Heavenly Mother and Scripture

[pam]

I have seen angry 2 and 3 year olds and I can tell you they are a perfect example of our sinful state. They will lie, yell, be selfish, bite you, etc etc. Some kids are better than others but we are all born in sin.

I hardly find that angry 2-3 year olds are sinful. They are being children. They are children who have not yet learned how to control what they are feeling. When we are born we are born without sin. We don't start in this world being a sinful person.

I could look at any newborn and I don't see a sinful person there. I see someone who just left their Heavenly Father and is pure. They learn as they grow older to make choices right or wrong.

[JohnOF123]

I hardly find that angry 2-3 year olds are sinful. They are being children. They are children who have not yet learned how to control what they are feeling. When we are born we are born without sin. We don't start in this world being a sinful person.

I could look at any newborn and I don't see a sinful person there. I see someone who just left their Heavenly Father and is pure. They learn as they grow older to make choices right or wrong.

I think we could both agree that we have never met a child who hasn't told a lie to their parents, at least one time.

Here is my question: Do you think Jesus (as a child) could have possibly ever told His parents a lie?

[pam]

No I don't.

[JohnOF123]

No I don't.

Ok, I agree. If Jesus never lied and is sinless, could you help me understand how a child can lie everyday and not be sinning?

I understand sin as the transgression of God's law (thou shalt not lie).

And accountability as not being responsible to God for my sin or sinfulness.

So can I conclude children sin, but are not accountable, even though they sin because it is in their nature to do so. They just haven't grown to learn to fight their natural sin. So they are not accountable (of their sin).

Something like that?

[pam]

any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.

You mentioned 2-3 year olds. I don't think that any 2-3 year old has the capacity to understand that they are deliberately violating. They just don't have that mental maturity yet. So therefore I don't see it as sin as we would think of in someone that is older.

As they get older and are taught what is right and wrong and their maturity level of understanding increases, they are still not held accountable for their sins if they were to die before they reached the age of accountability. In the LDS religion that is age 8 at which time they can be baptized and all sins are erased.

[JohnOF123]

You mentioned 2-3 year olds. I don't think that any 2-3 year old has the capacity to understand that they are deliberately violating. They just don't have that mental maturity yet. So therefore I don't see it as sin as we would think of in someone that is older.

As they get older and are taught what is right and wrong and their maturity level of understanding increases, they are still not held accountable for their sins if they were to die before they reached the age of accountability. In the LDS religion that is age 8 at which time they can be baptized and all sins are erased.

I think I understand. So a child can be 7 and sinful, but is not accountable. And a child can be 9 and sinful, and is accountable.

But in the case of a newborn, or toddler, they don't sin, but they do have a sin nature.

I would agree with that if that's what you mean.

[pam]

I disagree if I'm to understand what you mean by sin nature. I know there are many Christians who believe we inherited the original sin from Adam. One of our Articles of Faith states:

We believe that man will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

[JohnOF123]

I disagree if I'm to understand what you mean by sin nature. I know there are many Christians who believe we inherited the original sin from Adam. One of our Articles of Faith states:

We believe that man will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

Ok, I'm very close to understanding.

I think we agree on this first part...

A child can be 7 and sinful, but is not accountable.

A child can be 9 and sinful, and is accountable.

And in the case of a newborn, or toddler, they don't sin...

Done...

But that leaves us with one question.

Why do all children eventually begin sinning? If it's because the child learns sin from the parents, could a person then grow up alone on a deserted island (theoretically speaking) and be sinless. If not, how does this sin begin?

If it's in their nature, they will begin sinning no matter where they are. But if it is learned, then when no people are ever around, they would be sinless. I think.

Edited February 15, 2010 by JohnOF123

[pam]

I don't believe kids learn sin necessarily from their parents. If their parents are attempting to teach them right from wrong, they still have their agency to make right or wrong choices. Just like we do as adults.

[JohnOF123]

I don't believe kids learn sin necessarily from their parents. If their parents are attempting to teach them right from wrong, they still have their agency to make right or wrong choices. Just like we do as adults.

Ok, I agree with this as well. Kid's don't necessarily learn sin from their parents.

But if all children begin sinning even alone on a deserted island, why do all 100% of them begin sinning?

Here are our options:

1. Learned to sin from others (we agreed no)

2. In their nature to begin sinning

3. _____

Can anyone help us with a 3rd possibility of why a child begins sinning?

[pyxiwulf]

We believe all are born with the ability to sin, but that intent and maturity matter. My 3 yr old who lied to me yesterday about eating yogurt without permission did not commit a punishable sin because while she did a sin-like act, her intent was pure of heart as a 3 yr old and is not mature enough to be eternally liable for that lie. As her earthly parent, it was my job to deal with her and teach her that it is wrong, so that as she ages and becomes more aware of her impact on the world, people, and her own salvation, she may make choices. Choices that cannot truly be made until certain psychological changes occur that happen around age 8. It's not sin when you are incapable of making the choice.

[marts1]

Ok, I agree with this as well. Kid's don't necessarily learn sin from their parents.

But if all children begin sinning even alone on a deserted island, why do all 100% of them begin sinning?

Here are our options:

1. Learned to sin from others (we agreed no)

2. In their nature to begin sinning

3. _____

Can anyone help us with a 3rd possibility of why a child begins sinning?

You might ask why did Eve choose to disobey.

[bytebear]

Please answer 2 questions for me. Feel free to start off your answer with a yes or no.

Let's start from the Bible, since we can both agree that it's the Word of God.

1. Biblically speaking, is everyone a child of God, or are we His enemies until we are [saved] adopted as children of God?

I think we have established that children are saved through Christ. Second there are two meanings of the term "child of God". One is the literal spirit child of Heavenly Father, and the other is being adopted into the family of God through the atonement of Christ. Essentually this is becoming part of the house of Israel through adoption. And the real question you should be asking "Why are we enemies with God?" and once you will find that answer, you will be one more step closer to understanding LDS belief.

And

2. Biblically speaking, are we born in sin?

We are born innocent, but are born into an imperfect world. Look at Adam and Eve for an example of being born innocent in a perfect world. You said earlier you believed that perhaps it was the parents of children who teach them evil. But then who taught Adam and Eve evil? This is why we do not call Adam's actions a sin, but rather a transgression. Another aspect of LDS belief worth looking deeper into.

[JohnOF123]

Ok, I agree with this as well. Kid's don't necessarily learn sin from their parents.

But if all children begin sinning even alone on a deserted island, why do all 100% of them begin sinning?

Here are our options:

1. Learned to sin from others (we agreed no)

2. In their nature to begin sinning

3. _____

Can anyone help us with a 3rd possibility of why a child begins sinning?

Bump.

[pam]

But if all children begin sinning even alone on a deserted island, why do all 100% of them begin sinning?

How do you know they sin if they are all alone on a deserted island?

[JohnOF123]

How do you know they sin if they are all alone on a deserted island?

It's just a hypothetical question. I could also say, if a child is deaf and blind. The core issue with my comments is that if no child has a nature of sin, then why do all of them begin sinning. The only 2 possibilities I can think of is that they either learn it or it's in human nature to sin. I'm asking for a possible 3rd answer.

[pam]

I think Bytebear answered that. We are born into an imperfect world. We are allowed to make choices. We have agency.

[JohnOF123]

I think Bytebear answered that. We are born into an imperfect world. We are allowed to make choices. We have agency.

I agree we have agency, but the question is Why do we all sin in our free will [our agency]? So the answer cannot be "because we have agency."

Ok so all children begin to sin because...

1. they learn it (no)

2. it's in their nature

3. __please fill in this blank__

[pam]

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at.

I could be in a convenience store. I see a candy bar that I would really like to have. I can choose to pay for that candy bar because that is what I've been taught to do because it's the right thing. Or I can steal that candy bar. I've been taught what is right and what is wrong. I would not say it's in my nature to be a thief or to sin in this way..but I have the option of choices. I have agency to pay for that candy bar or to steal it.

If I'm caught I have consequences. So it is with most of the decisions in our life.

[JohnOF123]

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at.

I could be in a convenience store. I see a candy bar that I would really like to have. I can choose to pay for that candy bar because that is what I've been taught to do because it's the right thing. Or I can steal that candy bar. I've been taught what is right and what is wrong. I would not say it's in my nature to be a thief or to sin in this way..but I have the option of choices. I have agency to pay for that candy bar or to steal it.

If I'm caught I have consequences. So it is with most of the decisions in our life.

Let me reverse my method to help us come up with that 3rd possibility I'm looking for.

Johnof123 would say...

Humans have free will [and a sinful nature], so they choose both to sin in life, and can be naturally proud/arrogant/cruel/etc.

Now we know the first part is true, we know the last part is true, but we disagree on the "sinful nature" portion.

Let us see if this same sentence works without it.

Humans have free will, so they choose both to sin in life, and can be naturally proud/arrogant/cruel/etc.

Well that doesn't always work, because there could be beings whom could exist that have free will but choose not to sin and are not naturally prideful. So having free will alone is not reason enough for the rest to be true.

So something is missing from that statement to make it definitive.

I'm asking for another possibility.

{If you read this example, you will see that the answer cannot be agency, it's agency + something}

Edited February 15, 2010 by JohnOF123

[bytebear]

But if all children begin sinning even alone on a deserted island, why do all 100% of them begin sinning?

Free agency. But again, when did Adam and Eve begin sinning? And what about those in the City of Enoch? Clearly we have the ability to not sin, but we have agency and live in an imperfect world. God himself has the ability to sin, but he chooses not to.

How does a child who can't even speak confess that Jesus is Lord or confess their sins? That seriously makes no sense.

Is this debate about infant baptism? How we overcome our imperfect nature? There was only one (Jesus Christ) who had a perfect inherent nature, and as such He was able to atone for the rest of us. But we have always had agency. 1/3 chose to follow Satan and lost their First Estate. We are in that estate, and proving ourselves worthy of our Second Estate. But for us to progress, we must go through the process. We must gain a physical body, experience an earthy existence of imperfection and learn how make choices, experience life, and learn how to become perfect. We aren't born into sin. We are born as who we are, the same nature we had before, and when we die, we will take our nature with us to the next life, so this life is for us to learn and grow and become something greater, and the learning is our responsibility, and the purification comes through Christ.

Edited February 15, 2010 by bytebear

[JohnOF123]

Free agency. But again, when did Adam and Eve begin sinning? And what about those in the City of Enoch? Clearly we have the ability to not sin, but we have agency and live in an imperfect world.

We know "free will" alone (by itself) is not the only variable...

Let's try it again.

Humans have free will, so they choose both to sin in life, and can be naturally proud/arrogant/cruel/etc.

This doesn't work as we said since there could be..

Beings whom exist that also have free will but choose not to sin and are not naturally prideful. So having free will alone is not reason enough for the rest to be true.

Any other ideas? I would say that [sinful nature] would make this work, but I am open to other possibilities. But are there any?

I will restate my claim to show that it does work. If we had (1)free will and (2)a sinful nature, then we would choose to sin and could naturally be prideful/arrogant/cruel/lustful/angry/etc.

Humans have free will [and a sinful nature], so they choose both to sin in life, and can be naturally prideful/arrogant/cruel/etc.

What could this [sinful nature] be changed to so this statement also works? We agree that just stripping it out of the sentence does not make it work.

[pam]

What you are trying to do is to put words in our mouths. We've explained our take on agency and sinful nature etc. Normally we don't use the term "free will." We use the term "agency." Semantics I know. We keep using agency and you keep changing what we say.

[JohnOF123]

What you are trying to do is to put words in our mouths. We've explained our take on agency and sinful nature etc. Normally we don't use the term "free will." We use the term "agency." Semantics I know. We keep using agency and you keep changing what we say.

It still does not eliminate the dilemma, let me use your preferred terminology, then we can continue.

Humans have free agency, so they choose both to sin in life, and can be naturally proud/arrogant/cruel/etc.

This doesn't work as we said since there could be..

Beings whom exist that also have free agency but choose never to sin and are not naturally prideful. So having free agency alone is not reason enough for the rest to be true.

This, however, has been proposed to work...

Humans have free agency [and a sinful nature], so they choose both to sin in life, and can be naturally prideful/arrogant/cruel/lustful/etc.

What could this [sinful nature] be changed to so this statement also works? We agree that just stripping it out of the sentence does not make it work. There has to be something else, if it's not sinful nature, then what is it?

[john doe]

Not sure what the past couple pages have to do with the fact that we have a Heavenly Mother.