Blake Ostlerism

[Gadianton]

My understanding was the atonement covered the effects of the fall—death and such—and not an original inherited sin from Adam

The bottom line is that without the atonement, all babies would go to hell, and therefore, must deserve hell because God is perfectly just.

I do see what you mean, and the situation would not be described the way I described it by members, but, Calvinists would likewise not describe their belief the way Hansen described it. If I'm a baby, I'm less concerned about whether the person about to put me in hell considers me an abomination or marks reasons "other" on the paperwork and shrugs.

I suppose rereading what I wrote, I'd keep what I said, "babies born into the world deserve hell..." (absent Christ), it's trivially true. I should be more cautious about the implication of that, and remove the "rotten to the core" part.

[Limnor]

My understanding was the atonement covered the effects of the fall—death and such—and not an original inherited sin from Adam

The bottom line is that without the atonement, all babies would go to hell, and therefore, must deserve hell because God is perfectly just.

Please understand I’m not seeking to justify LDS theology—truth is I’m sniffing out an inconsistency that I hadn’t noticed before.

The only way babies would deserve hell is if there is an assumption of inherited guilt from Adam. Without that, there’s nothing for a baby to “deserve” in the first place.

[malkie]

The bottom line is that without the atonement, all babies would go to hell, and therefore, must deserve hell because God is perfectly just.

Please understand I’m not seeking to justify LDS theology—truth is I’m sniffing out an inconsistency that I hadn’t noticed before.

The only way babies would deserve hell is if there is an assumption of inherited guilt from Adam. Without that, there’s nothing for a baby to “deserve” in the first place.

Might being less than perfect be enough? Perhaps from their time as spirit children of Mormon god, or even earlier as intelligences?

[Limnor]

Please understand I’m not seeking to justify LDS theology—truth is I’m sniffing out an inconsistency that I hadn’t noticed before.

The only way babies would deserve hell is if there is an assumption of inherited guilt from Adam. Without that, there’s nothing for a baby to “deserve” in the first place.

Might being less than perfect be enough? Perhaps from their time as spirit children of Mormon god, or even earlier as intelligences?

I don’t know but I thought the valiant chose this? Also if a baby dies before 8 does it automatically go to the CK or what?

[malkie]

Might being less than perfect be enough? Perhaps from their time as spirit children of Mormon god, or even earlier as intelligences?

I don’t know but I thought the valiant chose this? Also if a baby dies before 8 does it automatically go to the CK or what?

Hmmm, you're right to point that out, Limnor - I can see that I'm guilty of shallow thinking here.

[Limnor]

I don’t know but I thought the valiant chose this? Also if a baby dies before 8 does it automatically go to the CK or what?

Hmmm, you're right to point that out, Limnor - I can see that I'm guilty of shallow thinking here.

I’m not even sure my understanding is accurate. I’m just curious.

[I Have Questions]

Might being less than perfect be enough? Perhaps from their time as spirit children of Mormon god, or even earlier as intelligences?

I don’t know but I thought the valiant chose this? Also if a baby dies before 8 does it automatically go to the CK or what?

Yes that is the official stance of the Church.

Doctrine and Covenants 137:10 teaches that “all children … are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” The only condition is that they “die before they arrive at the years of accountability.” Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: “Accountability does not burst full-bloom upon a child at any given moment in his life. Children become accountable gradually, over a number of years. Becoming accountable is a process. … There comes a time, however, when accountability is real and actual and sin is attributed in the lives of those who develop normally. It is eight years of age, the age of baptism.”

I may be misremembering, but I think some LDS in the past have murdered their under-8 children on the basis that it would guarantee those children went to the Celestial Kingdom.

I still don't know what sin an 8 year old can be judged accountable for, that a 7 year old cannot.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The bottom line is that without the atonement, all babies would go to hell, and therefore, must deserve hell because God is perfectly just.

Please understand I’m not seeking to justify LDS theology—truth is I’m sniffing out an inconsistency that I hadn’t noticed before.

The only way babies would deserve hell is if there is an assumption of inherited guilt from Adam. Without that, there’s nothing for a baby to “deserve” in the first place.

So, humans can just pick and choose what God demands? It’s not like God gives two craps about babies, anyway. By his demand they must be pure to be in his presence. That’s the whole point of atonement, and why so many Christian traditions baptize their babies.

[Gadianton]

I may be misremembering, but I think some LDS in the past have murdered their under-8 children on the basis that it would guarantee those children went to the Celestial Kingdom.

I don't recall instances of follow-through on that, but I was about to make the same point that Mormon logic suggests child sacrifice is a good idea.

re limnor:

I think we're stuck in one of those places where there is doctrine -- official positions -- but no theology. Guys like James Talmage and Bruce R. skim over the contradictions and only ever half explain anything.

It's doctrine that all children are saved in the CK. Does that mean exalted as Gods or that they just make the first rung? This has never been answered. But they are all saved at least to the bottom rung. Talmage says 50% of the worlds population has been saved by infant deaths. So our right-wing Mormons like Hansen will be surrounded by people of color.

Children aren't actually rotten, but they are potentially rotten in the strictest sense of the way the eggs of a viper will hatch and become a viper. Children are also innocent in the way the eggs of a viper haven't hurt anybody and can't hurt anybody. They are innocent in the way Adam was when he took the fruit, thereby rendering it a transgression instead of a sin. This itself raises an impossible theological problem about what knowledge towards accountability or even free will itself actually amounts to -- it becomes circular.

But for the problem at hand, there is no theology or statements in scripture to make sense of the nature of children. You have the Book of Mormon virtue signaling on the one hand "All mankind is carnal and devilish" and on the other "Children are alive in Christ!". This is probably more about identity -- feigned outrage, defining themselves against the great and abominable Catholic church, without thinking very deeply about it. How dare you baptize babies, how can a baby do anything wrong!

[I Have Questions]

Yes, the doctrine and theology is ambiguous, or unexplained, or causes more questions. For example, the Church holds the position that all people who die before hearing about Mormonism, will be awarded a place in the Celestial Kingdom. But there’s a caveat. In the gospel principles manual we get

The celestial kingdom is the highest of the three kingdoms of glory. Those in this kingdom will dwell forever in the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. This should be your goal: to inherit celestial glory and to help others receive that great blessing as well. Such a goal is not achieved in one attempt; it is the result of a lifetime of righteousness and constancy of purpose.

The celestial kingdom is the place prepared for those who have “received the testimony of Jesus” and been “made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.”3 To inherit this gift, we must receive the ordinances of salvation, keep the commandments, and repent of our sins.4

In January 1836 the Prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation that expanded his understanding of the requirements to inherit celestial glory. The heavens were opened to him, and he saw the celestial kingdom. He marveled when he saw his older brother Alvin there, even though Alvin had died before receiving the ordinance of baptism.5 Then the voice of the Lord came to the Prophet Joseph:

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

“Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

“For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.”

There are some far reaching implications of this - one of which is that God already knows who will be returning “home” regardless of Mormonism. It means the Restoration is entirely unnecessary. Now I suppose the caveat can apply to children under 8, even though that’s not specified.