Disbelieving the Scriptures.


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering how many people here have had the whisperings of the Spirit before and acted on them, only to discover (or decide) later that it was wrong or it was more of the desire of their own heart?

And maybe it wasn't the whisperings of the Spirit but the whisperings of an evil spirit masquerading as the Spirit. If evil spirits can pretend to be beings of light then they can pretend to be the Spirit.

edit: I've also noticed that no one has answered my question. Is God, a Celestial Being, above Celestial Law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not predestined for Salvation.

Never said that.

Now I am asking you a question.;)

Never said this either.:D

I am asking you, OK?:o

Are you saying that the Spirits coming to this earth is like a giant dice game?:mellow:

God is just throwing us out here in Space and Time and where ever and when

ever we wind up is pure chance?:huh:

Remember, just asking:)

Bro. Rudick

Dunno. I imagine there are lots of degrees of possibility in between God planning and controling everything and chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We still haven't overcome the hurdle of the innocent people being killed. They cannot be part of the "wicked" so they can have no judgement upon them. Since they are not being killed in judgement it has to be a different reason. I cannot think of a just reason to kill innocent children.

I'm wondering how many people here have had the whisperings of the Spirit before and acted on them, only to discover (or decide) later that it was wrong or it was more of the desire of their own heart?

Assumption: Children born to evil parents are perfectly innocent before the age of accountability.

This one is scripturally supported, so we can call that one an axiom.

Assumption: Children born to evil parents who are allowed to live beyond the age of accountability (ie "adopted" by Israel after their parents were killed) will bring with them none of the evil with which they grew up during those first years.

The purpose of destroying the nation was to prevent their wickedness from contaminating Israel. Therefore, anyone left alive must have no way of bringing that contamination with them - otherwise the purpose of the war is made void.

Assumption: Children under the age of accountability are exempt from judgement.

While the scriptures do testify that young children are made perfect by the atonement, the scriptures do not say that they are exempt from judgement. In fact, since the atonement plays the part in their salvation, and since the purpose of the atonement is to mitigate justice, it's implied that young children ARE judged - albeit possibly by a different standard than those who have reached the age of accountability.

I could think of some more angles to go at that from, but I think that's good for now.

That's ok.

What Joseph actually taught was that a mother would receive her children exactly as they died in the resurrection. So they would be resurrected to their infant/child body and then grow until it reaches "the full stature of its spirit."

So, what he taught had nothing to do with the M. And he did say they would be resurrected to "celestial glory."

If A and B then C.

A: Children who die before the age of accountability are resurrected to "celestial glory".

B: All those who are heirs of the celestial kingdom of God are resurrected in the first resurrection before/at the beginning of the millenium.

C: Children who die before the age of accountability are resurrected at the first resurrection.

So, if a child is resurrected at the first resurrection and his/her parents are not, what happens to that child? I understand it may be a bit of a leap, however the claim I made before regarding sealing and righteous families is a satisfactory answer. Whether or not it is true, well you'll have to ask God on that one. To be perfectly honest, I made it up on the spot while responding to your earlier post so I haven't prayed about it either :)

I went and reread your scripture (love that one btw) and have to point something out. I wish to point out that children will NOT be judged by what they would have done/believed or anything.

Check out these references over on lds.org regarding little children.

Little children obtain salvation through the Atonement of Christ. That is it. They are covered by his grace, they are not tempted by Satan, they are without sin.

And we read in D&C 45:58 that the children raised during the M. reign of Christ will "grow up without sin unto salvation." Sounds pretty golden to me! :D

I feel like a total threadjacker, sorry.

Note my argument above regarding the role of the atonement in children's salvation.

I realize I may be making a few logical leaps here, however you're doing a decent job holding your own in this discussion and I can only do so much research while at work!

Now, isn't that "Predestination"?:rolleyes:

God is having this man killed, predestining his death early not giving him the

free agency to "clean up his act"?:o

Bro. Rudick

The judgement isn't made before the man's sins - the judgement is made as a consequence of the man's sins - and sometimes the consequence of that judgement is physical death. It's not predetermination because A: the man's actions were not chosen for him and B: the consequences were not meted out until after he acted.

And maybe it wasn't the whisperings of the Spirit but the whisperings of an evil spirit masquerading as the Spirit. If evil spirits can pretend to be beings of light then they can pretend to be the Spirit.

edit: I've also noticed that no one has answered my question. Is God, a Celestial Being, above Celestial Law?

No, God is not above Celestial Law. God is God because he obeys eternal laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .The judgement isn't made before the man's sins - the judgement is made as a consequence of the man's sins - and sometimes the consequence of that judgement is physical death. It's not predetermination because A: the man's actions were not chosen for him and B: the consequences were not meted out until after he acted. . .

Did not expect an answer, :mellow:

I was pulling your leg,:)

But thanks anyway:D

Bro. Rudick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assumption: Children born to evil parents are perfectly innocent before the age of accountability.

This one is scripturally supported, so we can call that one an axiom.

Assumption: Children born to evil parents who are allowed to live beyond the age of accountability (ie "adopted" by Israel after their parents were killed) will bring with them none of the evil with which they grew up during those first years.

The purpose of destroying the nation was to prevent their wickedness from contaminating Israel. Therefore, anyone left alive must have no way of bringing that contamination with them - otherwise the purpose of the war is made void.

What were the conditions of the children of Israel? Perhaps the war "purpose" was void anyway. Were they living a Zion life? Were they consecrated? Were they walking in the Spirit and manifesting the fruits?

Assumption: Children under the age of accountability are exempt from judgement.

While the scriptures do testify that young children are made perfect by the atonement, the scriptures do not say that they are exempt from judgement. In fact, since the atonement plays the part in their salvation, and since the purpose of the atonement is to mitigate justice, it's implied that young children ARE judged - albeit possibly by a different standard than those who have reached the age of accountability.

The only thing I can think of right now is that the children will not be judged on their own works/hearts or whatever. They are fully covered by the merits, mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah. (2 Ne. 2:8)

Likewise, I've always been taught that they will inherit the highest degree in th CK. Is this similar to what you have been taught? I have never heard from the pulpit, publications or scriptures that unaccountable children/persons would be judged according to anything unless you count the merit of Christ (which is a slamdunk).

I could think of some more angles to go at that from, but I think that's good for now.

If A and B then C.

A: Children who die before the age of accountability are resurrected to "celestial glory".

B: All those who are heirs of the celestial kingdom of God are resurrected in the first resurrection before/at the beginning of the millenium.

C: Children who die before the age of accountability are resurrected at the first resurrection.

So, if a child is resurrected at the first resurrection and his/her parents are not, what happens to that child? I understand it may be a bit of a leap, however the claim I made before regarding sealing and righteous families is a satisfactory answer. Whether or not it is true, well you'll have to ask God on that one. To be perfectly honest, I made it up on the spot while responding to your earlier post so I haven't prayed about it either :)

Note my argument above regarding the role of the atonement in children's salvation.

I realize I may be making a few logical leaps here, however you're doing a decent job holding your own in this discussion and I can only do so much research while at work!

WOW! I didn't expect such a thoughtful reply. I won't tell your boss. ;) I added a couple bolded thoughts to your original cuz it was easier that way.

Did you have time to read the scriptures on little children? It's ok if not, just wondering if they helped mold this reply.

I kinda like the idea that these children are "adopted" to righteous families to be "raised to full stature." It's not doctrinal, but it seems comforting and harmless. Either way they will be One with the Father, that is the cool part.

The judgement isn't made before the man's sins - the judgement is made as a consequence of the man's sins - and sometimes the consequence of that judgement is physical death. It's not predetermination because A: the man's actions were not chosen for him and B: the consequences were not meted out until after he acted.

Right.

How bout:

God sends baby 1 to Canaan. God is omniscient and knew this spirit would be back before 8. This was all part of the plan

God commands Isreal to commit genocide against Canaan

Baby 1 is killed being in a state of innocence and returns to Father

Salvation in the CK for baby 1

Baby 1 was predestined for salvation/CK

It may not be predestination for the wicked adults but it most certainly is for all the innocent humans. Anyone who is guaranteed the CK would be predestined if you believe that God ordered the genocide and put those specific spirits there for it.

No, God is not above Celestial Law. God is God because he obeys eternal laws.

Yup, but humans don't agree on what constitutes Celestial Law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! I didn't expect such a thoughtful reply. I won't tell your boss. ;) I added a couple bolded thoughts to your original cuz it was easier that way.

What were the conditions of the children of Israel? Perhaps the war "purpose" was void anyway. Were they living a Zion life? Were they consecrated? Were they walking in the Spirit and manifesting the fruits?

Probably not ;) but they must have been doing better than Canaan and they had the advantage of being the Lord's chosen people.

The only thing I can think of right now is that the children will not be judged on their own works/hearts or whatever. They are fully covered by the merits, mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah. (2 Ne. 2:8)

Likewise, I've always been taught that they will inherit the highest degree in th CK. Is this similar to what you have been taught? I have never heard from the pulpit, publications or scriptures that unaccountable children/persons would be judged according to anything unless you count the merit of Christ (which is a slamdunk).

1: If children were completely and 100% fully and totally innocent and sinless on their own they would not need the atonement. Since the scriptures you quoted all say that the atonement plays a part in their innocence, I can only conclude that there must be something else going on there behind the scenes. IMO in order for the atonement to have effect, there must be some kind of judgement which determines that the individual in question requires the atonement. The yardstick by which children would be judged in this (purely hypothetical) situation would definitely have to be different from the standards set for the rest of us, but there must still be a standard.

2: In order for children to inherit the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom they have to be A: baptised, B: Endowed, and C: Sealed in marriage. When or if these events occur is anyone's guess. I have not heard of parents in modern times doing vicarious baptisms for children they've lost before turning 8 (but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen), so I would expect that this would be part of the millenial work.

Did you have time to read the scriptures on little children? It's ok if not, just wondering if they helped mold this reply.

I kinda like the idea that these children are "adopted" to righteous families to be "raised to full stature." It's not doctrinal, but it seems comforting and harmless. Either way they will be One with the Father, that is the cool part.

I am familiar with all of those scriptures, and yes they did influence my response :) And you're absolutely right, none of this is doctrine. But it sure is a fun discussion!

Right.

How bout:

God sends baby 1 to Canaan. God is omniscient and knew this spirit would be back before 8. This was all part of the plan

God commands Isreal to commit genocide against Canaan

Baby 1 is killed being in a state of innocence and returns to Father

Salvation in the CK for baby 1

Baby 1 was predestined for salvation/CK

It may not be predestination for the wicked adults but it most certainly is for all the innocent humans. Anyone who is guaranteed the CK would be predestined if you believe that God ordered the genocide and put those specific spirits there for it.

One thing I've always wondered is whether or not God knows what WILL be, or if he knows all things that CAN be - a huge difference. Both can be considered omniscience, however the former pushes the limits of predestination as you say, while the latter is just plain mind-boggling to consider but doesn't affect free will.

In any case, as long a the decision to destroy the nation comes after the wickedness - or rather - as long as the decision to kill the baby comes after the baby's birth, it's not predestination.

Yup, but humans don't agree on what constitutes Celestial Law.

True enough :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not ;) but they must have been doing better than Canaan and they had the advantage of being the Lord's chosen people.

So God grades on a bell curve? :huh: Being the Lord's chosen does not imply being better than others. It actually can be argued that the chosen have MORE required of them. In the New Testament Jesus tells the people that the law of Moses was given because of the HARDNESS of their hearts. I'm not sure if these are people we should emulate or assume that they had a full understanding of God's desire.

1: If children were completely and 100% fully and totally innocent and sinless on their own they would not need the atonement. Since the scriptures you quoted all say that the atonement plays a part in their innocence, I can only conclude that there must be something else going on there behind the scenes. IMO in order for the atonement to have effect, there must be some kind of judgement which determines that the individual in question requires the atonement. The yardstick by which children would be judged in this (purely hypothetical) situation would definitely have to be different from the standards set for the rest of us, but there must still be a standard.

The Atonement covers them. This is why we don't believe in original sin and that children are Unaccountable/sinless. IF unaccountables are judged it is on Chirst's merits, mercy and grace. Do you think unaccountable means something different than NOT accountable? Do yo think innocent, whole and without sin mean something different than their definitions?

2: In order for children to inherit the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom they have to be A: baptised, B: Endowed, and C: Sealed in marriage. When or if these events occur is anyone's guess. I have not heard of parents in modern times doing vicarious baptisms for children they've lost before turning 8 (but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen), so I would expect that this would be part of the millenial work.

This is false doctrine. :) We do not believe that the unaccountable need baptism, endowment or marriage sealing to be saved or exalted. You will have to come up with proof of this as it is brand new to me.

I have a sister who is severly disabled. I promise you that she is guaranteed to enherit the highest degree of the CK according to church doctrine. I have done lots and lots of temple work for ancestors. I promise that the only thing the do with children under 8 is seal them to their parents (unless someone submits them as over 8 or undetermined).

I am familiar with all of those scriptures, and yes they did influence my response :) And you're absolutely right, none of this is doctrine. But it sure is a fun discussion!

One thing I've always wondered is whether or not God knows what WILL be, or if he knows all things that CAN be - a huge difference. Both can be considered omniscience, however the former pushes the limits of predestination as you say, while the latter is just plain mind-boggling to consider but doesn't affect free will.

In any case, as long a the decision to destroy the nation comes after the wickedness - or rather - as long as the decision to kill the baby comes after the baby's birth, it's not predestination.

That is fine. I think someone earlier said that it wouldn't be unjust for God to have innocent babies killed because he sent them there knowing that it would happen and thus chose those spirits for that purpose. That is why I argued that it was predestination.

Let's say that God didn't know that those spirits were going to to be in that situation. Is it just for God to command the killing of innocents who have no sin and cannot atone for the sins of others? Is it just for him to do a pre-emptive strike if he doesn't *know* that they will "taint" the children of Isreal?

Edited by TruthSeekerToo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe it wasn't the whisperings of the Spirit but the whisperings of an evil spirit masquerading as the Spirit. If evil spirits can pretend to be beings of light then they can pretend to be the Spirit.

edit: I've also noticed that no one has answered my question. Is God, a Celestial Being, above Celestial Law?

Thank you for answering. :) So, if the still small voice told you to kill someone(s) would you believe it was from God or the devil? I, personally, would not think it was from God.

puf and I say "yes" God obeys his Celestial Laws. We also agree humans are not clear on what those are. We can probably all agree they are perfectly just and merciful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So God grades on a bell curve? :huh: Being the Lord's chosen does not imply being better than others. It actually can be argued that the chosen have MORE required of them. In the New Testament Jesus tells the people that the law of Moses was given because of the HARDNESS of their hearts. I'm not sure if these are people we should emulate or assume that they had a full understanding of God's desire.

Not only does God play dice - the dice are loaded :D Being the Lord's chosen people gives you an edge when it comes to destruction; ie the Lord has a little more patience with them than he does with other nations. This is evidenced throughout the Old Testament.

The Atonement covers them. This is why we don't believe in original sin. Do you believe in original sin? IF unaccountables are judged it is on Chirst's merits, mercy and grace. Do you think unaccountable means something different than NOT accountable? Do yo think innocent, whole and without sin mean something different than their definitions?

Mosiah 3

16 And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

This verse almost seems self-contradictory. The interpretation I would render would be "Children can commit wrong acts (sins) however because they are not yet accountable for these acts (because they have not achieved the mental, emotional, or spiritual development to fully understand right and wrong and consequences), the atonement is automatically applied and these sins are forgiven without the need for the repentance process; in effect making them "without sin".

This is false doctrine. :) We do not believe that the unaccountable need baptism, endowment or marriage sealing to be saved or exalted. You will have to come up with proof of this as it is brand new to me.

I have a sister who is severly disabled. I promise you that she is guaranteed to enherit the highest degree of the CK according to church doctrine. I have done lots and lots of temple work for ancestors. I promise that the only thing the do with children under 8 is seal them to their parents (unless someone submits them as over 8 or undetermined).

It IS doctrine that ALL mankind must be baptised.

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Baptism

"Baptism by immersion in water by one having authority is the first saving ordinance of the gospel and is necessary for an individual to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to receive eternal salvation. All who seek eternal life must follow the example of the Savior by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost."

John 3

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Baptisms for the Dead

"Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth..."

The scriptures and the prophets make it very clear that there is no way that anyone can receive exaltation without first being baptised (and then endowed, and then sealed in marriage). That's as doctrinal as you can get.

It makes sense that we don't do vicarious baptisms for children under 8 because they'll still be under 8 when they're resurrected: ergo they would have to be baptised during the millenium.

That is fine. I think someone earlier said that it wouldn't be unjust for God to have innocent babies killed because he sent them their knowing that it would happen and thus chose those spirits for that purpose. That is why I argued that it was predestination.

Let's say that God didn't know that those spirits were going to to be in that situation. Is it just for God to command the killing of innocents who have no sin and cannot atone for the sins of others? Is it just for him to do a pre-emptive strike if he doesn't *know* that they will "taint" the children of Isreal?

This boils down to one of two possibilities (which echo the entire purpose this thread was intended to serve):

1: The scriptures are wrong and God did not order these entire civilizations destroyed; and the same would have to apply to every civilization God has had destroyed in all the world's history including the whole world of Noah's time, the land of Canaan, Babylon after Judah's captivity, the Jeredites, and the Nephites - among many many many others.

OR

2: It is Just for this destruction to include the unaccountable children. I've tried (and I think I've done a helluva job!) to reason out how it could be considered Just for God to do such a thing, but in the end it's all theory and rhetoric. The Spirit is required to get any further on this one, I'm afraid.

There is a third possibility - that God did order the destruction of these innocent children even though it was not just, making Him unworthy to be God. But I don't think any of us here has the knowledge and understanding to make anything useful out of that discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for answering. :) So, if the still small voice told you to kill someone(s) would you believe it was from God or the devil? I, personally, would not think it was from God.

Doctrine and Covenants 132

"Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness."

You can be pretty sure that in these cases such as Abraham, Moses, and Nephi, they were close enough to God to know the difference between the Holy Ghost and Satan's minions. See Moses 1 14 "For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely?"

Personally, if God commanded me to kill and sacrifice my son, I'd tell Him where he could shove that commandment. Maybe that makes me unworthy of Celestial glory. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

puf, you are misunderstanding the doctrine of baptism. Please review this article by Boyd Packer on the topic. He calls the baptism of unaccountable people false doctrine. The unaccountable have NO need of baptism. Period. They have no need of temple ordinances except sealing to parents according to our doctrine.

From the article (for those who hate clicking):

“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” (Moro. 8:7–9).

Mormon told Moroni to teach repentance and baptism to “those who are accountable and capable of committing sin” (Moro. 8:10).

Eight is established by revelation as the age of accountability (see D&C 68:27).

Then, in sternness unsurpassed in scripture, Mormon warned:

“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.

“For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

“Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God” (Moro. 8:14–16).

Read his entire epistle. It is true doctrine. It will inspire a reverence for little children. Thereafter, who could even think to neglect, much less to abuse one of them?

How can a baptism be performed AFTER the resurrection?

Millenium-->First Resurrection-Second Resurrection-->Judgement

"We will be resurrected to the degree of glory consistent with our faithfulness (see 1 Corinthians 15:40–42 ; D&C 88:22–31 ; 76:96–98 )." HERE

This boils down to one of two possibilities (which echo the entire purpose this thread was intended to serve):

1: The scriptures are wrong and God did not order these entire civilizations destroyed; and the same would have to apply to every civilization God has had destroyed in all the world's history including the whole world of Noah's time, the land of Canaan, Babylon after Judah's captivity, the Jeredites, and the Nephites - among many many many others.

OR

2: It is Just for this destruction to include the unaccountable children. I've tried (and I think I've done a helluva job!) to reason out how it could be considered Just for God to do such a thing, but in the end it's all theory and rhetoric. The Spirit is required to get any further on this one, I'm afraid.

There is a third possibility - that God did order the destruction of these innocent children even though it was not just, making Him unworthy to be God. But I don't think any of us here has the knowledge and understanding to make anything useful out of that discussion.

Yes, it does come back to the purpose of this thread. I agree we can safely discard the third option!

The mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion of #2 keep me from choosing that option.

Might I supply a fourth and fifth option?

#4 The scriptures are accounts of mens dealings with God-from the man's POV. They contain spiritual truths that don't require us to believe God commands genocide, slavery, etc.

#5 These bothersome stories are symbolic and not to be taken literally. They teach us spiritual truths that transcend the literal interpretation.

And a truth that goes along with this...We learn in 2 Nephi that there is opposition in all things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

puf, you are misunderstanding the doctrine of baptism. Please review this article by Boyd Packer on the topic. He calls the baptism of unaccountable people false doctrine. The unaccountable have NO need of baptism. Period. They have no need of temple ordinances except sealing to parents according to our doctrine.

From the article (for those who hate clicking):

How can a baptism be performed AFTER the resurrection?

Millenium-->First Resurrection-Second Resurrection-->Judgement

First things first:

First Judgement -> First Resurrection -> Millenium -> Second Resurrection -> Final Judgement

Basic plan of salvation stuff there.

Christ, himself the most perfect being (more perfect than the most innocent child) had to be baptised.

Still basic plan of salvation stuff there.

Secondly, it is true that children do not need temple ordinances done for them in this life. That's not even an arguable point.

So, since Christ was baptised that means that everyone without exception of any kind must be baptised to receive exaltation.

So either children who die before the age of accountability are not exalted (they can still go to the Celestial Kingdom, so this is a scriptural possibility) or they have to be baptised at some time.

So let me summarize to make it clear what I'm saying:

Johnny dies at age 6. Johnny is unaccountable for his sins as we've discussed and therefore goes to spirit paradise and is resurrected at the first resurrection.

Johnny comes forth in the first resurrection (before the millenium) at age 6.He's innocent and therefore worthy of the first resurrection. Joseph Smith said children are resurrected as they were laid down (ie the same age).

2 years into the millenium, Johnny reaches the age of accountability and is baptised. Johnny can not be exalted without baptism, therefore when he reaches baptism age, he is baptised just like anybody else. During the millenium he would also receive his endowment at the appropriate age and time and get married.

Otherwise - Johnny doesn't get exalted. He can still go to the Celestial Kingdom, just not to the highest glory within that kingdom.

"We will be resurrected to the degree of glory consistent with our faithfulness (see 1 Corinthians 15:40–42 ; D&C 88:22–31 ; 76:96–98 )." HERE

Resurrected to the degree consistent withour faithfulness must not apply to everybody - since children aren't judged by their faithfulness ;)

Yes, it does come back to the purpose of this thread. I agree we can safely discard the third option!

The mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion of #2 keep me from choosing that option.

Might I supply a fourth and fifth option?

#4 The scriptures are accounts of mens dealings with God-from the man's POV. They contain spiritual truths that don't require us to believe God commands genocide, slavery, etc.

#5 These bothersome stories are symbolic and not to be taken literally. They teach us spiritual truths that transcend the literal interpretation.

And a truth that goes along with this...We learn in 2 Nephi that there is opposition in all things.

What are the spiritual truths taught by false (men's POV or symbolic, still false) stories of a God that commands murder and rape? I think I've already thoroughly discussed the spiritual truths taught by the stories if they are true.

I personally like the idea of a God that knows all things that can be. It's more godlike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to lds.org concerning children and baptism:

Little Children and Baptism

From latter-day revelation, we know that little children are redeemed through the mercy of Jesus Christ. The Lord said, "They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me" (see D&C 29:46–47). They are not to be baptized until they reach the age of accountability, which the Lord has revealed to be eight years of age (see D&C 68:27; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 17:11). Anyone who claims that little children need baptism "denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption" (Moroni 8:20; see also verses 8–19, 21–24).

Anyone who is lds and teaches contrary to that is teaching false doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First things first:

First Judgement -> First Resurrection -> Millenium -> Second Resurrection -> Final Judgement

Basic plan of salvation stuff there.

Christ, himself the most perfect being (more perfect than the most innocent child) had to be baptised.

Still basic plan of salvation stuff there.

Secondly, it is true that children do not need temple ordinances done for them in this life. That's not even an arguable point.

So, since Christ was baptised that means that everyone without exception of any kind must be baptised to receive exaltation.

No. It doesn't. Vicarious work is a BACK UP plan. Children and unaccountable people do not require a back up plan--->they've got Jesus. :D Jesus fulfilled all righteousness by being baptised because it was a requirement of the LAW because he was accountable. It is not a requirement of the law for unaccountable people.

I believe we have already proved that it is not a requirement of the law for unaccountables to be baptized.

Please provide me with a reference that clearly states those who are unacountable will receive temple ordinances during the M.

So either children who die before the age of accountability are not exalted (they can still go to the Celestial Kingdom, so this is a scriptural possibility) or they have to be baptised at some time.

So let me summarize to make it clear what I'm saying:

Johnny dies at age 6. Johnny is unaccountable for his sins as we've discussed and therefore goes to spirit paradise and is resurrected at the first resurrection.

Johnny comes forth in the first resurrection (before the millenium) at age 6.He's innocent and therefore worthy of the first resurrection. Joseph Smith said children are resurrected as they were laid down (ie the same age).

2 years into the millenium, Johnny reaches the age of accountability and is baptised. Johnny can not be exalted without baptism, therefore when he reaches baptism age, he is baptised just like anybody else. During the millenium he would also receive his endowment at the appropriate age and time and get married.

Otherwise - Johnny doesn't get exalted. He can still go to the Celestial Kingdom, just not to the highest glory within that kingdom.

Resurrected to the degree consistent withour faithfulness must not apply to everybody - since children aren't judged by their faithfulness ;)

Does a child have "perfect faith?" Are we told to "become like children?"

What are the spiritual truths taught by false (men's POV or symbolic, still false) stories of a God that commands murder and rape? I think I've already thoroughly discussed the spiritual truths taught by the stories if they are true.

I personally like the idea of a God that knows all things that can be. It's more godlike :)

Hmmm. Were the parables of Christ false? You and I have different definitions of false, which is okay. I just wanted to point it out that someone could come to a different conclusion. You have told me the surface truths that can be derived from God commanded genocide.

I also like the idea that God knows all that can be--he knows what we would do in any given situation---all possibilities are before him.

I do NOT like the idea that God commands men to slaughter innocent babies. Obviously. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children do not nor will they need to be baptized as they are unaccountable. Prior to eight years old. If they have not been taught the sins after that age fall on their parents.

Temple baptisms are not performed for children under the age of eight.

I do not understand the concern that God would call someone back to his presence before the age of eight or a child.

I recall in Book of Mormon as men, women and children were being thrown in to the fire Alma would not save them so that they would stand as a testimony against those who did not believe.

While how we live in this life matters it is not how long or how short we live in this life that matters.

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to lds.org concerning children and baptism:

Little Children and Baptism

From latter-day revelation, we know that little children are redeemed through the mercy of Jesus Christ. The Lord said, "They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me" (see D&C 29:46–47). They are not to be baptized until they reach the age of accountability, which the Lord has revealed to be eight years of age (see D&C 68:27; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 17:11). Anyone who claims that little children need baptism "denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption" (Moroni 8:20; see also verses 8–19, 21–24).

Anyone who is lds and teaches contrary to that is teaching false doctrine.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to teach false doctrine, I'm only trying to have an intelligent discussion. I've been asked to reconcile some apparent inconsistencies in scripture and in doing so I am postulating and theorizing. And so far everything I've said - at least as I understand it - is perfectly in line with the doctrines and teachings of the church as you have quoted them above and as I have been taught in church. Whether I've been able to convey it intelligibly or not is another matter. I do realize how easily theorizing and hypothosizing can lead to false doctrine, which is why I continually try to emphasize the theoretical nature of the discussion.

But just to be on the safe side - I reiterate that this is all hypothetical and that if anybody reading has a question about the truthfulness of the ideas presented in this discussion that they pray about them as Moroni said and learn by the Holy Ghost whether there is any truth here.

No. It doesn't. Vicarious work is a BACK UP plan. Children and unaccountable people do not require a back up plan--->they've got Jesus. :D

I wouldn't consider vicarious work to be a backup plan - I might even call it the primary plan. And if Jesus could nullify the requirement for saving ordinances for anybody, why not do it for everybody? Oh wait - that was Lucifer's plan....

Jesus fulfilled all righteousness by being baptised because it was a requirement of the LAW because he was accountable. It is not a requirement of the law for unaccountable people.

Johnny who dies at 6 turns 8 during the millenium. Doesn't that mean he's reached the age of accountability and therefore is accountable and therefore must be baptised? Or is Johnny 6 for all eternity?

I believe we have already proved that it is not a requirement of the law for unaccountables to be baptized.

Only as long as they are unaccountable. If a child reaches the age of accountability in this life he must be baptised in order to be saved - why would it be any different if he reaches that age in the millenium?

Please provide me with a reference that clearly states those who are unacountable will receive temple ordinances during the M.

Doctrine and Covenants 131

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

That accounts for one temple ordinance that they will have to receive during the millenium :)

And since we all know you must be endowed before being sealed, that makes 2 temple ordinances.

Just out of curiosity - has anyone ever been endowed without first being baptised by water and by fire as per Christ's own words in John 3? I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that somebody can receive exaltation (not just enter the Celestial Kingdom, but enter into the highest glory thereof) without being baptised.

No blessing can be bestowed except by obedience to the law upon which that blessing is predicated (Doctrine and Covenants 130 ).

The blessing of exaltation is predicated upon the laws of certain ordinances ( Doctrine and Covenants 131 ).

Therefore: Regardless of their accountability, little children can not be exalted until they have obeyed those laws and received those ordinances.

It stands to reason that they will not be little children anymore at the time they receive those ordinances ( LDS.org - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith ).

Does a child have "perfect faith?" Are we told to "become like children?"

So we're supposed to become unaccountable like children? No. We're supposed to become obedient and humble and trusting like children.

Hmmm. Were the parables of Christ false? You and I have different definitions of false, which is okay. I just wanted to point it out that someone could come to a different conclusion. You have told me the surface truths that can be derived from God commanded genocide.

I also like the idea that God knows all that can be--he knows what we would do in any given situation---all possibilities are before him.

I do NOT like the idea that God commands men to slaughter innocent babies. Obviously. ^_^

As far as I know none of Christ's parables involved the "slaughter of innocent babies". I find it just as difficult to imagine a kind and loving god teaching a parable about such slaughter as I do imagining the same kind of god ordering that slaughter.

If you want more than surface truths (or more accurately, surface theories) you'll have to do some reading, studying, and praying of your own to get an answer straight from the source whether He commanded these things and why.

I agree, it does.

Oh well. I'd rather go to hell for doing what I know in my heart to be right than go to heaven for doing something I know to be wrong. If things end up that way - I hope you'll come visit me :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only as long as they are unaccountable. If a child reaches the age of accountability in this life he must be baptised in order to be saved - why would it be any different if he reaches that age in the millenium?

According to the article I provided the link for it states:

Abinadi said, “Little children also have eternal life.” (Mosiah 15:25) Joseph Smith taught, “Children will be enthroned in the presence of God and the Lamb; … they will there enjoy the fulness of that light, glory, and intelligence, which is prepared in the celestial kingdom.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 200) President Joseph Fielding Smith spoke very expressly on this point: “The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to the exaltation. We were all mature spirits before we were born; and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience, the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth. The Lord is just and will not deprive any person of a blessing simply because he dies before that blessing can be received. It would be clearly unfair to deprive a little child of the privilege of receiving all the blessings of exaltation in the world to come simply because it died in infancy. … Children who die in childhood will not be deprived of any blessing. When they grow, after the resurrection, to the full maturity of the spirit, they will be entitled to all the blessings which they would have been entitled to had they been privileged to tarry here and receive them.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:54.)

Doesn't state they will forever be the age of 6. But since they died prior to the age of accountability they already have the Celestial Kingdom and all the blessings that go with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it does.

Oh well. I'd rather go to hell for doing what I know in my heart to be right than go to heaven for doing something I know to be wrong.

So you believe that obeying God is wrong, then, and disobeying him is right. Interesting.

If your heart is telling you that God is wrong or evil, then I would suggest you listen to something other than your heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And perhaps if your heart is telling you to kill someone you are listening to something other than your heart.

If it is the still small voice asking you to kill, what makes you 110% sure that it is a direct command from God? Many people claim that a voice of God has told them to kill. How do you know they didn't?

If the still small voice whispers anything contrary to Christ's teachings what are we to think? How can we even trust an "angel of light" if it is directing us to do something contrary to the Light of Christ? Especially if devils can disguise themselves as an "angel of light."

Just wondering.

Pam thanks for all the links to little children stuff. There are lots of interesting nuggets in the BRM article.

I think it is safe to say that "growing in stature" after you are a resurrected being is totally different than the mortal aging process. There are people who will live their mortal lives during th M. which is different from resurrected beings.....

I find it just as difficult to imagine a kind and loving god teaching a parable about such slaughter as I do imagining the same kind of god ordering that slaughter.

Exactly! So, which is more difficult to imagine? The truth is there are more options than that. But, I find the least likely option to be that a kind, loving, just and merciful God commands genocide.

If you want more than surface truths (or more accurately, surface theories) you'll have to do some reading, studying, and praying of your own to get an answer straight from the source whether He commanded these things and why.

Currently in this lifelong process. It's quiet a ride, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

And perhaps if your heart is telling you to kill someone you are listening to something other than your heart.

Indeed. But that's not the issue.

If it is the still small voice asking you to kill, what makes you 110% sure that it is a direct command from God?

I have no idea, having never been in such a position.

But that's irrelevant. Your claim was as follows:

Personally, if God commanded me to kill and sacrifice my son, I'd tell Him where he could shove that commandment. Maybe that makes me unworthy of Celestial glory.

You were crystal clear: If God your Creator -- not some evil spirit masquerading as God or a mental defect on your part, but God himself -- commanded you to do as he commanded Abraham, you would not only disobey him, but you would direct vulgarities toward him.

You then supposed that this might make you "unworthy of Celestial glory". I simply agreed with that obvious fact.

You're the one claiming you'd feel better about going to Hell than going to Heaven.

Link to comment

Pam: The article you posted was good and informative, but I don't think it answers this specific question.

I'm not debating whether or not children get to go to the celestial kingdom and exaltation. I'm just suggesting there's more to the process than a "free ride" or "golden ticket". We know that no blessing can be granted without obedience to the corresponding law. We know the laws that correspond to exaltation and these laws include specific ordinances including baptism; AND we know these laws have existed since before the foundation of the world. I have yet to see anything that specifically states that there are exceptions to these laws. So there HAS to be some way for children to fulfill those laws if they died before being accountable in this life. Barring some 100% conclusive statement from a GA or scripture, I think this discussion has gone about as far as it can. I'll ask some people at church (Bruce R McConkie's son is a stake president in town :D not a GA but REALLY knowledgeable) for thoughts on the matter and report back if anybody's interested.

Vort: Disobeying God is right if what God asks you to do is wrong. Faith is not blindly obeying every command from God, faith is trusting that God will not command you to do anything except that which is right. If you think a commandment is not right or is unjust, go ahead and question it - ask God. That's what Nephi did. He asked, God answered, and Nephi accepted that answer and obeyed.

Truth: I agree that "growing in stature" may not necessarily mean what we now consider to be aging. It hasn't been revealed how that will work and while I could speculate, it'd probably lead to another 20 pages like the last 20 ;)

The evidence is before us that God has commanded what we would call genocide. We are left to learn how this commandment is just, merciful, and loving or we can just shrug it off as one of those thing's we'll learn in the resurrection.

The ride isn't so much quiet as much as we tend to be wearing headphones listening to something else.

:edit:

Oh, and I think the overall point has been served - that is to demonstrate how an apparent discrepancy in scripture can make absolute sense without any sort of "spin" or apologetic mumbo-jumbo.

Edited by puf_the_majic_dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .

Johnny who dies at 6 turns 8 during the millenium. Doesn't that mean he's reached the age of accountability and therefore is accountable and therefore must be baptised? Or is Johnny 6 for all eternity?

Only as long as they are unaccountable. If a child reaches the age of accountability in this life he must be baptised in order to be saved - why would it be any different if he reaches that age in the millenium? . . .

OK, I die at age 6 and am resurrected as part of the first resurrection and live during

the Millennium.

I now have a glorified body and am not subject to what I was subject to when I had

flesh and blood. (As opposed to the glorious body of flesh, bone, water and light I now have:))

I am subject to the same laws but the laws that apply apply differently.

Not sure how to explain it all to you but all rule have exceptions and this is one.

Having died as a child I was outside the Law and it had no claim on me and now I am beyond the effects of its requirements.

When Jesus was Baptized he was within the Law and under its claims and subject to it.

When He said the "all" He was referring to the "all" that fell within the same parameters.

Best I can do at this point.

Anyone else want to fill in my holes?

Bro. Rudick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share