The reordering of the ordering sequence

But others here are questioning whether infants are sinless, or not condemned. Some Christians refer to it as "Original sin".

So here's another Bible verse you reject:

Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

For me--it's a sick belief which even gives rise to the thought God sends infants to hell.

Why do you think that God's holiness and justice is "sick"?
 
DB,

I don't know of one Christian that would say God sends infants to hell, not one. I am sure there are some, it is a big world and I would say they are dead wrong.

I agree--sending infants to hell isn't a Christian belief. A God full of Grace and Truth sending infants to hell just does not jive with Christianity.

The truth of this, it is not taught either way in the Bible. From a LDS position there are two deep contradictions, what the BoM teaches and what Joseph Smith taught in the D&C, but neither when taken to the logical conclusion compliment each other and just create other questions. And neither deal with the sin nature of man.

Saints certainly teach it and believe it, I know I did and still do, but in a different context. I certainly don't believe God will judge a 8 year old differently than a younger child, His Grace is mighty and true and He as I said many times here is a Righteous Judge.

Every single teaching or sermon or statement I have read or heard in a Christian construct is that God is a righteous judge and will judge righteously. Christians IMO can't really speculate beyond that and it is a Isaiah 55:8,9 thing.

However, like many of Joseph's Smiths teachings, he created doctrines and answered the Isaiah 55 questions that early Christians had...and by doing so created a need to always change them when they are brought to their logical ends.

In regard to young children because the Bible does not address it, Joseph invented the "age of accountability" doctrine, which does not address infants specifically but any young child under the age of eight (D&C). And trying to get a LDS member here to address and explore that teaching is next to impossible.

The LDS doctrine is one that specifically specifies accountability and indirectly sin. It does not teach that children do not sin, as the TBM's here want to assert, it teaches they are not accountable for their sins...period. In your trying to water it down you stated something to the affect that accountability has to start somewhere and that children as they grow gain more accountability.

This is nothing but a run of circular thought--without a logical end.

1. What aren't the children held accountable for, that after the age of eight are held accountable for? The word accountable demands to be accountable for something, in this case in the D&C an action.

2. Do you teach children to sin, or is it a natural attribute?

I believe that answer lies in God's hand, as He will be the final judge.

Attempting to split hairs, and invent terms which I have no idea what meaning you even assign them-- is one for the philosophers.
 
So here's another Bible verse you reject:

Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


Why do you think that God's holiness and justice is "sick"?

What do you feel is holy about sending infants to hell?

God,-- full of grace and Truth--sending a newborn infant to hell? God came to save men, and sacrificed His own life to do so, not willing that any should perish--and He sends infants to hell?

That very thought is sick.
 
I agree--sending infants to hell isn't a Christian belief. A God full of Grace and Truth sending infants to hell just does not jive with Christianity.



This is nothing but a run of circular thought--without a logical end.



I believe that answer lies in God's hand, as He will be the final judge.

Attempting to split hairs, and invent terms which I have no idea what meaning you even assign them-- is one for the philosophers.
Non-sense...again you're not dealing with or discussing the subject, the LDS doctrine of accountability. There is no splitting hairs here, my questions are fair...are you telling me you don't no why we teach children to obey the commandments of God, and the laws of the land, let alone basic morality, and what happens if we did not do so? Are you telling me you don't know what children are not held accountable for that are under the age of eight in a LDS construct.

What term did I invent? Accountability? Child? What are you talking about?

DB...part of your deconstruction of getting out of your talking point doctrine, and to learn to apply critical thought to your talking points you were taught... is to first be honest with yourself...it is obvious the circle has ended and you know the answers to the two questions below and have come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as original sin, and it is our nature to sin, which is why we need a Savior. The logical end is that every person is a sinner by nature.

1. What aren't the children held accountable for, that after the age of eight are held accountable for? The word accountable demands to be accountable for something, in this case in the D&C an action.

2. Do you teach children to sin, or is it a natural attribute?
 
Because sending babies to hell is not holy and is not justice. The idea that it is, is sick.
We said nothing about sending babies to hell, but the point is, we are ALL born with a sinful nature. But babies would have had no chance to believe or disbelieve, if they die young, or die in utero or shortly after birth. The Bible is silent as to where they go after death and where the Bible is silent, so should we be, and not speculate.

HOWEVER--we can trust our great God and Savior to be merciful and just and do what is right and just about infants who die. I leave it at that.
 
What do you feel is holy about sending infants to hell?

God,-- full of grace and Truth--sending a newborn infant to hell? God came to save men, and sacrificed His own life to do so, not willing that any should perish--and He sends infants to hell?

That very thought is sick.
Your human reasoning versus God's written word. I will take God's word since you don't. God is the ultimate judge and like Bonnie, I will leave it there.
 
Because sending babies to hell is not holy and is not justice. The idea that it is, is sick.

How is it not holy or just to send sinners to hell?

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Over and over again, Mormons demonstrate their ignorance of the Bible.
 
What do you feel is holy about sending infants to hell?

Why do you repeatedly reject Rom. 3:23?

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

What do you find UNHOLY about God sending sinners to hell?


God,-- full of grace and Truth--sending a newborn infant to hell? God came to save men, and sacrificed His own life to do so, not willing that any should perish--and He sends infants to hell?

This is one of the evil teachings of Mormonism, that everyone is fine, and that nobody will end up in hell, since God saves everyone. That is NOT what the Bible teaches.

And 2 Pet. 3:9 is not a "universal" passage. It is limited to the "beloved", and "us-ward". But typical of Mormons to rip passages OUT OF CONTEXT.

That very thought is sick.

You think it's "sick" to condemn sinners to hell?

I guess you also think it's "sick" to condemn criminals to prison? According to you, let's keep criminals free, living with us in society, free to murder and rape little kids. Is that really your position?
 
Hello Markk...

I don't know of one Christian that would say God sends infants to hell, not one. I am sure there are some, it is a big world and I would say they are dead wrong. The truth of this, it is not taught either way in the Bible.

I obviously agree with the bolded part. I startled at your first sentence, since it sounded like you denied that any Christian believed that God would send any infant sinner to to hell. But clearly in context, that is not what you meant.

You and I are in agreement. From a sin perspectve, infants are no different from adults, and God doesn't treat them differently than adults. "infant" and "adult" are human categories, not God categories. And God is free to condemn any sinner (no matter their age), or show grace to them and save them (no matter their age).

Unfortunately, I think your first statement is ambiguous (although your context clarifies it), and dberrie jumped all over it to try to use it to his advantage, which is what Mormons do.

I came from the "Jordan B. Peterson" school of trying to be very precise with my words, so that it is difficult for our enemies to twist what they say. But if they have enough intent, they will twist our words, no matter how clear we are.

teaches and what Joseph Smith taught in the D&C, but neither when taken to the logical conclusion compliment each other and just create other questions.

Sorry, pet peeve time, and I have to do this...

"compliment" - to flatter someone, or describe them positively;
"complement" - to fit in well with something else, or to complete something by having what the other lacks

Yes, the two words are homophones, and so are often confused with one another. And it is my burden to be triggered when people use the wrong term.

Please don't hate me...

And neither deal with the sin nature of man.

What "sin nature"?

According to Mormons, infants don't HAVE a "sinful nature" (or at least they don't have one that matters), and according to Mormons, God's law is incredibly easy to "keep".

In regard to young children because the Bible does not address it, Joseph invented the "age of accountability" doctrine, which does not address infants specifically but any young child under the age of eight (D&C). And trying to get a LDS member here to address and explore that teaching is next to impossible.

Yep... This is based on two problems:

1) Humans don't like the answer, "We don't know". They don't like when God tells them, "the secret things belong to the Lord our God". So if they don't know something, they end up making it up.

2) The idea that all infants are saved is based in emotionalism. We're hard-wired to care about little babies, since they can't look after themselves, and depend on adults to take care of them. Add to that the fact that we can't read their minds, so we don't know their sin. But it's also "emotional" to not want your spouse to be sent to hell, or your teenage children or even your adult children. It's a slippery slope that doesn't solve anything. Just because we recognize God's holiness and justice, and man's sin, does not mean that we don't care about people.

The LDS doctrine is one that specifically specifies accountability and indirectly sin. It does not teach that children do not sin, as the TBM's here want to assert, it teaches they are not accountable for their sins...period.

The problem with "age of accountability" is that people are different. The Dem's keep arguing that Trump is almost as old as Biden is, but people lose their mental facilities at different ages. So you can't place a specific "age" for "accountability", especially when the Bible NEVER teaches that any person or group is "not accountable" for their sins.
 
I obviously agree with the bolded part. I startled at your first sentence, since it sounded like you denied that any Christian believed that God would send any infant sinner to to hell. But clearly in context, that is not what you meant.

You and I are in agreement. From a sin perspectve, infants are no different from adults, and God doesn't treat them differently than adults. "infant" and "adult" are human categories, not God categories. And God is free to condemn any sinner (no matter their age), or show grace to them and save them (no matter their age).

Unfortunately, I think your first statement is ambiguous (although your context clarifies it), and dberrie jumped all over it to try to use it to his advantage, which is what Mormons do.

I came from the "Jordan B. Peterson" school of trying to be very precise with my words, so that it is difficult for our enemies to twist what they say. But if they have enough intent, they will twist our words, no matter how clear we are.
God is Sovereign, He is Just, His Righteousness and His Grace is unlimited. And He will always make the correct decision, always, and I believe He already has, which is the reformed side of me. You will never here me say who is going to hell and who is not, because I am not God. I refuse to go there. Right or wrong that is what I believe.

There are a lot of things in the Bible, and in life I simply do not get or understand...and I believe God does not expect us to...but He does give us enough insight in His word to know Who He is, and How He offers His Hand to us by His Grace. I believe it was Packer that said for us to know God is like a ant knowing us...that is how I view God...I am just trying to put beans on the table and finish as well as I can in this crazy world without judging who is going to hell.

DB has no idea what he is saying...he just spouts his talking points and goes in circles. He is easily exposed, anyone can see that. He is LDS because he has to be, just like I was...my guess even if he knows it is wrong, he could never let his family down, that is a very hard thing to do...so he tries to force his faith into the Bible which is obviously not working.
 
Hello Markk...

I obviously agree with the bolded part. I startled at your first sentence, since it sounded like you denied that any Christian believed that God would send any infant sinner to to hell. But clearly in context, that is not what you meant.

Markk couldn't have meant that--and here is the proof:

Markk said--"I don't know of one Christian that would say God sends infants to hell, not one. I am sure there are some, it is a big world and I would say they are dead wrong."

I was particularly turned off by Theo's addition of "infant sinner" there.

God dying to save the world from sin--and attributing sin to infants? That's not my idea of God the Son-- which is full of grace and truth.

I agree with Markk's observation--not one Christian would say God sends infants to hell. Not one.
 
We said nothing about sending babies to hell, ...

I beg to differ--that is exactly what Theo is indicating--that infants are sinners:

Theo said---"I obviously agree with the bolded part. I startled at your first sentence, since it sounded like you denied that any Christian believed that God would send any infant sinner to to hell. But clearly in context, that is not what you meant."

Theo said--2) "The idea that all infants are saved is based in emotionalism."
 
Non-sense...again you're not dealing with or discussing the subject, the LDS doctrine of accountability. There is no splitting hairs here, my questions are fair...are you telling me you don't no why we teach children to obey the commandments of God, and the laws of the land, let alone basic morality, and what happens if we did not do so? Are you telling me you don't know what children are not held accountable for that are under the age of eight in a LDS construct.

No matter how many times I read through your posts--they just don't make any sense to me. It's a jumbled form of communication which is foreign to any chance of understanding what it might mean.
 
No matter how many times I read through your posts--they just don't make any sense to me. It's a jumbled form of communication which is foreign to any chance of understanding what it might mean.
My questions are very clear.

1. What aren't the children held accountable for, that after the age of eight are held accountable for? The word accountable demands to be accountable for something, in this case in the D&C an action.

2. Do you teach children to sin, or is it a natural attribute?
Please answer these questions...
 
I beg to differ--that is exactly what Theo is indicating--that infants are sinners:

Theo said---"I obviously agree with the bolded part. I startled at your first sentence, since it sounded like you denied that any Christian believed that God would send any infant sinner to to hell. But clearly in context, that is not what you meant."

Theo said--2) "The idea that all infants are saved is based in emotionalism."
Indeed, what good is Grace if it doesn't cover those who can't commit sin? There isn't a single baby on the planet who can break any of the ten commandments much less commit fornication or be wizards or Soothsayers or any of the things which Paul said if you do these things you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. I thought Grace was supposed to cover the sins of the sinner. If it will do that, why doesn't it cover the innocent?

Such theology would nullify Christ's atonement in removing original sin. Apparently, they believe that original sin is only removed from those who claim they believe. That means the atonement is not a gift and not free. They have obliterated that and made it available only to themselves and no one else. You must believe what we believe or you are tainted with original sin and all the sins that you ever did and you will burn in hell along with that child who stole the Stick of gum. Because that's what you deserve. 🤔
 
Indeed, what good is Grace if it doesn't cover those who can't commit sin? There isn't a single baby on the planet who can break any of the ten commandments much less commit fornication or be wizards or Soothsayers or any of the things which Paul said if you do these things you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. I thought Grace was supposed to cover the sins of the sinner. If it will do that, why doesn't it cover the innocent?

Such theology would nullify Christ's atonement in removing original sin. Apparently, they believe that original sin is only removed from those who claim they believe. That means the atonement is not a gift and not free. They have obliterated that and made it available only to themselves and no one else. You must believe what we believe or you are tainted with original sin and all the sins that you ever did and you will burn in hell along with that child who stole the Stick of gum. Because that's what you deserve. 🤔

Good points. For me--there isn't any person who make such claims as God send infants to hell--which can claim they know God.
 
Indeed, what good is Grace if it doesn't cover those who can't commit sin? There isn't a single baby on the planet who can break any of the ten commandments much less commit fornication or be wizards or Soothsayers or any of the things which Paul said if you do these things you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Okay...

So first of all, thank you for finally admitting that you believe babies can't commit sin. So thank you for admitting you REJECT the Bible:

Rom. 3:10 as it is written:
None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Secondly, as for your question, "what good is Grace if it doesn't cover those who can't commit sin?" Your question is nonsensensical. Anyone who doesn't sin has NO NEED of "grace", since the purpose of grace is to deal with SIN.

Rom. 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

I thought Grace was supposed to cover the sins of the sinner. If it will do that, why doesn't it cover the innocent?

There are TWO reasons, actually:

1) There is NONE who is "innocent":

Rom. 3:10 as it is written:
None is righteous, no, not one;

2) If someone is allegedly "innocent" and has no "sin", then there is nothing to "cover".

Such theology would nullify Christ's atonement in removing original sin. Apparently, they believe that original sin is only removed from those who claim they believe.

Wrong again.
You continue to try to (disingenuously) attack Christian beliefs, but we do NOT believe that one must merely "claim they believe" in order to be saved. Ironically, James 2 refutes your false and uncharitable claim.

That means the atonement is not a gift and not free.

<Chuckle>
Then you need to argue with @dberrie2020 , since HE is the one who keeps arguing Rom. 5:18 all day long. You can he constantly contradict each other, but you never argue with each other. Very strange.

They have obliterated that and made it available only to themselves and no one else.

Actually, it is GOD who has only made it availalble to believers, and to no one else:

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

You must believe what we believe or you are tainted with original sin and all the sins that you ever did and you will burn in hell

Nope.
What "we believe" is NOT the standard.
What GOD dictates is the standard.

along with that child who stole the Stick of gum. Because that's what you deserve. 🤔

You sound like the entitled women who are pulled over and charged with DUI for speeding 100 mph over the limit with her toddler and the baby in the car, whining, "Why are you arresting me, I didn't do anything wrong, why don't you spend your time looking for murderers or something?"

If you think you are perfectly entitled to steal a piece of gum without any consequence, then you will have to argue with GOD about it.

But here's the problem... The issue isn't the value of what's stolen, the issue is the MINDSET.

Because "a stick of gum" becomes a pack of gum.
Then a pack of gum becomes a bag of chips.
Then the bag of chips becomes a sirloin steak.
And then the steak becomes a barbecue.
And then the barbecue becomes a car.
And then the car becomes a Lufthansa filled with millions of dollars.
And that leads to murdering people for money.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top