Jump to content

Agency and children who die before the age of accountability


BBDD

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price does in fact teach a doctrine of original sin that’s very similar to the one taught by the Catholics.

No, it doesn't.

Original sin, to start with, is non-biblical. You can look at certain verses in scripture and say "there it is!", but it's nothing more than looking beyond the mark, and reading between the lines.

"Original sin" was an invention of Augustine, who, after 300 years of nobody having found it in the scriptures, suddenly exclaimed "Eureka!" and went running out in the streets, naked, excitedly spreading the news. Figuratively, of course.

"Original sin" is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth, which is why Catholics baptize newborn babies -- and if they don't get sprinkled before they die they go to hell. But this was modified later to say they went to Limbo, which seems kinder, except Limbo is also a fictional place not found in the scriptures.

We do inherit a tainted nature and have a proclivity to sin, but it's not through the fact of birth, it's due to living in a place where we have forgotten where we came from, who we truly are, and are subject to divers temptations. 

Second Article of Fath: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." Thus there is no "original sin". Literally.

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, it doesn't.

Original sin, to start with, is non-biblical. You can look at certain verses in scripture and say "there it is!", but it's nothing more than looking beyond the mark, and reading between the lines.

"Original sin" was an invention of Augustine, who, after 300 years of nobody having found it in the scriptures, suddenly exclaimed "Eureka!" and went running out in the streets, naked, excitedly spreading the news. Figuratively, of course.

"Original sin" is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth, which is why Catholics baptize newborn babies -- and if they don't get sprinkled before they die they go to hell. But this was modified later to say they went to Limbo, which seems kinder, except Limbo is also a fictional place not found in the scriptures.

We do inherit a tainted nature and have a proclivity to sin, but it's not through the fact of birth, it's due to living in a place where we have forgotten where we came from, who we truly are, and are subject to divers temptations. 

Second Article of Fath: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." Thus there is no "original sin". Literally.

 

I understand that what Catholics call the "original" sin is the sin that started the chain of all sin, as in the origin of all sin. 

The very first time on this planet when somebody committed a sin, which then resulted in other people being born and committing more sins.

Before that moment, they believe, there was no sin at all anywhere, ever.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just as he could have told Adam and Eve.

What makes you think he didn't?  When God told them to not partake of the fruit of that tree, they knew what that meant, didn't they? And they knew perfectly well how not to do it. And when God told them to be fruitful and multiply, don't you think that God told them what that meant and what they had to do in order to accomplish it?  Does God have a habit of giving out commandments to people who haven't the vaguest idea of how to obey such commandments?

It was not a matter of ignorance, it was a matter of incapability. Lehi says they couldn't have children. Not that they didn't know how, or didn't want to. Their bodies could not make children in the state they were in.  Even if they had actually placed Tab A into Slot B while in the Garden, before the Fall, no fruitfulness would have resulted.

Fine. Don't believe me.

Do you believe Russell M. Nelson?

    Adam and Eve were the first people to live upon the earth. They were different from the plant and animal life that had been created previously. Adam and Eve were children of God. Their bodies of flesh and bone were made in the express image of God’s. In that state of innocence, they were not yet mortal. They could have had no children, were not subject to death, and could have lived in Eden’s garden forever. Thus, we might speak of the Creation in terms of a paradisiacal creation.
    If that state had persisted, you and I would still be stranded among the heavenly host as unborn sons and daughters of God.21 “The great plan of [happiness] would have been frustrated” (Alma 42:5).--
Constancy amid Change, Oct. 1993 General Conference

Russell M. Nelson again:

    The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.
    That brings us to the Fall. Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well.
They were now able to have children. -- The Atonement, Oct 1996 General Conference

I think I've laid it out quite clearly. I'll have to leave you to your own devices from this point. Have fun.

 

Link to post
21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

What makes you think he didn't?  When God told them to not partake of the fruit of that tree, they knew what that meant, didn't they? And they knew perfectly well how not to do it. And when God told them to be fruitful and multiply, don't you think that God told them what that meant and what they had to do in order to accomplish it?  Does God have a habit of giving out commandments to people who haven't the vaguest idea of how to obey such commandments?

It was not a matter of ignorance, it was a matter of incapability. Lehi says they couldn't have children. Not that they didn't know how, or didn't want to. Their bodies could not make children in the state they were in.  Even if they had actually placed Tab A into Slot B while in the Garden, before the Fall, no fruitfulness would have resulted.

Fine. Don't believe me.

Do you believe Russell M. Nelson?

    Adam and Eve were the first people to live upon the earth. They were different from the plant and animal life that had been created previously. Adam and Eve were children of God. Their bodies of flesh and bone were made in the express image of God’s. In that state of innocence, they were not yet mortal. They could have had no children, were not subject to death, and could have lived in Eden’s garden forever. Thus, we might speak of the Creation in terms of a paradisiacal creation.
    If that state had persisted, you and I would still be stranded among the heavenly host as unborn sons and daughters of God.21 “The great plan of [happiness] would have been frustrated” (Alma 42:5).--
Constancy amid Change, Oct. 1993 General Conference

Russell M. Nelson again:

    The creation of Adam and Eve was a paradisiacal creation, one that required a significant change before they could fulfill the commandment to have children and thus provide earthly bodies for premortal spirit sons and daughters of God.
    That brings us to the Fall. Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well.
They were now able to have children. -- The Atonement, Oct 1996 General Conference

I think I've laid it out quite clearly. I'll have to leave you to your own devices from this point. Have fun.

 

There are always more details to a story than most people mention, but knowledge will answer every question.  And the command to have children was not that they have children immediately.  But anyway, the question would be how they would do it.

Since Adam and Eve were not what we call exalted beings at that time in paradise, which is what we refer to our state after we die and are resurrected, they could not have given birth to spirit children at that time; therefore, the only other kind of child they could have reproduced themselves as would have been mortal children, which would have been spirit children already born and then later combined with a mortal body that they created for those spirit children.  In other words, Adam and Eve could not have given birth to us as their spirit children, since we were already born as spirit children to our parents in heaven; and they also could not have given birth to us as their mortal children because only mortals can reproduce as mortal children, and they were not mortals.  Not yet, at their state then in paradise.  But it is not and would not be correct to state that Adam and Eve could not have reproduced themselves as children, because they could have, if they had known how, which would require that they go through some kind of change.  And they had 2 options available to them as to what they could become and reproduce themselves as.  They would need to either become exalted to be able to reproduce as spirit children, or they would need to become mortal to reproduce themselves as mortal children.  Which is what they did.  But how did they learn how to do that?  How did they come to know what it would take for them to reproduce themselves as children?  Obviously they gained knowledge of good and evil to some extent.  And how did they gain that knowledge of good and evil?  Obviously they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  And notice that what they gained was knowledge of good AND evil.  If they could have gained knowledge of what is good without gaining knowledge of what is evil I think our Father would not have forbidden them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good AND evil, but with one comes the other because both are opposites and it is not possible to have one without the other.  But that still does not mean it is good to gain knowledge of evil, or that it is good to disobey God to find out what it is to be evil.  But at any time if any of us ever want to find out or gain knowledge of what is good, we can always ask God and God, our Father, will tell us what is good.  He just doesn't like it or approve of us gaining knowledge of things that are evil, because that really is not good for any of us.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Ahab said:

1.  Other than a desire to be like him as much as we can be, I agree.

2. I don't agree with your assessment of Catholic doctrine because I think they understand that as well as we do.  I could be wrong about that, I suppose, but I believe they do based on what I have had Catholics tell me they believe.

You must be talking about those recent Catholics who are adopting newfangled doctrinal approaches that are in direct opposition to long held Catholic teachings. Of course you do remember that infants have been baptized in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years because of their long held belief that even newborn babies are tainted with the salvation destroying taint of original sin. Some recent Catholics have modified the traditionally understood doctrine of original sin because they realize it’s terribly embarrassing to assert that a loving and just God could countenance something so disturbingly absurd.

Link to post
18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

You must be talking about those recent Catholics who are adopting newfangled doctrinal approaches that are in direct opposition to long held Catholic teachings. Of course you do remember that infants have been baptized in the Catholic Church for hundreds of years because of their long held belief that even newborn babies are tainted with the salvation destroying taint of original sin. Some recent Catholics have modified the traditionally understood doctrine of original sin because they realize it’s terribly embarrassing to assert that a loving and just God could countenance something so disturbingly absurd.

My understanding of what most Catholics believe is that everyone is under the effects of sin and Adam and Eve's transgression, including babies, not that little babies and others have necessarily sinned.  That all mankind who are mortal are fallen, including babies.  Not that babies are not fallen and under no effects of sin, as some other people believe they believe.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, it doesn't.

Original sin, to start with, is non-biblical. You can look at certain verses in scripture and say "there it is!", but it's nothing more than looking beyond the mark, and reading between the lines.

"Original sin" was an invention of Augustine, who, after 300 years of nobody having found it in the scriptures, suddenly exclaimed "Eureka!" and went running out in the streets, naked, excitedly spreading the news. Figuratively, of course.

"Original sin" is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth, which is why Catholics baptize newborn babies -- and if they don't get sprinkled before they die they go to hell. But this was modified later to say they went to Limbo, which seems kinder, except Limbo is also a fictional place not found in the scriptures.

We do inherit a tainted nature and have a proclivity to sin, but it's not through the fact of birth, it's due to living in a place where we have forgotten where we came from, who we truly are, and are subject to divers temptations. 

Second Article of Fath: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." Thus there is no "original sin". Literally.

 

Do you deny the Book of Mormon teaches that  if Christ had made no atonement all mankind would be ineluctably dragged down to hell and all would become devils?

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. (2 Nephi 9)

and...

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9)

Is not the above an accurate description of the effects of the original guilt of Adam and Eve if Christ had made no atonement?

Link to post
14 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Do you deny the Book of Mormon teaches that  if Christ had made no atonement all mankind would be ineluctably dragged down to hell and all would become devils?

Of course not. That's not original sin, though. The idea behind original sin is that we inherit the sin from Adam and it clings to a newborn baby like glue. And that, T, is low-grade BS. The Book of Mormon teaches that it is blasphemy to baptize little children. "Ooops, look at you, you sinful newborn, let's sprinkle some holy water on you before you catch fire and go to hell." Because, coming straight from the Father as they do, they are innocent. They are capable of committing sin, yes, but until they commit one, they are innocent.

Something that I was trying and failing to tell someone else very recently was that we humans were absolutely bound to commit sin, that we have literally no choice but to do it, because it's the nature of this place we landed in, and that it was designed to be so. That being the case, then you can verily say "if Christ had made no atonement all mankind would be ineluctably dragged down to hell and all would become devils". Not because of "original sin", but because of the sins we would all eventually commit -- all except for Jesus, that is.

14 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. (2 Nephi 9)

and...

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9)

Is not the above an accurate description of the effects of the original guilt of Adam and Eve if Christ had made no atonement?

Of course it is, because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and without the atonement they were lost. As we all would be. 

Have you ever read the Second Article of Faith?  If you have, it seems that you haven't understood it.  

"Original sin" is a fiction. There is no such thing.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The idea behind original sin is that we inherit the sin from Adam and it clings to a newborn baby like glue. And that, T, is low-grade BS.

Yes that is BS and fortunately not many people believe that is what original sin is.  At least not many people I have known or heard from.

The idea of original sin is that there is an origin for all sin.  That sin started at some time in some place and before that it never existed.  And that once it started it was not only a one time or one event thing but a thing that was perpetuated.

I could say more but I think that is enough for now.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That sin started at some time in some place and before that it never existed. 

Please tell me you believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too.

I seem to recall someone recently trying to explain that "truth" is not a "thing", it's a concept. 

Link to post
Just now, Stargazer said:

Please tell me you believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too.

Okay.  Sure.  I believe in those things as symbols for various concepts.

Just now, Stargazer said:

I seem to recall someone recently trying to explain that "truth" is not a "thing", it's a concept. 

Truth is a thing as well as a concept.  Actually many things and many concepts.  I don't know exactly why someone would say otherwise but they would be wrong to say or think truth is not what it is.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course not. That's not original sin, though. The idea behind original sin is that we inherit the sin from Adam and it clings to a newborn baby like glue. And that, T, is low-grade BS. The Book of Mormon teaches that it is blasphemy to baptize little children. "Ooops, look at you, you sinful newborn, let's sprinkle some holy water on you before you catch fire and go to hell." Because, coming straight from the Father as they do, they are innocent. They are capable of committing sin, yes, but until they commit one, they are innocent.

Something that I was trying and failing to tell someone else very recently was that we humans were absolutely bound to commit sin, that we have literally no choice but to do it, because it's the nature of this place we landed in, and that it was designed to be so. That being the case, then you can verily say "if Christ had made no atonement all mankind would be ineluctably dragged down to hell and all would become devils". Not because of "original sin", but because of the sins we would all eventually commit -- all except for Jesus, that is.

Of course it is, because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and without the atonement they were lost. As we all would be. 

Have you ever read the Second Article of Faith?  If you have, it seems that you haven't understood it.  

"Original sin" is a fiction. There is no such thing.

I’m trying to understand why you can’t seem to understand that the Book of Mormon teaches a condition very similar to the Catholic’s  curse of the original sin would have existed on this earth if Christ had not made an atonement by suffering infinitely and eternally? In fact, if Christ had not made an atonement the situation would have actually been the curse of the original sin on steroids! My point is that while Latter-Day Saints often mock the very idea of original sin as an impossibility, the fact of the matter is that the scriptures teach if Christ had not atoned for the disobedience of Adam and Eve that that’s exactly what the world would be dealing with right now. The condition of original sin does not now exist because it’s a absurdity that can never happen; rather, the curse of the original sin does not now exist because Christ prevented this potentially very real condition from happening by making a sacrifice of infinite suffering. And if what I’m saying isn’t true, then important portions of the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are also untrue. I hope this clears things up.

 

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m trying to understand why you can’t seem to understand that the Book of Mormon teaches a condition very similar to the Catholic’s  curse of the original sin would have existed on this earth if Christ had not made an atonement by suffering infinitely and eternally?

Well, I'm trying to understand why you can't seem to understand that "original sin' is a fiction. There is no such thing. The Book of Mormon teaches nothing even remotely similar to the Catholic "curse of the original sin" because the Catholic "curse of the original sin" was made up by a man to whom no doctrine of the Gospel was worth leaving in its pristine, simple state, but had to be overcomplicated to a ridiculous extreme.

What you are calling "original sin" is the consequence of being born into a mortal world, where you are going to die, full stop. And that you are cut off from the presence of God. But this is not a sin. You don't have to repent of it, because it is not a sin. Christ deals with the first part, death, via his resurrection. As for the other, you are cut off from the presence of God because of the fact of the veil of forgetfulness. And then later your sinfulness, which happens due to your choices, caps it off, and you have to repent to correct it.

There is no sin that is inherited from Adam and Eve. There is a condition, sure, and it's called "mortality", and that you do inherit from our first parents. But there is no sin that coats newborn babies like some slime; they are innocent, they have no sin, original or otherwise.  "Original sin," I tell you again, was invented by Augustine 300 years after Christ's resurrection, and it is a fiction.

Moroni 8:8 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.

This verse utterly destroys the notion of "original sin". If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. And don't go on to me about "the curse of Adam" in this verse, because that's not "original sin" either. It happens to be the case that even though a little child cannot sin, they can nevertheless innocently transgress -- for example, by taking something that doesn't belong to them (as I did once, when I was 5 years old) -- and Christ's sacrifice freely covers that, without the need for repentance.

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In fact, if Christ had not made an atonement the situation would have actually been the curse of the original sin on steroids! My point is that while Latter-Day Saints often mock the very idea of original sin as an impossibility, the fact of the matter is that the scriptures teach if Christ had not atoned for the disobedience of Adam and Eve that that’s exactly what the world would be dealing with right now. The condition of original sin does not now exist because it’s a absurdity that can never happen; rather, the curse of the original sin does not now exist because Christ prevented this potentially very real condition from happening by making a sacrifice of infinite suffering. And if what I’m saying isn’t true, then important portions of the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are also untrue. I hope this clears things up.

 

They "mock the very idea of original sin as an impossibility" because it is an impossibility -- and a nonbiblical concept, and a satanic concept at that. Moroni 8:8 again.

It is the individual sin of every sinful person that Christ atones for in his infinite sacrifice, not the blithering "original sin". Without Christ's atonement, once we arrived in this mortal world and then started sinning, we would end up dying and would be left forever bodiless and out of God's presence. Everything that the Father had created would have gone for nothing and His work and glory would have become a wasteland. Christ's sacrifice and atonement saves us from that awful fate, yes, and saves Father as well, from the failure of his work. But there is no "original sin" that coats us at birth, or floats around like some disembodied vapor. Your first sin was the first time you broke a commandment as an accountable mortal person. There was no sin upon you at birth.

And you're wrong that the Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price teaches any form of "original sin" than what I have mentioned above, which is nothing more than the consequence of our first parents being tossed out of the Garden of Eden. Namely physical death and separation from God. Which are most certainly not sins, but are conditions we must live with.

Why do you think the Catholics baptize babies? Because of so-called "original sin" which was invented by Augustine. And the Book of Mormon is most vehement against this vicious practice, as you've probably read.

Moroni 8:14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

The only reason for anyone to suppose that little children need baptism (like the Catholics do) is because of "original sin" -- supposedly, therefore, these babies have to be baptized in order to wash that "original sin" off -- and they're going to hell if they die before they get that baptism. Just like Augustine is going to hell for coming up with that pernicious doctrine (see the verse above). Well, he won't really go to hell. I'm sure he's repented of it by now.

Anyway, you don't seem to realize that I do have a very lively appreciation for the utter and absolute necessity of Christ's atonement, which saves us from the consequences of our sins, and saves us from death as well. Just don't try to sell me on the scam called "original sin". 

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I'm trying to understand why you can't seem to understand that "original sin' is a fiction. There is no such thing. The Book of Mormon teaches nothing even remotely similar to the Catholic "curse of the original sin" because the Catholic "curse of the original sin" was made up by a man to whom no doctrine of the Gospel was worth leaving in its pristine, simple state, but had to be overcomplicated to a ridiculous extreme.

What you are calling "original sin" is the consequence of being born into a mortal world, where you are going to die, full stop. And that you are cut off from the presence of God. But this is not a sin. You don't have to repent of it, because it is not a sin. Christ deals with the first part, death, via his resurrection. As for the other, you are cut off from the presence of God because of the fact of the veil of forgetfulness. And then later your sinfulness, which happens due to your choices, caps it off, and you have to repent to correct it.

There is no sin that is inherited from Adam and Eve. There is a condition, sure, and it's called "mortality", and that you do inherit from our first parents. But there is no sin that coats newborn babies like some slime; they are innocent, they have no sin, original or otherwise.  "Original sin," I tell you again, was invented by Augustine 300 years after Christ's resurrection, and it is a fiction.

Moroni 8:8 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.

This verse utterly destroys the notion of "original sin". If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. And don't go on to me about "the curse of Adam" in this verse, because that's not "original sin" either. It happens to be the case that even though a little child cannot sin, they can nevertheless innocently transgress -- for example, by taking something that doesn't belong to them (as I did once, when I was 5 years old) -- and Christ's sacrifice freely covers that, without the need for repentance.

They "mock the very idea of original sin as an impossibility" because it is an impossibility -- and a nonbiblical concept, and a satanic concept at that. Moroni 8:8 again.

It is the individual sin of every sinful person that Christ atones for in his infinite sacrifice, not the blithering "original sin". Without Christ's atonement, once we arrived in this mortal world and then started sinning, we would end up dying and would be left forever bodiless and out of God's presence. Everything that the Father had created would have gone for nothing and His work and glory would have become a wasteland. Christ's sacrifice and atonement saves us from that awful fate, yes, and saves Father as well, from the failure of his work. But there is no "original sin" that coats us at birth, or floats around like some disembodied vapor. Your first sin was the first time you broke a commandment as an accountable mortal person. There was no sin upon you at birth.

And you're wrong that the Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price teaches any form of "original sin" than what I have mentioned above, which is nothing more than the consequence of our first parents being tossed out of the Garden of Eden. Namely physical death and separation from God. Which are most certainly not sins, but are conditions we must live with.

Why do you think the Catholics baptize babies? Because of so-called "original sin" which was invented by Augustine. And the Book of Mormon is most vehement against this vicious practice, as you've probably read.

Moroni 8:14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

The only reason for anyone to suppose that little children need baptism (like the Catholics do) is because of "original sin" -- supposedly, therefore, these babies have to be baptized in order to wash that "original sin" off -- and they're going to hell if they die before they get that baptism. Just like Augustine is going to hell for coming up with that pernicious doctrine (see the verse above). Well, he won't really go to hell. I'm sure he's repented of it by now.

Anyway, you don't seem to realize that I do have a very lively appreciation for the utter and absolute necessity of Christ's atonement, which saves us from the consequences of our sins, and saves us from death as well. Just don't try to sell me on the scam called "original sin". 

 

I think you can clear up your misunderstanding by being a little more charitable about someone else's choice of words.  Like when people talk about "original sin".  Reach deep down inside your lovable and potentially loving self to try to understand what those people are talking about when they refer to "original sin".   Like the event that started the whole sin-filled state of the world she-bang way way back in the history of this planet before there was such a thing called "sin" on this planet.

Come on now.  I know you have it in you to figure out what those people are talking about.

Link to post
8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I'm trying to understand why you can't seem to understand that "original sin' is a fiction. There is no such thing. The Book of Mormon teaches nothing even remotely similar to the Catholic "curse of the original sin" because the Catholic "curse of the original sin" was made up by a man to whom no doctrine of the Gospel was worth leaving in its pristine, simple state, but had to be overcomplicated to a ridiculous extreme.

What you are calling "original sin" is the consequence of being born into a mortal world, where you are going to die, full stop. And that you are cut off from the presence of God. But this is not a sin. You don't have to repent of it, because it is not a sin. Christ deals with the first part, death, via his resurrection. As for the other, you are cut off from the presence of God because of the fact of the veil of forgetfulness. And then later your sinfulness, which happens due to your choices, caps it off, and you have to repent to correct it.

There is no sin that is inherited from Adam and Eve. There is a condition, sure, and it's called "mortality", and that you do inherit from our first parents. But there is no sin that coats newborn babies like some slime; they are innocent, they have no sin, original or otherwise.  "Original sin," I tell you again, was invented by Augustine 300 years after Christ's resurrection, and it is a fiction.

Moroni 8:8 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.

This verse utterly destroys the notion of "original sin". If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. And don't go on to me about "the curse of Adam" in this verse, because that's not "original sin" either. It happens to be the case that even though a little child cannot sin, they can nevertheless innocently transgress -- for example, by taking something that doesn't belong to them (as I did once, when I was 5 years old) -- and Christ's sacrifice freely covers that, without the need for repentance.

They "mock the very idea of original sin as an impossibility" because it is an impossibility -- and a nonbiblical concept, and a satanic concept at that. Moroni 8:8 again.

It is the individual sin of every sinful person that Christ atones for in his infinite sacrifice, not the blithering "original sin". Without Christ's atonement, once we arrived in this mortal world and then started sinning, we would end up dying and would be left forever bodiless and out of God's presence. Everything that the Father had created would have gone for nothing and His work and glory would have become a wasteland. Christ's sacrifice and atonement saves us from that awful fate, yes, and saves Father as well, from the failure of his work. But there is no "original sin" that coats us at birth, or floats around like some disembodied vapor. Your first sin was the first time you broke a commandment as an accountable mortal person. There was no sin upon you at birth.

And you're wrong that the Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price teaches any form of "original sin" than what I have mentioned above, which is nothing more than the consequence of our first parents being tossed out of the Garden of Eden. Namely physical death and separation from God. Which are most certainly not sins, but are conditions we must live with.

Why do you think the Catholics baptize babies? Because of so-called "original sin" which was invented by Augustine. And the Book of Mormon is most vehement against this vicious practice, as you've probably read.

Moroni 8:14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

The only reason for anyone to suppose that little children need baptism (like the Catholics do) is because of "original sin" -- supposedly, therefore, these babies have to be baptized in order to wash that "original sin" off -- and they're going to hell if they die before they get that baptism. Just like Augustine is going to hell for coming up with that pernicious doctrine (see the verse above). Well, he won't really go to hell. I'm sure he's repented of it by now.

Anyway, you don't seem to realize that I do have a very lively appreciation for the utter and absolute necessity of Christ's atonement, which saves us from the consequences of our sins, and saves us from death as well. Just don't try to sell me on the scam called "original sin". 

 

The Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price clearly teach that the sins of the fathers would have been visited on the children if it weren’t for the infinite and eternal suffering of Christ...

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.

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. (Moses 6)

Is it not manifestly obvious that the sins of the fathers would have been visited upon the children had God not atoned for Adam’s transgression in the garden of Eden?

Do you believe little children would not be under the curse of Adam and alive in Christ if the Savior had not made an atonement?

(Please note that children are not whole from the foundation of the world by their own merits but only through the merits of the atonement of Christ, without which all would inevitably become devils)

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. (Moroni 8:) 

How could the curse of Adam have potential power over little children if the curse isn’t real and spiritually deadly in the first place?

How can a the curse of Adam be taken from little children if they were never in potential danger of being under the curse without the atonement of Christ?

Why do little children need to be made alive in Christ if they are in a state of purity and innocence without the intervention of Christ?

Do you agree with Jacob that without the atonement of Christ spiritual death would reign supreme and all would inevitably become devils, or do you believe Jacob was expounding on a fallacy?

Why do you think Jacob bothered to focus so forcefully on the fact that a state of total spiritual death for all would have been the fate of the entire human race without the atonement of Christ if the that state of affairs was not a potential possibility?

 

 

 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes that is what this board needs now.  Bigger text!

If you’re referring to me, after I copy and past scripture in a post I’m composing, for some reason the subsequent non scriptural text I write automatically takes on the font size of the copy and pasted verses of scripture. 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

If you’re referring to me, after I copy and past scripture in a post I’m composing, for some reason the subsequent non scriptural text I write automatically takes on the font size of the copy and pasted verses of scripture. 

I was serious.  It helped me and maybe it might help some other people to read bigger text.  Maybe I am just getting old and less funny.  I dunno.

Now I'm just trying to determine how big the text should be to be the most helpful.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Now I'm just trying to determine how big the text should be to be the most helpful.

Not that big please. 
 

You can go into your settings and set your font larger without it affecting how we see it. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I was serious.  It helped me and maybe it might help some other people to read bigger text.  Maybe I am just getting old and less funny.  I dunno.

Now I'm just trying to determine how big the text should be to be the most helpful.

Well then, I’ll try to start my posts with a copy and pasted verse of scripture so that my comments will be in a larger font size. I’ll do that just for you...

Link to post
On 12/1/2020 at 9:51 AM, Stargazer said:

But your implication has been that Adam and Eve were not accountable until they were tossed out of the GoE. Which implies that God created two adults who were incapable of sinning. And if that were so, He gave two commandments to people who had no accountability for obedience. And then, the first time they inevitably violated the commandments, He tossed them out on their ears. And that is justice?

I didn't imply that they were not accountable.  As for sinning, I found a teaching that they did not
sin in the garden.

Link to post
On 12/4/2020 at 4:57 PM, Calm said:

Not that big please. 
 

You can go into your settings and set your font larger without it affecting how we see it. 

Yes I know but that would not be as funny.

Link to post

I don't know, wouldn't the birth experience be painful for the infant? Don't children who die before the age of 8 still experience pain? I'd say they do. Enough at least to know for themselves some disadvantages of a fallen mortal condition, or separation from God. I'd say that children, just by virtue of their however-brief separation from divine light, learn enough by being in life. They taste enough bitter to know what good is. 

In any case, I am not convinced that we know enough about conditions on the other side to truly make a judgement. We don't know what these children may have endured in the premortal life, or what experiences await them in the spirit world. Not much of this cosmology has been revealed to us. Furthermore, if you hold to the idea that not all intelligences are created equal, then it is very possible that some children do not need a full battery of testing in this life. 

My position is that suffering is just as important as agency, but not just for its effects as a crucible. It's also important as a contrast. Pain in this life can cause us to appreciate the conditions of eternity more, forever. We're here to suffer. We're on this earth to experience randomness, vulnerability, contingency, pain, and injustice, that we might truly appreciate their opposites. Merely being born exposes one to much of this. The fact that there are unbelievers who must be preached to in the spirit world also convinces me that our immediate postmortal existence is not an absolute alleviation from the burdens of mortality - we may not have the concerns of a physical body to worry about but we still have significant moral agency and we don't know enough about spirit bodies and the conditions there to judge whether or not it could provide sufficient experiences to fulfill the needs of departed children. Great are the mysteries of God and all that. 

I think this question ought to be tabled for now because several major variables are totally unknown and thus our equation is hopelessly incomplete and will remain so for some time.  

Just my take though. 

Link to post
On 12/4/2020 at 10:29 PM, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price clearly teach that the sins of the fathers would have been visited on the children if it weren’t for the infinite and eternal suffering of Christ...

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.
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. (Moses 6)

I invite you to read this more closely. Where does it say that the Son atoned for original guilt? You seem to think that is says that in verse 54, but it doesn't. It says that "Hence came the saying abroad among the people....", meaning that some people developed a tradition that Christ atoned for that supposed original guilt. Just because people have believed that some kind of original guilt exists, does not mean that original guilt exists. 

Where does it say, again, that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression?  I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.

On 12/4/2020 at 10:29 PM, teddyaware said:

Is it not manifestly obvious that the sins of the fathers would have been visited upon the children had God not atoned for Adam’s transgression in the garden of Eden?

No. Sins cannot be committed by proxy. My sins do not require my sons or my daughters to repent. They are guiltless for my sins.  They are only guilty for their own.

What can, however, be visited upon the heads of some of those who have not sinned, are certain consequences. If someone commits murder on me, they have sinned. But the consequences of my death will be visited upon the heads of children of the murderer by the natural consequences of shame for being the child of a murderer, the loss of fellowship or support of their parent (due to incarceration or execution). And this is not all, because there will be similar consequences visited upon the heads of my own children due to my absence. And this will happen to them all, even though none of them participated in my murder.  The consequence of Adam and Eve's transgression is death for us all. But their transgression does not lay upon us any guilt at all.

Adam and Eve's transgression took them out of the Garden and made them mortal. One consequence of this was to make them able to have children, but it simultaneously made those children likewise mortal, leading to their inevitable deaths and their inevitable fall into sin, if they survived into accountability.  

And without Christ's atonement, all of us, including the children who die in infancy, would be forever cut off from the land of the living, because there would have been no resurrection, either. Resurrection is only possible because of the atonement. 

On 12/4/2020 at 10:29 PM, teddyaware said:

Do you believe little children would not be under the curse of Adam and alive in Christ if the Savior had not made an atonement?

No. Without Christ's atonement and resurrection, the children who die before the age of accountability must necessarily die permanently, because for them, even if they had no sin, they could not be resurrected. And this state of sinless non-resurrection is punishment without cause, and an injustice. That is the "curse of Adam". 

On 12/4/2020 at 10:29 PM, teddyaware said:

(Please note that children are not whole from the foundation of the world by their own merits but only through the merits of the atonement of Christ, without which all would inevitably become devils)

I am trying to see how sinless beings such as infants are not whole. Christ told the Pharisees that he was not sent to call the sinless to repentance. 

Mark 2:17 - They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

I am also trying to see how they could become devils, something which requires some kind of transgression. But aside from that, their sinlessness avails them nothing without Christ's atonement, and so without Christ they must remain in the state of sinless eternal death. 

On 12/4/2020 at 10:29 PM, teddyaware said:

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. (Moroni 8:) 

How could the curse of Adam have potential power over little children if the curse isn’t real and spiritually deadly in the first place?

How can a the curse of Adam be taken from little children if they were never in potential danger of being under the curse without the atonement of Christ?

Why do little children need to be made alive in Christ if they are in a state of purity and innocence without the intervention of Christ?

Because without the resurrection they would be left forever bodiless and though without sin they would be reduced to a similar punishment with those who did sin.

The curse of Adam is that potential for endless death, even for those in a state of purity and innocence.

On 12/4/2020 at 10:29 PM, teddyaware said:

Do you agree with Jacob that without the atonement of Christ spiritual death would reign supreme and all would inevitably become devils, or do you believe Jacob was expounding on a fallacy?

He might have been expounding on a fallacy, depending upon one's definition of "devil". What is a devil? Public opinion aside, a devil is one of those 1/3 of Father's children who rebelled and were cast out to the earth, who wander forever bodiless, and presumably do what they can to tempt living humans.  And if Christ had not atoned and resurrected, each of us in turn who came into this world who died in our sins, would be in the exact same position of all of those 1/3rd -- we would also wander forever bodiless, unable to repent, and be in the exact same state, unable to return to the Father due to our sins.  And those children who died before knowingly transgressing (or sinning, in other words) would likewise be reduced to the same state.

On 12/4/2020 at 10:29 PM, teddyaware said:

Why do you think Jacob bothered to focus so forcefully on the fact that a state of total spiritual death for all would have been the fate of the entire human race without the atonement of Christ if the that state of affairs was not a potential possibility?

I believe I have explained that above.

in the end, however, it won't hurt you or me if you still disagree with me.

BTW, Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I've been considering how to respond.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...