Mental Health, Mormonism and Delusion (Update)

[_maklelan]

Are you now going to tell me that you are not aware of the LDS Gospel principle that children who die before the age of accountability will inherit the Celestial Kingdom? If you are that uninformed regarding the principles of the gospel, what are you doing as an apologist?

You're being dishonest again. This is what you said:

The young woman taught that she should not kill her children, but also told that, if she were to do so before they were eight, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom.

When was she taught that if she murdered her children, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom? I'm not asking when she made the connection between the two, I'm asking when she was directly taught that if she murdered her children, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom. This is your claim, so support it.

I ask you the same question regarding the unfounded, twisted and ad hoc teachings and doctrine of the LDS Church. She was the one who specifically cited this bizarre LDS doctrine as a motivation for her act. There is certainly no evidence that she was lead to her decision by the Golden Rule.

And has been pointed out numerous times, that doctrine itself is not the proximate cause for her actions. No one who is mentally stable hears that teaching and decides to kill their children. She was unstable, and anything could have catalyzed an event like this. Do you deny this?

[_Buffalo]

When was she taught that if she killed her children, they would inherit the Celestial Kingdom? It sounds like you're taking an inference that she made on her own and attributing it to the church.

Nevertheless, that is the doctrine - all children who die under age 8 (regardless of how it happens) go to the Celestial Kingdom.

[_maklelan]

Nevertheless, that is the doctrine - all children who die under age 8 (regardless of how it happens) go to the Celestial Kingdom.

I'm not denying that. The statement was that she was taught that if she murdered her children, they would go to the Celestial Kingdom. I seriously doubt that she was taught this, but that seems to be the contention.

[_DrW]

Nevertheless, that is the doctrine - all children who die under age 8 (regardless of how it happens) go to the Celestial Kingdom.

I'm not denying that. The statement was that she was taught that if she murdered her children, they would go to the Celestial Kingdom. I seriously doubt that she was taught this, but that seems to be the contention.

The principle could have been stated in the terms used by Buffalo; that if they were to die, no matter how they died, even if she murdered them, they would go to the Celestial Kingdom.

Are you not trying to claim a distinction here where there is no difference?

[_DrW]

And has been pointed out numerous times, that doctrine itself is not the proximate cause for her actions. No one who is mentally stable hears that teaching and decides to kill their children. She was unstable, and anything could have catalyzed an event like this. Do you deny this?

What I know is what she said afterwards. And what she said was that she was afraid that if the two boys continued to live with her and be raised by her, a woman who saw herself as fallen and unredeemable, her children would have little chance of making the Celestial Kingdom. Since she had it in her power to make certain that they did, she did

[_maklelan]

What I know is what she said afterwards. And what she said was that she was afraid that if the two boys continued to live with her and be raised by her, a woman who saw herself as fallen and unredeemable,

Also a belief that the church consistently and vehemently combats.

her children would have little chance of making the Celestial Kingdom. Since she had it in her power to make certain that they did, she did

So it was a series of conclusions that she drew that stood in direct conflict with church teaching, combined with obvious mental problems.

[_maklelan]

The principle could have been stated in the terms used by Buffalo; that if they were to die, no matter how they died, even if she murdered them, they would go to the Celestial Kingdom.

But what you're suggesting is that the thought was put into her head by the church. Whether you're saying she was taught directly that if she murdered them they would go to the Celestial Kingdom, or if she was taught that any way they died, "even if she murdered them," they would go to the Celestial Kingdom, what your rhetoric is implying is that it was the church that put it into her head. You're refusing to acknowledge that the notion of murdering her children was completely at odds with what the church teaches, and that it was an aberrant conclusion that she drew because of her own mental issues.

Are you not trying to claim a distinction here where there is no difference?

No, I'm claiming a quite clear difference.

[_Samantabhadra]

You all are asking the wrong question.

Maklelan, you have stated that killing your own children so that they inherit the Celestial Kingdom is wrong "within the broader moral and soteriological framework" of Mormonism. I don't think anyone disputes that. But do you dispute that her children are now in the Celestial Kingdom?

Assuming that you acknowledge they are in the Celestial Kingdom, do you further acknowledge that they got there because they died before the age of 8?

If not, where are they? And why would these children who were murdered before the age of 8 not inherit the Celestial Kingdom, while other children who die before the age of 8 do inherit the Celestial Kingdom?

[_Doctor Scratch]

You all are asking the wrong question.

Maklelan, you have stated that killing your own children so that they inherit the Celestial Kingdom is wrong "within the broader moral and soteriological framework" of Mormonism. I don't think anyone disputes that. But do you dispute that her children are now in the Celestial Kingdom?

Assuming that you acknowledge they are in the Celestial Kingdom, do you further acknowledge that they got there because they died before the age of 8?

If not, where are they? And why would these children who were murdered before the age of 8 not inherit the Celestial Kingdom, while other children who die before the age of 8 do inherit the Celestial Kingdom?

Those are excellent questions, Samantabhadra. I predict that Maklelan won't answer them, or else he'll cough up some pretzel-ized version of an answer that "answers" without actually, really answering.

[Guest]

You all are asking the wrong question.

Maklelan, you have stated that killing your own children so that they inherit the Celestial Kingdom is wrong "within the broader moral and soteriological framework" of Mormonism. I don't think anyone disputes that.

Untrue. The notion that her actions are the "logical conclusion" of LDS soteriology has been asserted by two people now. That's the whole point of this line of argumentation. You're just trying to divert attention away from what they're saying, and I think it's because you can see how asinine that particular argument is.

But do you dispute that her children are now in the Celestial Kingdom?

Assuming that you acknowledge they are in the Celestial Kingdom, do you further acknowledge that they got there because they died before the age of 8?

If not, where are they? And why would these children who were murdered before the age of 8 not inherit the Celestial Kingdom, while other children who die before the age of 8 do inherit the Celestial Kingdom?

According to LDS soteriology, they're in the celestial kingdom. What on earth does this have to do with my concerns?