his transgression. He also seems to fail to understand we do believe there is a very real curse of Adam that WOULD HAVE damed us all to a state of total estrangement from God forever, but because of the atonement of Christ the effects of the curse of Adam (unending total estrangement) have been mitigated so that we enjoy the presence of the light of Christ from birth and by this means we are made perfectly free to choose between good and evil and ultimately chose Christ as our Savior, either while on earth or after death in the spirit world. This helps me understand where you are coming from here, thank you. I would like to point out what seems to me to be a contradiction. Moroni chapter 8 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! It seems to me that according to these verses at some point either Christ abandons children allowing them to sin and at that point they need baptism and repentance, or that Children are incapable of sin. Both of these do not seem to be true, Once Christ is with someone he would not abandon them and if you have kids you know very well at age 3 they manipulate, lie, steal, cheat, hit, bite, pull hair and disobey their parents (all sin).
RevTestament Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: Looks like the Articles of Faith deny the original sin idea voiced in the Book of Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe said, "In the true gospel of Jesus Christ there is no original sin" (E. & R., p. 195). Mosiah 16: 3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. 4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state. Mosiah 3 19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. 2 Nephi 2: 21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. I am going to try once more, because you continue to confuse a fallen state, subject to sin, with a sin imputed from Adam. What you see with Adam is man becoming subject to the law. The failure of man to live up to the law brought about his fallen state or a state whereby God left man to man's own agency. The error of the doctrine of original sin is to impute the punishment of the sin of Adam to all men who come into the world, when it was merely a type for that punishment. We are not punished for Adam's transgression, but are free to take hold of the tree of life. Babies cannot know the law, and therefore cannot sin. The doctrine of original sin nevertheless dooms them to hell as being born in sin, which is error. Under the law we are not responsible for the sins of our father. Deut 24:16. The point of Gen 2-4 is that like Paul said, the law came and I died. When God gave the law to man, man became subject to spiritual death. It is not guaranteed. We can escape it through our Savior. Until we commit a transgression though, that death has no hold upon us. Thus, since little babies cannot transgress the law, they need no baptism, and indeed it is wrong to impose rebirth upon them without their consent or agency - just like we cannot force an adult to become Christian. Again, being left to one's own agency is not a punishment. It is a two edged-sword. It gives us power over our destiny. Without it we cannot be made like YHWH Elohim. Gen 3:22 - another huge mistake by Orthodoxy. Edited January 17, 2018 by RevTestament
RevTestament Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, snowflake said: This helps me understand where you are coming from here, thank you. I would like to point out what seems to me to be a contradiction. Moroni chapter 8 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! It seems to me that according to these verses at some point either Christ abandons children allowing them to sin and at that point they need baptism and repentance, or that Children are incapable of sin. Both of these do not seem to be true, Once Christ is with someone he would not abandon them and if you have kids you know very well at age 3 they manipulate, lie, steal, cheat, hit, bite, pull hair and disobey their parents (all sin). God recognizes that babies and little children are still learning the law, and does not hold them accountable for a law they cannot yet know. Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Hence, little children are given a "grace period" through the grace of their Savior. 1
snowflake Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, RevTestament said: God recognizes that babies and little children are still learning the law, and does not hold them accountable for a law they cannot yet know. Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Hence, little children are given a "grace period" through the grace of their Savior. Isa 7:16 is referencing Jesus, not all children. 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
RevTestament Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 56 minutes ago, snowflake said: Isa 7:16 is referencing Jesus, not all children. 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Um no. It is referencing Isaiah's son in all probability. Like Moses he foreshadowed Jesus, but it was not a prophecy of Jesus per se. The land that was forsaken of both her kings was Syria and the king of Israel who were joining forces. But Assyria swept in before the child was old enough to know to choose between good and evil, and defeated the two northern allied kings. What two kings do you think it is talking about?
Bobbieaware Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, snowflake said: This helps me understand where you are coming from here, thank you. I would like to point out what seems to me to be a contradiction. Moroni chapter 8 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! It seems to me that according to these verses at some point either Christ abandons children allowing them to sin and at that point they need baptism and repentance, or that Children are incapable of sin. Both of these do not seem to be true, Once Christ is with someone he would not abandon them and if you have kids you know very well at age 3 they manipulate, lie, steal, cheat, hit, bite, pull hair and disobey their parents (all sin). Christ doesn’t abandon children as they grow and mature. The fact is the LDS scriptures declare children BEGIN TO ESTRANGE THEMSELVES from God as they mature and loose their childhood innocence, becoming more and more accountable before him until they commit their first punishable sins. Such violations of the laws of God are inevitable because we are all born into the fallen state brought to pass by the transgression of Adam. But thankfully, because God is just children cannot be condemned for sin until they become sufficiently conscious and aware that what they are doing — or not doing — is morally offensive in the eyes of God and deserving of punishment. But thanks to the atonement of Christ, the benefits of which are retroactive, the fallen state in which we exist is not one of total estrangement from God and unavoidable moral depravity, that is unless we freely choose for such a miserable state of personal existence to be so. Because he is rich mercy, God endows every man with a moral conscience through the indwelling presence of the light of Christ, the same light of conscience that is given to every man and woman who comes into the world. The light of Christ is the very same light of moral awareness that causes men to feel convicted in their sins and realize they desperately need an atoning Savior even before they consciously give their lives to him. In order to understand Mormonism, it must be understood we believe that, up until the age of eight, the Lord has revealed little children exist in a grace period, one in which he does not hold them morally accountable in the same way he holds culpable those who have gained sufficient experience to become truly aware that they are violating the laws of God and are in rebellion as they commit sin. The following excerpt from the LDS Book of Moses beautifully explains what I am attempting to communicate. I will insert some comments of my own in parentheses. 53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. (In Mormonism, because God forgave Adam his transgression in the garden, men are not punished for Adam’s transgression, as if they had committed the offense themselves, but we do inherit the fallen state that the transgression brought into the world) 54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. (Note here that if it weren’t for the retroactive benefits of the atonement of Christ all would be born morally culpable and be punished for the transgression of Adam) 55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. (Here we learn that because of the fall of Adam all who are morally accountable exist in a state of sin, but because little children exist in a temporary state of grace they are not held morally accountable until they are sufficiently aware of the fact that they are offending God and cognizant of the fact that punishment awaits for violating his will.) 56 And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment. (As they mature, little children EVENTUALLY arrive at the point when they can properly discern the difference between good and evil and therefore be held morally responsible.) 57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time. (After becoming amply aware of the fact that he commits sin, for which he deserves divine disapproval and punishment, the only way a man can be saved and dwell in the presence of God is to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repent of his sins and seek divine pardon. It is for this reason that the Latter-day Saints believe everyone who has ever lived, either while on earth or while sojourning in the realm of the spirits of the departed dead, must have the opportunity to hear, understand and with full awareness of what they are choosing accept or reject Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. This great missionary endeavor must be completed before the great day of final judgement.) Moses 6 Edited January 17, 2018 by Bobbieaware
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 4 hours ago, snowflake said: This helps me understand where you are coming from here, thank you. I would like to point out what seems to me to be a contradiction. Moroni chapter 8 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! It seems to me that according to these verses at some point either Christ abandons children allowing them to sin and at that point they need baptism and repentance, or that Children are incapable of sin. Both of these do not seem to be true, Once Christ is with someone he would not abandon them and if you have kids you know very well at age 3 they manipulate, lie, steal, cheat, hit, bite, pull hair and disobey their parents (all sin). Children reach the age of accountability around the age of 8 when they know right from wrong- whenever they understand that, around that age At that point they make their own sins.
Stargazer Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Children reach the age of accountability around the age of 8 when they know right from wrong- whenever they understand that, around that age At that point they make their own sins. And for the benefit of snowflake it might be instructive to point out that children who do not rise to the level of accountability are not baptized. For example, my wife's brother, who is now 55, has Down's Syndrome, and remains a "child of record" in the Church records, and is considered "unaccountable". He thus will never be baptized, because he doesn't need it. On another hand, a female Down's Syndrome child who was in an old ward of mine, decided sometime around age 60 that she was accountable. So she was officially taught the gospel, and from her apparent understanding of what she was being taught, it was judged that she was by then accountable. She was baptized, and later endowed in the Temple, before dying at about age 63 or so. She never participated fully in Church activity because her mental understanding was insufficient, but she was a member and seemed happy about it. 3
pogi Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 5 hours ago, snowflake said: ...and if you have kids you know very well at age 3 they manipulate, lie, steal, cheat, hit, bite, pull hair and disobey their parents (all sin). There is a difference between sin and transgression (although they are sometimes used interchangeably). One can transgress a law and not sin. Transgression simply requires that a law be broken, but sin, on the other hand, requires moral understanding and sound knowledge of the law. Even secular law acknowledges this developmental stage of morality and accountability and does not prosecute or punish where accountability is premature. Children under the age of 12, for example, cannot be prosecuted for violations of the law due to their lack of moral development and understanding. The atonement covers all transgressions committed in ignorance. It is not counted as "sin" (and therefore worthy of spiritual death and hell) unto them. 1
clarkgoble Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 14 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: Looks like the Articles of Faith deny the original sin idea voiced in the Book of Mormon Nope. There's a fundamental difference. The Book of Mormon teaches that being carnal and devilish is a free choice people make and not because of Adam. It's fairly explicit in the book. So the idea in the Book of Mormon is that we're freely balanced between two inclinations. One towards God and one towards naturalism or the like. So Mormons believe the fall puts us in this state. But we don't believe this state is sinful and thus not original sin. 1
Josh Khinder Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Nope. There's a fundamental difference. The Book of Mormon teaches that being carnal and devilish is a free choice people make and not because of Adam. It's fairly explicit in the book. So the idea in the Book of Mormon is that we're freely balanced between two inclinations. One towards God and one towards naturalism or the like. So Mormons believe the fall puts us in this state. But we don't believe this state is sinful and thus not original sin. Maybe you could explain that better when the Book of Mormon teaches were sinners because of are parents since Adam .
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 24 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: Maybe you could explain that better when the Book of Mormon teaches were sinners because of are parents since Adam . We have the opportunity to sin being enticed by both good and evil. However we’re judged for our own acts and intents not Adam’s. See 2 Nephi 2:5 among many scriptures. A lot of this depends upon the semantics of “original sin” of course. I’m assuming a more Augustine meaning. It’s of course possible to redefine it so it refers to being cut off from God or imperfect. But under the traditional sense where one is born in a state of being sinful in an accountable way then the Book of Mormon teaches against that. I bring up the semantic issue as this is a point of division between eastern Christianity and western. In the east original sin is defined as the consequences of Adams choice. The Book of Mormon does teach that. However the western view largely following Augustine says it’s not just the consequences but also a stain of guilt. Mormons and the text of the Book of Mormon oppose that.
Recommended Posts