Disbelieving the Scriptures.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Oh, I have one!

Okay, the plan of salvation is like going to the theater.

The price of a ticket for children under 8 is FREE. It is covered by the theater owner.

The price of a ticket for everyone else is repentance, baptism, etc......

[pam]

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 not a GA but REALLY knowledgeable) for thoughts on the matter and report back if anybody's interested.

I'd be interested in what he has to say. I have learned all my life that children under the age of 8 that were not baptized, automatically go to the celestial kingdom and receive all the blessings that go with it. That baptism is not a requirement for them at all.

Unless someone can find a reference to the contrary from a General Authority..I will continue to believe that.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

First off - I'd like to make it clear that I'm not discussing this as somebody who believes something false and needs to be convinced he's wrong; I'm discussing this as an example analysis in support of an earlier claim that seemingly contradictory scriptures could be reconciled. I believe I've demonstrated that point adequately (that being that seemingly contradictory scriptures may not be contradictory when read from an appropriate frame of reference) and I think the discussion has turned towards whether my example is doctrinal or not, which was never meant to be an issue. Since Truth loves analogies so much - we've taken one of Jesus' parables and started debating whether the Good Samaritan ever actually existed, disregarding the original point of the parable. And now people are joining the thread almost specifically to admonish me for "preaching false doctrine" and I feel like I'm being backed into a corner to defend a castle I never built.

That being said, I know the accepted belief regarding the innocence and exaltation of little children. I was raised in the church and raised with that belief and know full well how the accepted belief works. As an exercise, I've looked at that belief in a new and different way in order to demonstrate a point. If we want to discuss the doctrinality of that new and different way of looking at it, I suggest we might move that discussion to the "Gospel Discussion" category, and I'd ask that you please cite valid scriptural and LDS.org references that are specific and definitive. So far all of the references which have been posted refer specifically to a child's exemption from sin and punishment but none of them refer to any exemption from the ordinances of salvation. Where the scriptures or prophets quoted have talked about children being exempt from baptism they have referred only to two specific practices: infant baptism and vicarious baptism for dead children. None have mentioned the need (or lack thereof) for ordinances during the millenium when the children are alive and can receive the ordinances themselves at the appropriate times.

[Vort]

Vort: Disobeying God is right if what God asks you to do is wrong.

This is false doctrine, plain and simple. Of course, you may believe what you like, but don't for a moment suppose this is what the kingdom of God teaches. It is not.

Faith is not blindly obeying every command from God

Funny, then, that the scriptures never make this distinction.

faith is trusting that God will not command you to do anything except that which is right.

So if you have faith, then you will never suggest that it's okay to disobey God "if what God asks you to do is wrong", since you trust that God will not command you to do wrong.

Do I have that 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.

I think the last six words of your quote above illustrate my point. Perhaps that's your point, too, and I just haven't understood your expression of it. If so, this is much different from your previous claim that the best recourse to a difficult commandment is to tell our perfect Father in Heaven "where he could shove that commandment".

Edited August 6, 2009 by Vort

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

This is false doctrine, plain and simple. Of course, you may believe what you like, but don't for a moment suppose this is what the kingdom of God teaches. It is not.

Funny, then, that the scriptures never make this distinction.

So if you have faith, then you will never suggest that it's okay to disobey God "if what God asks you to do is wrong", since you trust that God will not command you to do wrong.

Do I have that right?

I think the last six words of your quote above illustrate my point. Perhaps that's your point, too, and I just haven't understood your expression of it. If so, this is much different from your previous claim that the best recourse to a difficult commandment is to tell our perfect Father in Heaven "where he could shove that commandment".

I didn't say it was the best recourse. I said it would be my recourse. I'm not talking about doctrine, I'm talking my personal choice. I've already stated my awareness of the consequences for that choice and my willingness to accept them. This was not a topic I wished to debate in open forum, and in retrospect I probably should have kept my opinion to myself. Now if you want to get on a mormon high horse and tell me I'm going to go to hell, go for it. I won't be listening.

:edit:

In further retrospect, I should probably refrain from engaging in any sort of debate after a long day at a job I hate. I need a cough drop.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . . :edit:

In further retrospect, I should probably refrain from engaging in any sort of debate after a long day at a job I hate. I need a cough drop.

I understand:)

Been there, done that:wacko:

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by Snow

I absolutely do believe that the Church is true or ordained of God or a correct path to salvation.

My point of view allows me to look at any problem in Church history, or supposed revelation or scripture, both modernly or anciently, and acknowledge the difficulties and still accept the underlying validity of the gospel and Church.

Can you be more specific? What exactly is the valid, underlying gospel that underpins the Church, exactly? Or, to put it more plainly, what parts of the Church do you actually have a testimony of and think are true?

You came after me for pointing out the discrepencies between the two birth narratives of Jesus saying that you were annoyed with people like me who come on these boards to "sound the alarm" as you put it. But you've started a number of threads on these boards doing what appears to me to be the same thing. Is there a difference I'm not seeing?

[Snow]

Can you be more specific? What exactly is the valid, underlying gospel that underpins the Church, exactly? Or, to put it more plainly, what parts of the Church do you actually have a testimony of and think are true?

The atonement, repentance, modern day prophets, valid priesthood authority, the power of the gospel to change people's lives, primarily, out of much much more.

You came after me for pointing out the discrepencies between the two birth narratives of Jesus saying that you were annoyed with people like me who come on these boards to "sound the alarm" as you put it. But you've started a number of threads on these boards doing what appears to me to be the same thing. Is there a difference I'm not seeing?

Now hold on. I have no issues with pointing out contradiction, or error, or absurdity. I do it all the time. Why I came after you is because you blamed other parties for your lack of education on the issue. I (we) am (are) responsible for our own education, no one else.

[soulman200973]

All scripture is open to private interpretation is my personal belief and to add, I'm going to assume that the Bible is open to interpretation, therefore, meaning no including LDS with prophets group/church in particular has the absolute correct message or path to righteousness and, inversely, all churches are subject to falling short of the Bible's actual message and unable to guarantee a pass to heaven

Edited August 9, 2009 by soulman200973
capitolize Bible

[Islander]

All scripture is open to private interpretation is my personal belief and to add, I'm going to assume that the Bible is open to interpretation, therefore, meaning no including LDS with prophets group/church in particular has the absolute correct message or path to righteousness and, inversely, all churches are subject to falling short of the Bible's actual message and unable to guarantee a pass to heaven

Your line of reasoning is faulty and perhaps denotes knowledge gaps in terms of the bible, the dealings of God with men and the purpose of prophets and scripture.

Men are the ones that teist and change the meaning of scriptures. It is man who corrupted the ordinance and the meaning thereof. God sends prophets to point to the right way in addition to the existing scripture. So, then as it is now it the prophet and not scripture who can testify and point mankind to the right way of and to God. When God speaks there is argument or confusion about what HE says. In time, it is man that loses his way. The notion of "subject to interpretation" is a modern excuse to pervert the word of God into a man-made concept leading tot he current chaos out there.

Those who heed to the word of the prophet wil not be confused.

[soulman200973]

Your line of reasoning is faulty and perhaps denotes knowledge gaps in terms of the bible, the dealings of God with men and the purpose of prophets and scripture.

Men are the ones that teist and change the meaning of scriptures. It is man who corrupted the ordinance and the meaning thereof. God sends prophets to point to the right way in addition to the existing scripture. So, then as it is now it the prophet and not scripture who can testify and point mankind to the right way of and to God. When God speaks there is argument or confusion about what HE says. In time, it is man that loses his way. The notion of "subject to interpretation" is a modern excuse to pervert the word of God into a man-made concept leading tot he current chaos out there.

Those who heed to the word of the prophet wil not be confused.

The reasoning is sound if one uses the Holy ghost as the testifier of truth tho I doubt many do anymore and just rely on the prophet as gospel and do not get a witness of the Holy Ghost of even study it out in thier simple minds and ask if it be right and see if the bosoom burns or they can not remember what they asked.

[JohnnyRudick]

The reasoning is sound if one uses the Holy ghost as the testifier of truth tho I doubt many do anymore and just rely on the prophet as gospel and do not get a witness of the Holy Ghost of even study it out in thier simple minds and ask if it be right and see if the bosoom burns or they can not remember what they asked.

I guess it depends on where the "Prophet" got his authority from

and the authority of the Apostles of Jesus Christ standing along side him;)

Bro. Rudick

[Guest missingsomething]

She is not incorrect. I am often condescending with certain types of posters... usually it is with those that are arrogant - and factually mistaken, or dogmatic and irrational, or whiny, etc.

Im just curious why this is ok.. how you justify that is ok?

[Connie]

Im just curious why this is ok.. how you justify that is ok?

I've been wondering the same thing ever since he posted that. It was my understanding that deliberate condescension was the same as flaming. It's one thing for a person to read in condescension where it wasn't meant, quite another when one actually admits to it. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if it was kept to a minimum. It's when it is used in the majority of postings that it gets tiresome and makes one wonder why it's tolerated.

[Snow]

Im just curious why this is ok.. how you justify that is ok?

Diagonally.

Thanks for checking in.

[john doe]

I'm sorry, but you two went back almost 4 months to find something to nitpick about? Get over it already people! It's ancient history! Why is it that some people just can't let things go? Forgive, forget, and move on. 70 times 7, remember?

[Guest missingsomething]

I'm sorry, but you two went back almost 4 months to find something to nitpick about? Get over it already people! It's ancient history! Why is it that some people just can't let things go? Forgive, forget, and move on. 70 times 7, remember?

I apologize JohnDoe... this is a thread at the TOP of the list... therefore I started reading it and did not pay attention to the dates. And unlike some posters, instead of just reading the last post or two, I actually started at the beginning and read my way through. When I came to something I saw as totally against what is supposedly againsted the rules, I posted a question about it...and got a smart remark...and a chastisement from the mods (go figure)... However, I wasnt RUDE about my post.... I wasnt CONDESCENDING... in my post... I merely posed a question. I DIDNT ATTACK anyone... OR THEIR BELIEFS... HOW IS THIS WRONG? Whether it was today or 10 days ago or 4 months ago, I didnt think on this site it was tolerated when someone was self proclaiming to be rude and condensending---regardless of who posted it.... I didnt realize we were not allowed to post to old threads... And if people (MULTIPLE people) were not posting to an "old' thread... it wouldnt be at the top of the list. Perhaps... old threads should be closed after what... say 2 wks then if posting to an old thread is so offensive??? Because until you made your remarks... I NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT THE DATES!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU WILL GO BACK CAREFULLY through the thread... you will see I had not previously posted to this thread. SO I WAS NOT going back... or not LETTING something GO...as you accused. So please, before you make a judgement call about someone... please make sure you are informed first. Now if snow was already warned for this (which I find it hard to believe because I was personally told he was "warned" on two other matters so that would be three and according to the rules would equal banning) then that would be an old issue for you or others, but not for me.

Furthermore, I was posing the question to SNOW as to how he justifies treating people like that... how he finds it is OK to treat people like that. Its a fair question for someone who also says they have a testimony of the gospel. Especially when even Joseph Smith forgave those who didnt believe as he did and didnt tear them down (especially publically) those who even punished and tormented him.

Why is everyone so touchy when people ask SNOW a "thought provoking" question as he does of everyone else?

And yes Johndoe.. Im upset... why? Because I was accused of something that was read into and not true...whether that was your "intent" or not.

Edited August 11, 2009 by missingsomething

[Snow]

How's your gardener missingsomething? Well I hope.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I apologize JohnDoe... this is a thread at the TOP of the list... therefore I started reading it and did not pay attention to the dates. And unlike some posters, instead of just reading the last post or two, I actually started at the beginning and read my way through. When I came to something I saw as totally against what is supposedly againsted the rules, I posted a question about it...and got a smart remark...and a chastisement from the mods (go figure)... However, I wasnt RUDE about my post.... I wasnt CONDESCENDING... in my post... I merely posed a question. I DIDNT ATTACK anyone... OR THEIR BELIEFS... HOW IS THIS WRONG? Whether it was today or 10 days ago or 4 months ago, I didnt think on this site it was tolerated when someone was self proclaiming to be rude and condensending---regardless of who posted it.... I didnt realize we were not allowed to post to old threads... And if people (MULTIPLE people) were not posting to an "old' thread... it wouldnt be at the top of the list. Perhaps... old threads should be closed after what... say 2 wks then if posting to an old thread is so offensive??? Because until you made your remarks... I NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT THE DATES!!!!!!!!!!

IF YOU WILL GO BACK CAREFULLY through the thread... you will see I had not previously posted to this thread. SO I WAS NOT going back... or not LETTING something GO...as you accused. So please, before you make a judgement call about someone... please make sure you are informed first. Now if snow was already warned for this (which I find it hard to believe because I was personally told he was "warned" on two other matters so that would be three and according to the rules would equal banning) then that would be an old issue for you or others, but not for me.

Furthermore, I was posing the question to SNOW as to how he justifies treating people like that... how he finds it is OK to treat people like that. Its a fair question for someone who also says they have a testimony of the gospel. Especially when even Joseph Smith forgave those who didnt believe as he did and didnt tear them down (especially publically) those who even punished and tormented him.

Why is everyone so touchy when people ask SNOW a "thought provoking" question as he does of everyone else?

And yes Johndoe.. Im upset... why? Because I was accused of something that was read into and not true...whether that was your "intent" or not.

Snow has learned the fine art of circumventing the rules of decorum that few other critics have picked up on. Your accurate criticism of him will be fruitless (if not detrimental to your own account), better to just ignore his posts.

[beefche]

Thread is closed.

[john doe]

Look, this stuff was already looked at when it happened 4 months ago. We got all the complaints then and dealt with them then. We try to not announce sanctions publicly unless a member decides to make their sanctions public. It's now ancient history. Do you punish your child for something they did 4 months ago? Or do you try to move on and live a productive life? I can tell you, dwelling on slights and perceived slights from things that happened long ago does nothing to make your life better, and just adds stress to your life. We are commanded by Christ to forgive all men (and women), and the more we forgive our fellow man the easier it becomes to function and learn to live together. So instead of getting all bent out of shape over something relatively minor, why not just sit back, read a little bit, and not take things so personally. Who knows, you might even learn something you didn't know or see things in a light you hadn't thought about before.