Jump to content

8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Free will is the beginning and end of the atonement. 

Free will is based on the Spirit and not on visions, visitations and miracles.

Free Will is based upon scripture, as deeply flawed as they are.

Free Will enables those who know Christ to reject Him. 

It also enables someone to reject the claims that the only way to Christ is through the Church. Some who leave are doing so to seek righteousness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you know any 8 year olds raised in strong LDS families that said no?

A few, mostly because they felt they should be more certain though rather than rejecting belief. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It also enables someone to reject the claims that the only way to Christ is through the Church. Some who leave are doing so to seek righteousness.

Free will is simply the power to make up your own mind and do whatever you can do.  It doesn't mean whatever we decide to do is God's will, or that what we do is what God would do in the same circumstances.

Link to post
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

can an 8 year old really make an independent decision?"

Nope.  But can anyone?  Aren't all our decisions based on how we have interacted with others and how we want to continue to interact?

I like what CV said, that the Lord ensures we grow into accountability eventually.  I personally don't think this will happen until long after we are dead when we can see much better what our choices lead to and therefore finally understand what a choice to seek God out as he seeks us and become one with him means.  

This life is a chance to make meaningful choices while still being able to repent.  Not quite a dress rehearsal as there are important consequences of our choices and mistakes, but God can turn all these things to our good if we choose to let him.

God judges our actions by the current level of accountability we have imo and not for the purpose of punishing or rewarding us, but to provide us what we need to learn (which means some of the stuff happening to us may be to help others learn lessons we don't need to learn, but since God is the Master Teacher such can still benefit us in our progression).

added:  Pogi's comment that the weekly sacrament allows us to revisit our original covenant is one way the Lord provides for us to grow into full accountability.  What is important in that moment of again accepting the covenant is if we are doing so to the extent of our current knowledge and ability and limitations.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

My brother in-law has gone inactive and has become fairly critical of people of faith, including myself.  He too subscribes to the illusion of free-will philosophy, promoted by Sam Harris.  He once made a comment in frustration, "How can anyone choose to be a Mormon after knowing this...?"   I simply responded (knowing his philosophy), "Well Aaron, we don't really have a choice, do we?  Give us some slack!"

I suspect that those who subscribe to this philosophy don't really believe it deep down, or at least they don't act like it.

Sounds like you might need to lend him your ear as it seems you misunderstand the point.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Free will is the beginning and end of the atonement. 

Free will is based on the Spirit and not on visions, visitations and miracles.

Free Will is based upon scripture, as deeply flawed as they are.

Free Will enables those who know Christ to reject Him. 

So it is all illusion then?  Perfect.  Determinism is really all that makes sense.  You don't choose to know christ any more then you choose your brain, genetic make up, environment, cultural lessons, etc.  From the day you were born your brain acted the part of storing info based on what was put in front of you.  Every choice you make is limited to that which has been programmed into you through your experience, environment and your biology.  Choosing to know jesus is simply a result of the experiences you've had building the desire put inside you, through your experiences, biology, and environment. 

Certainly your simply a victim of the inherent seeming illusion that you are completely free to choose.  

Link to post
21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like you might need to lend him your ear as it seems you misunderstand the point.  

How can you say I misunderstood his point when you don’t know what the point was?  Trust me though, I have lent him my ear.

My point, on the other hand, is that he implied that we have free will.  His exacerbation further demonstrated his frustration with my use of it.   Why would anyone who truly doesn’t believe that we have free-will be exacerbated by my choice to be a Latter-day Saint?

Where there is no free-will, it is pointless to hold anyone accountable for their choices (which is really just an illusion).

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In another thread, someone's son chose to leave the LDS church and said that his decision to be baptized was an 8 year old's decision and he was not bound by it.

How much free will does an 8 year old really have when it comes to choosing baptism?

It seems to me that an 8 year old is just choosing to do what his or her family wants done. I have a hard time imagining a child raised in a strong LDS home saying he doesn't want to be baptized.

I've heard criticism of Catholic baptism based on the fact that infants can't choose. We obviously acknowledge that -- hence there is confirmation around ages 14-16 when there can be more of an active choice.

What do you think? Do 8 year olds have enough autonomy to actually choose? Do you know any 8 year olds raised in strong LDS families that said no?

Like you, I agree that 8 yo baptism is problematic. 
In defense, an eight yo in a LDS household gets enough teaching to understand right from wrong and also to understand what the ordinance means. At least I did. 
I chose to be baptized at eight and I don’t recall any pressure to do so. Of course, I was primed for this crowning event in all the classes I attended. And my parents were very active. 
I don’t know what pressures would have been brought to bear had I been rebellious and refused baptism. In active decent families that is probably a rare scenario. 
 

on another note, the idea that there is no free will also negates accountability. Both of these ideas are fundamental to the Gospel, and indeed, Western Civilization. 
 

The LDS Church AFAIK, is not coercing any body to either join the Church or even stay in it. The Church certainly encourages belief, but there is no penalty for leaving the organization. 

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to post
6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

In another thread, someone's son chose to leave the LDS church and said that his decision to be baptized was an 8 year old's decision and he was not bound by it.

How much free will does an 8 year old really have when it comes to choosing baptism?

It seems to me that an 8 year old is just choosing to do what his or her family wants done. I have a hard time imagining a child raised in a strong LDS home saying he doesn't want to be baptized.

I've heard criticism of Catholic baptism based on the fact that infants can't choose. We obviously acknowledge that -- hence there is confirmation around ages 14-16 when there can be more of an active choice.

What do you think? Do 8 year olds have enough autonomy to actually choose? Do you know any 8 year olds raised in strong LDS families that said no?

I think we adults nowadays have a HUGE tendency to underestimate children and infant-ize them.

By the time I was 8, I have been through nightmares of sexual abuse, violence, suicidal thoughts, facing death of children I knew, etc.   I also knew how to think for myself, how to carefully consider life choices, know who to love, and yes did indeed have the ability to choose to accept Christ & embrace His love --- such was the huge sanity lifeline for me. 

Don't downplay your children's intelligence or experiences.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this why you're single? ;) 

I don't think you can compare an 8 year old baptism to marriage. The reason there are consent laws to marriage is because we recognize that children are incapable of making certain decisions. Is an 8 year old in an LDS family capable of saying no? Too bad we don't have hard data on this. @Maureen shared that her husband said no (but I'll note he was baptized a few months later). How many 8 year olds say no and never join? I think the numbers would be infinitesimally small, which would seem to show that they are not capable of choosing whether or not to join the LDS church.

I disagree with you here.

Marriage is about a relationship.  Discipleship to Christ is about a  relationship.  

The obvious difference is that the human you're in a relationship makes regular screwups & is frequently small minded with limited knowledge.  On the other hand,  Christ is perfect in all ways.  No, nobody is going to know the full magnitude of any deacon, regardless of the age they are making it.  But that still doesn't revoke the importance of choice.  

 

 

Also relevant factors  when comparing LDS Christian and Catholic Christian beliefs here (And I'm trying to say this most respectfully as possible):

- The different understanding of what a baptism is and what means.

- Choice to leave: a LDS person has a choice in BOTH coming and leaving.  A Catholic born person has no choice to be baptized, neither a choice to be revoke that baptism ("once a Catholic, always a Catholic"), or any other Catholic ritual.  

 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to post

Do not underestimate the ability of the young To process information and make decisions. 
 

According to LDS scripture, Mormon accepted the task to be guardian of the Plates at ten yo and was commanding the armies of a nation at Sixteen. 
 

Noah was ordained to the priesthood at nine. 
 

I almost forgot to add:  My wife was baptized as a convert to the Church at the age of eight. No one in her immediate family was particularly religious, except her grandmother who went to Mass daily. She is still very active and we raised four children in the Church and now we are grandparents. Refer to my first line!
 

 

Edited by mrmarklin
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

How can you say I misunderstood his point when you don’t know what the point was?  Trust me though, I have lent him my ear.

My point, on the other hand, is that he implied that we have free will.  His exacerbation further demonstrated his frustration with my use of it.   Why would anyone who truly doesn’t believe that we have free-will be exacerbated by my choice to be a Latter-day Saint?

Where there is no free-will, it is pointless to hold anyone accountable for their choices (which is really just an illusion).

The bold point doesn't fit as a valid description from a determinist position.   Your choice is not on account of having a free will, your choice is determined by all that is you or makes up you.  it's very fitting for a determinist to be exacerbated by your choice.  He simply cant be you knowing all that which goes into your choice--and its probable you don't know all that goes into your choice .  It can be confusing.  In addition the illusion is not easily shed, in the first place.  

Link to post

Anyone ever watched a toddler look you straight in the eyes while doing exactly what you just told him NOT to do? Then there is that crafty grin while he does it. No free will my foot!

  • Like 3
Link to post
11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism

..........................

How much free will does an 8 year old really have when it comes to choosing baptism?

........................................

There is a notion that, whether at eight years of age, or at the Jewish age of accountability (bar mitzvah), "free will" is just an illusion.

Some psychologists and neuroscientists maintain that

Quote

"the contents of consciousness are generated 'behind the scenes' by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur.......we don’t consciously choose our thoughts or our feelings – we become aware of them."  David A. Oakley (UCLondon) and Peter W. Halligan (Cardiff Univ), “What If Consciousness Is Not What Drives the Human Mind?” The Conversation, Nov 21, 2017, online at  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/what-if-consciousness-is-not-what-drives-the-human-mind?utm_source=pocket-newtab .

They say that

Quote

all “contents of consciousness” are generated by and within non-conscious brain systems in the form of a continuous self-referential personal narrative that is not directed or influenced in any way by the “experience of consciousness.” This continuously updated personal narrative arises from selective “internal broadcasting” of outputs from non-conscious executive systems that have access to all forms of cognitive processing, sensory information, and motor control. The personal narrative provides information for storage in autobiographical memory and is underpinned by constructs of self and agency, also created in non-conscious systems. .........

Most of us believe that what we call “consciousness” is responsible for creating and controlling our mental processes and behavior. The traditional folk usage of the term “consciousness” arguably has two aspects: the experience of “consciousness” and the contents of “consciousness”, our thoughts, beliefs, sensations, percepts, intentions, sense of agency, memories, and emotions. Over the past 30 years, there has been a slow but growing consensus among some students of the cognitive sciences that many of the contents of “consciousness,” are formed backstage by fast, efficient non-conscious systems.........

...the ascription of executive functions or agency to “consciousness” either in part or as a whole, or to the “experience of consciousness,” we claim is a misconception..............

...“consciousness” is a personal narrative created by and within inaccessible, non-conscious brain systems where personal awareness is no more than a passive accompaniment to this process. .....

...autobiographical/episodic memory is not a record of events per se but is a partial and selective record of a personalized narrative about events.........

...we consider personal awareness to lack adaptive significance in much the same way as rainbows or eclipses.   David A. Oakley and Peter W. Halligan, “Chasing the Rainbow: The Non-conscious Nature of Being,” Frontiers of Psycholology, 14 November 2017, online at  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924 .

Perhaps we adults have no more claim on free will than a mewling infant.  Perhaps the Aristotelian, Deist, Arian, Lollard, and Arminian notions of free will are all poppycock.  Perhaps the Calvinist theology of Geneva is correct after all.

D. Andrew Penny, Freewill or Predestination: The Battle over Saving Grace in Mid-Tudor England, Royal Historical Society Studies in History (Royal Historical Society, 1991) .

And yet, we have Ezra Taft Benson, “The scriptures make clear that there was a great war in heaven, a struggle over the principle of freedom, the right of choice. (See Moses 4:1–4; D&C 29:36–38; 76:25–27; Rev. 12:7–9.),” Conference Report, Oct 1966, 121, online at https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-3-freedom-of-choice-an-eternal-principle?lang=eng#note13- .

Link to post

@Robert F. Smith, I was under the impression that compatibilism was still the consensus position. Didn't know that strict determinism had taken over.

Either way, call me a Luddite if you will, I'm not ashamed, but that sort of stuff represents to me a dark well of inescapable nihilism. If choice is nonexistent, what right have we to punish the criminal? What right have we to enforce law? What does a right, or the right, even mean anyway? This is verging on the classic quote from Jurassic Park: "Your scientists [or philosophers or theoreticians] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." 

In any case, if it were true, we'd never know it. We can't lift the lid to look in on the inner workings of our consciousness, not if we were to make a complete human connectome and fMRI dataset. This will always remain conjecture. The illusion of choice and consciousness, if it is in fact an illusion, will go on whether or not we think of it as an illusion. Meanwhile, at the will of the experts, I'm supposed to take the most basic and foundational fact of my existence and call it illusory. Seems like a waste of time in the end.

Link to post
11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I don't mean "are 8 year olds asked if they want to be baptized or are they forced?" What I mean is: "can an 8 year old really make an independent decision?"

My son did.

He didn't want to get baptized at 8, and so he wasn't.

When he turned 9 he felt he was ready and so he was baptized.  We have never forced or even "pushed" our kids to come to church. Encouraged yes. 

 Don't believe in forcing it- I see that as unrighteous dominion

  • Like 2
Link to post
37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

@Robert F. Smith, I was under the impression that compatibilism was still the consensus position. Didn't know that strict determinism had taken over.

Either way, call me a Luddite if you will, I'm not ashamed, but that sort of stuff represents to me a dark well of inescapable nihilism. If choice is nonexistent, what right have we to punish the criminal? What right have we to enforce law? What does a right, or the right, even mean anyway? This is verging on the classic quote from Jurassic Park: "Your scientists [or philosophers or theoreticians] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." 

In any case, if it were true, we'd never know it. We can't lift the lid to look in on the inner workings of our consciousness, not if we were to make a complete human connectome and fMRI dataset. This will always remain conjecture. The illusion of choice and consciousness, if it is in fact an illusion, will go on whether or not we think of it as an illusion. Meanwhile, at the will of the experts, I'm supposed to take the most basic and foundational fact of my existence and call it illusory. Seems like a waste of time in the end.

I didn't say that these neuroscientists are correct, but they are making a very strong case for the illusion of choice, and John Calvin would be saying "See?"  If that is so, it may very well be that this life is valuable for the experience it gives us, not that it actually is crucial which choices we make.  This life may be no more than a simulation.  The only place in which true agency could then be expressed would be back in heaven, when our full intelligence could be expressed.  And I'm not talking I.Q.

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It also enables someone to reject the claims that the only way to Christ is through the Church. Some who leave are doing so to seek righteousness.

LDS theology (as also Jewish theology) gives full options to those outside the LDS community to be saved -- which is most of humanity -- in a full bore appeal to redemption of all humankind.  The notion of a very narrow path to salvation is the opposite of LDS theology.

Here is an example of a very broad appeal:

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

LDS theology (as also Jewish theology) gives full options to those outside the LDS community to be saved -- which is most of humanity -- in a full bore appeal to redemption of all humankind.  The notion of a very narrow path to salvation is the opposite of LDS theology.

Yet the church teaches a very narrow path. It sends missionaries out to teach people including people who are happy in their own beliefs to leave those commitments and join the covenant path of the church, making LDS-specific covenants, seeking LDS-specific relationships and joining LDS communities. Of course LDS theology has the teaching in the Spirit World, but this does not contradict my point: 

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It also enables someone to reject the claims that the only way to Christ is through the Church. Some who leave are doing so to seek righteousness.

A person in Tokyo might be following a wonderful Shinto path, so when the LDS missionaries approach them, teach them, and invite them to baptism, they are also asking them to reject any of the practices that they cannot follow while also living the LDS religion. The person could accept the missionaries' invitation, rejecting their former path. Or they might continue on their Shinto path, rejecting the LDS invitation. Either path offers different experiences, and each one means a rejection of certain life experiences.

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet the church teaches a very narrow path. It sends missionaries out to teach people including people who are happy in their own beliefs to leave those commitments and join the covenant path of the church, making LDS-specific covenants, seeking LDS-specific relationships and joining LDS communities. Of course LDS theology has the teaching in the Spirit World, but this does not contradict my point: 

A person in Tokyo might be following a wonderful Shinto path, so when the LDS missionaries approach them, teach them, and invite them to baptism, they are also asking them to reject any of the practices that they cannot follow while also living the LDS religion. The person could accept the missionaries' invitation, rejecting their former path. Or they might continue on their Shinto path, rejecting the LDS invitation. Either path offers different experiences, and each one means a rejection of certain life experiences.

Of course that is precisely the narrow view which many LDS members mistakenly have.  And it is understandable at a surface level.  The problem is in the numbers.  Most of humanity (billions past and present) has never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached and so can make no such decision as you suggest.  At least not in this life, and this will remain true into the future -- despite powerful electronic/digital methods of extending preaching.  Even at its best rate of conversion, the LDS missions cannot even keep up with the normal population increase:  The human population is growing much more quickly than conversion rates (indeed, LDS conversion rates have been going down).  Talking about a Buddhist or Hindu conversion here or there is essentially meaningless under such circumstances, not to mention the huge and increasing number of Muslims worldwide.  The only reason that the LDS Church is now larger than the Methodist Church is because the Methodists are losing members (true of most mainstream Christian churches) -- their birthrate is not even at replacement level.

Our main takeaway from this must be that, like the Jews, LDS people are not expected to be a gargantuan group, and don't need to be.  Deut 7:6-8

Quote

“For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers,"

Our purpose is clearly to be the vanguard, to build temples and prepare the way for the Millennium, so that all mankind can be saved.  What rule then applies to those not of the Jewish or LDS faith?  St Paul stated it clearly in Romans 2:12-16 (NIV),

Quote

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Thus, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc, will be judged on how well they obeyed their own religious law.  Why would God ever judge unfairly?   God's Plan of Salvation is designed to bring everybody back to Him.

  • Like 3
Link to post
18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do Catholics allow 7 year old children to go to confession and receive communion?

Because they have reached the age when they know, supposedly, good from bad, and presumably want to follow Jesus.

Seriously. I don't want to be argumentative about it.

When I joined at the LDS I saw a perfect parallel in these two practices.

For me Catholic Confirmation just allowed me to pick a new name!  ;)

 

Eight year-olds are baptized at eight because they are capable of sinning at that age and in need of the gift of the Holy Ghost to spiritually strengthen them, enable them to discern between right and wrong, and help them to make correct choices that will lead to their peace of mind and happiness. It would be a monstrous crime to forbid those who are capable of committing sin to have no means of receiving forgiveness for those sins for eight years! This would amount to nothing less than sadistic spiritual child abuse. I can’t imagine the emotional pain and spiritual suffering a 15 year-old would have to wade through for 8 long years without having the means to obtain forgiveness for their sins. Our Father want’s his sons and daughters to be baptized at 8 because he is a merciful God and doesn’t want his children to unnecessarily suffer the soul crippling spiritual agony that issues forth from guilt, shame and remorse of conscience..

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a notion that, whether at eight years of age, or at the Jewish age of accountability (bar mitzvah), "free will" is just an illusion.

Some psychologists and neuroscientists maintain that

They say that

Perhaps we adults have no more claim on free will than a mewling infant.  Perhaps the Aristotelian, Deist, Arian, Lollard, and Arminian notions of free will are all poppycock.  Perhaps the Calvinist theology of Geneva is correct after all.

D. Andrew Penny, Freewill or Predestination: The Battle over Saving Grace in Mid-Tudor England, Royal Historical Society Studies in History (Royal Historical Society, 1991) .

And yet, we have Ezra Taft Benson, “The scriptures make clear that there was a great war in heaven, a struggle over the principle of freedom, the right of choice. (See Moses 4:1–4; D&C 29:36–38; 76:25–27; Rev. 12:7–9.),” Conference Report, Oct 1966, 121, online at https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-3-freedom-of-choice-an-eternal-principle?lang=eng#note13- .

Additionally it can be explained in many ways.  It is simply the case, for sake of argument, you don't get to control your wants.  You just want.  And you choose based on what you want.  Going back to the previous example of choosing to know Christ.  Your desire there is but built into you over time, as you witness and observe that which has been in front of you.  You look back and think, perhaps, you could have chosen something different, which sounds good theoretically, but is also an unproven notion.  We can't play that game, because no one can reframe the scenario with every sequence back in place, we can only imagine it.  The issue is, when your choice is made on any given something, at that very moment of decision everything that caused that decision has already played out, including every memory or thought your brain has.  

(I like this example) Pick a city.  Try to follow what's happening in your head as you decide on a city.  What is happening in your brain may be something like this--you immediately start to see cities' names in your head.  But you don't have a list of every city before your mind's eye and then you randomly select it.  You may have a few cities and those just appear in your psyche.  They may have stood out to you due to your experience for some reason or another.  And as you decide which city to pick, you're doing so on the basis of firing synapses happening simultaneously.  You're thinking "I just decided".  Part of it is when did you decide.  Another part is about how did you decide.  if it can be shown that your decision has happened before you are even aware of your decision, perhaps that explains it.  

Enter:

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

Our decisions are determined before we even are aware of them.  Its not really us deciding.  It's us thinking we are deciding--that's the illusion of course.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course that is precisely the narrow view which many LDS members mistakenly have.  And it is understandable at a surface level.  The problem is in the numbers.  Most of humanity (billions past and present) has never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached and so can make no such decision as you suggest.  At least not in this life, and this will remain true into the future -- despite powerful electronic/digital methods of extending preaching.  Even at its best rate of conversion, the LDS missions cannot even keep up with the normal population increase:  The human population is growing much more quickly than conversion rates (indeed, LDS conversion rates have been going down).  Talking about a Buddhist or Hindu conversion here or there is essentially meaningless under such circumstances, not to mention the huge and increasing number of Muslims worldwide.  The only reason that the LDS Church is now larger than the Methodist Church is because the Methodists are losing members (true of most mainstream Christian churches) -- their birthrate is not even at replacement level.

Our main takeaway from this must be that, like the Jews, LDS people are not expected to be a gargantuan group, and don't need to be.  Deut 7:6-8

Our purpose is clearly to be the vanguard, to build temples and prepare the way for the Millennium, so that all mankind can be saved.  What rule then applies to those not of the Jewish or LDS faith?  St Paul stated it clearly in Romans 2:12-16 (NIV),

Thus, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc, will be judged on how well they obeyed their own religious law.  Why would God ever judge unfairly?   God's Plan of Salvation is designed to bring everybody back to Him.

It is not a mistaken belief, it is what the church teaches, even when they also believe in the compensation for "the numbers" in the Spirit World: a person who chooses baptism is choosing one life which precludes another life. (And when not relying on the premise that the church is correct, the latter can be the life that would bring them closer to God.)

And this is not a mistaken belief: Mormonism does not accept alternate routes, only accepting in an ex-post facto manner delays to the same general route. 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
47 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It would be a monstrous crime to forbid those who are capable of committing sin to have no means of receiving forgiveness for those sins for eight years! This would amount to nothing less than sadistic spiritual child abuse.

This doesn’t make sense to me since the vast majority of children never have the chance to be baptize and God appears to be okay with that since he has not constantly restored the gospel in every corner of the earth when it has been lost. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

This doesn’t make sense to me since the vast majority of children never have the chance to be baptize and God appears to be okay with that since he has not constantly restored the gospel in every corner of the earth when it has been lost. 

There’s a vast world of difference between those 8 to 16 year-olds who are raised in ignorance of the truth outside of the restored gospel of Christ, and therefore have no knowledge of the moral responsibility Incumbent upon those who know and understand doctrines of Christ, and those 8 to 16 year-olds who, like Adam and Eve, have partaken of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil through having come to know and understand the need to avail themselves of the ordinances of the gospel in order to receive a remission of their sins and peace of conscience. The only way it could work otherwise is if the age of unaccountability for members is extended to 16, an absurdity for anyone who remembers what they were like in the years before they turned 16.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...