Kids who die before age 8 DON'T automatically go to the C.K.

[_Drifting]

Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all children who die before arriving at the years of accountability will inherit celestial glory.

Seems a clear answer to me...

[_beastie]

In any case, while people are sometimes circumscribed in what they are to teach or publish, the church allows people to believe almost anything they want. So, I can't for the life of me see why you aren't welcome to your own interpretation.

Don

I want to emphasize, again, that Tobin was not being criticized for having his own interpretation. He was criticized for pretending that his own interpretation fairly represented church teachings on the subject, and anyone who did not agree with him had a "dim understanding" of church teachings.

[_dblagent007]

In any case, while people are sometimes circumscribed in what they are to teach or publish, the church allows people to believe almost anything they want.

There is one thing you are not allowed to believe - that you do not need to pay tithing.

[_harmony]

God is NOT a respecter of persons!

And you said this with a straight face.

[_EAllusion]

There is one thing you are not allowed to believe - that you do not need to pay tithing.

Nah, you can think that too. You're allowed to think whatever you want so long as your public expression of your beliefs and behavior is sufficiently consistent with Church dogma. Of course, this freedom is available to anyone in any religion until mind-reading technology comes on board. This is distinct from how much range of beliefs the Church considers within an acceptable orthodoxy or how much alternative views are tolerated even when they are expressed outside of your own mind.

Regarding Tobin, I agree with Beastie that I read this thread as people taking issue with him insisting his viewpoint is reflective of Church teachings such that anyone who disagrees has a "dim" understanding of them.

[_Themis]

There's a quote in Wilford Woodruff's journal where Brigham Young expresses his belief that infants who die as newborns probably did not have enough of a chance at mortality and their spirits are reborn in new mortal bodies. Why he would have confined this to children who died as newborns, I'm not sure. But the logic of his thought may be similar to yours.

Another possible argument in the same direction is that the plan required that people choose whether they would be saved. If every young child struck down by cholera, hunger, or infanticide automatically goes to the celestial kingdom without making any moral choices, it's difficult to see how the principle of agency is still determinative in their salvation.

Like most religions. LDS doctrine tends to be inconsistent and has many plot holes. Many members do speculate on doctrines that diverge from what the church teaches on an issue, even leaders.

In any case, while people are sometimes circumscribed in what they are to teach or publish, the church allows people to believe almost anything they want. So, I can't for the life of me see why you aren't welcome to your own interpretation.

On many things, and this would be one of them. On some not publicly. Beastie is right though that tobin is not being criticized for having diverging views from the LDS church, but for trying to suggest these views are the views of the church or Joseph Smith when he provides no evidence, and ignores some very clear evidence against.

[_Themis]

Tobin, you have extremely poor reasoning skills. In addition, you are a zealot. Your bad logic and your zealotry make you incapable of even perceiving issues accurately, let alone discussing them rationally.

Question of objective fact = whether the LDS Church teaches (X)

Question of religious faith = whether (X) is "true"

To give an example, it would be like discussing the mythology of the ancient Greeks. It is a fact that they believed in Zeus, Apollo, the Titans, centaurs, etc. It is false to assert that the ancient Greeks believed in Voldemort, Dr. Who, Batman, and Smurfs. You do not get to mistakenly claim that the ancient Greeks believed in the second list of things, and when shown that you are wrong, rebut your interlocutors by saying how absurd it is to believe in Zeus et al. That's what you're doing, except with Mormonism.

With the exception of Liz, nobody participating in this thread so far believes that the LDS Church is the true church. Nobody (except Liz) believes that the LDS Church's teachings about infants being saved are true. We are saying---backed by conclusive evidence---that you have your facts wrong about what Mormonism says about the salvation of infants. But because you are a zealot, you keep arguing as if we all believe the religious teachings, and it is our religious beliefs that are mistaken.

Like I said before, you are not relying on some revelation from this deity who explains things better to you than to Joseph Smith or any other leader of the church to which you belong. You have made it clear (if anything you say can be called "clear") that you have arrived at your conclusions about whether infants are saved by inductive reasoning from the teachings of past LDS leaders. That is, you are making a statement of FACT, not religious faith, as to what the LDS Church teaches about the salvation of infants. But the statements from which you arrive at that conclusion are all quote-mined. None of those statements are dealing with the exception to the rule: children who die before they reach the age of accountability. Every single on of the LDS leaders you quote-mined taught unequivocally that children who die before the age of accountability are guaranteed through the Atonement to go to the Celestial Kingdom. There is no trial of their faith. There are no ordinances required, because there is nothing to save them from. Not having ever had the capacity to sin, they never experienced the spiritual death that baptism saves them from. This is crystal clear and categorical from what all of them taught. Section 137 of the Doctrine and Covenants says it explicitly.

You arrived at your conclusions based on a faulty factual premise: what the LDS Church teaches. Because you are asserting a faulty factual premise, not religious faith, simply repeating your religious faith does not rectify your faulty factual premise. You have to show that your facts are correct, and you have not done so. To the contrary, it has been conclusively shown that you have the facts wrong.

There are many, many people in this board who have spent a lifetime in the LDS Church, and who much more aware of its doctrines than you have shown yourself to be. As zealots and poor reasoners tend to be, you are arrogant and defensive. But your arrogance is based on ignorance, and your defensiveness is based and your inability to defend your assertions in the face of fact and reason. So I again recommend to you your own advice: "stop pretending you understand a thing about Mormonism and spouting your non-sense."

+1

[_dblagent007]

There is one thing you are not allowed to believe - that you do not need to pay tithing.

Nah, you can think that too. You're allowed to think whatever you want so long as your public expression of your beliefs and behavior is sufficiently consistent with Church dogma. Of course, this freedom is available to anyone in any religion until mind-reading technology comes on board. This is distinct from how much range of beliefs the Church considers within an acceptable orthodoxy or how much alternative views are tolerated even when they are expressed outside of your own mind.

I guess it's okay to believe that I don't need to pay tithing as long as I keep paying it. No problem there. Unfortunately for me, I actually acted on my belief and stopped paying, which meant I didn't get to ordain my son to the priesthood and probably won't get to baptize another child in a few months.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I was under the impression that "Satan would be loosed for a season" after the millennium, and everyone would be "tested", no?

- VRDRC

[_Jason Bourne]

Tobin is just doing what other NOM's do all the time - see Liz and her thread on polygamy - they pick and choose the doctrine that they can stomach and toss the rest out.

Church of Tobin, Church of Liz, (and I had my own Church, too)...it's all different and all the same. It makes religion easy.

H.

And I noted this. But as a NOMer I know what I pick and choose and when I toss something out I know I am in a heritical position the what the Church teaches. And I also noted that the difference is Tobin thinks he is right on whatever the hell he says and he thinks what the church teaches is BS. He is not heretical. The Church leadership and teachers are.