From the Archives: Scott Cho and "Loopholes"

[_Mister Scratch]

Oftentimes, it seems, bannings from MAD are inconspicuous and subtle affairs. Frequently, the bannings seem capricious and unfair. Other times, however, bannings seem to have a bit of merit. Or do they? What follows is a classic in the annals of MAD/FAIR bannings, one which lays bare not only some of the problems with bannings more generally, but with certain holes---or "loopholes"?---in LDS theology. Here is the OP, from a now-notorious poster named Scott Cho:

Here's my question to which I have never received a satisfying answer: Since according to the doctrine, babies killed before the age of accountability is guaranteed entrance to celestial kingdom, shouldn't we go around and you know... kill them to send them off? Isn't that better than allowing them to make their mistakes in life and condemn themselves to eternity in lower kingdoms?

Well, this is certainly an....intriguing, if rather demented question. It does certainly cut to the heart of some of the key tenets of LDS theology. (And it may remind certain astute readers of "diggerdan"'s remark that the slaughtered children of MMM were "better off." Was diggerdan booted off the board, I wonder? Or was he instead slapped on the back by the likes of Pahoran?)

Anyways, here is the first reply:

That's sick.

If that isn't Satan's plan, I don't know what is.

And here is another reply, from The Nehor:

I assume that if God wanted them dead he could do it himself. Some people face the full brunt of mortality. I am one of them. Is it an honor or a curse? I have no idea. If I kill them it costs me my salvation. I think I'll just let God take care of it. God put a repugnance against killing (and harming) children into our makeup for a reason. I trust it's a good one.

That's sick.

If that isn't Satan's plan, I don't know what is.

Note the immediate repugnance

Well, I have to say that I agree---it *is* a very disturbing question. But what is striking to me is the way that these two TBM posters tend to skirt around the theological implications of S. Cho's initial proposition. (After all, this doctrine is one of the key things that separates Mormonism from Catholicism.)

But, let's press on:

That's sick.

If that isn't Satan's plan, I don't know what is.

How's that sick? I'm talking about sending many souls to celestial kingdom. Isn't letting them fall to their eternal detention in lower kingdoms when you can send them to a better place the sicker thing?

It is difficult to support Mr. Cho's bizarre assertions in any way, however, his postings do have a tendency to reveal certain problems with LDS logic. For instance, many TBMs in strained marriages tend to justify their divorces from their wayward spouses and the basis of the thread to their eternal lives. Further, Scott Cho's remarks are also reminiscent of the TBM justification for aggressive proselytizing: i.e., the pushiness of missionaries is justified, since not spreading the gospel would be "the sicker thing."

From here, the thread begins to devolve into ribald and mindless nattering:

How's that sick? I'm talking about sending many souls to celestial kingdom. Isn't letting them fall to their eternal detention in lower kingdoms when you can send them to a better place the sicker thing?

Satan's plan was to remove agency. You are proposing that we remove agency from some people. That's Satan's plan and he's one sick hombre. Furthermore you are suggesting the murder defenseless innocent children. That's another thing Satan enjoys. If that isn't sick, nothing is.

ABman's partner in crime immediately chimes in:

You're messing with the power to take life. A power God has reserved to himself. You're not saving anyone. If you did kill them they were meant to die that way and you lose your own soul. If you don't kill them and they were meant to die they will. If they weren't they won't.

This is one situation where you just let God have his throne and his power and stay far, far away.

Edit: In addition, you're not sending them to the Celestial Kingdom, the atonement is. So you had nothing to do with it.

Next, "Migs" offers up a bit of a counterpoint:

It wouldn't necessarily remove their agency, asbestosman, as presumably the babies would continue to have agency in paradise; just not here on earth.

Perhaps the problem is that no one declared you the judge, jury, and executioner. Where would you draw the cut-off age? We might as well also just slaughter people after they get baptized by that logic. There's much value to be learned from living here in this life. Compassion, friendship, love, charity, patience, perseverance. There's much to enjoy in this world, and despite these [debatable] good intentions you think you may have from infanticide, you would be depriving these children from a valuable growing process they can experience here on earth.

And, the reply from S. Cho:

Ok, I agree with all you guys that it is a terrible thing to do. In fact that very act would condemn me to only god knows where exactly... but wouldn't that be the ultimate sacrifice? Christ gave us the opportunity to enter god's glory through repentance. But taking these kids 'out' and sending them to god's highest glory while condemning himself to whatever darkness God deems appropriate seems to be a great sacrifice also. True measure of altruism and self-sacrifice.


Migs, the age of accountability is.. 8? so that will be the cut off.

Wow, what a selfless guy. Can you imagine the sacrifice? Gee, and we though worldly sacrifices, like serving missions, collecting fast offerings, and paying tithing was tough! Sheesh!

Anyways, here is an intriguing addendum from Oracle:

Satan's plan was to remove agency. You are proposing that we remove agency from some people. That's Satan's plan and he's one sick hombre. Furthermore you are suggesting the murder defenseless innocent children. That's another thing Satan enjoys. If that isn't sick, nothing is.

What about those mental retardation/autistic field of children? Did God make them that way? Aren't they automatically celestialites? If so, God removed their agency by stripping them of their ability to choose good from evil.

Yes... a good point. Surely this would have been fodder for further stimulating chit-chat, but it was simply not to be:

Thread closed. I think the reason is obvious. Do not PM me asking why I closed it.

Skylla

Yes, brevity is indeed the soul of wit! But Mr. Cho is one of those fellows so often described as "tenacious". By golly, if he can't get an answer via PM, he'll get it on the main messageboard!

For the original question, refer to topic title Baby Killing. I'm posting this to show my protest to the closure of my last thread.

The moderator left a message saying do not contact him asking why, and assumed that the reason for closure was obvious.

I've read the guideline for posting, and maybe I'm just an idiot here, but I fail to see a valid reason for the closure. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this matter?

[...]

Just so everyone's clear, I wasn't literally saying let's go kill the babies. I was simply curious as to wouldn't that be a great self sacrifice to take that opportunity to send souls to god's glory while condemning oneself with the sin of murder.

Here is a bizarre (and as far as I know, totally unsupported) claim from "Son":

Mods rule, posters drule.
Elevate my friend, and not all babies go to the celestial.

And S. Cho's reply:

And I would like some real answers. I know it's against what god commanded. I know that it's a terrible thing to do. But here is a guaranteed opportunity for celestial kingdom!! Is that not up for some discussions among members?

Here is a bright idea from mocnarf:

Hmmm, your not considering pulling an Andrea Yates are you?

I think had you introduced the topic from a different angle. Maybe, it would have been tollerated.

Here's another well-known poster's thoughts on the matter:

I'd be like taking a childs school exams for them, instead of letting them do it.
...or it's just plain sick.

..take ya pick...

Next are a pair of theologically ground inquiries from Oracle and Scott Cho:

Since this thread is still open, I'd like my point addressed. Doesn't God himself remove agency in cases of handicapped children?

this is response to 'not all babies go to heaven'

D&C137:10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

The discussion receives further development:

this is response to 'not all babies go to heaven'

D&C137:10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

I thought it was a valid question, Scott. What if you encounter a mother/father who would be willing to sacrifice their salvation (by killing their children) to ensure the exaltation of the children? I wonder how God would judge that.

Indeed. Doesn't this scenario remind anyone else of the Abraham/Isaac story? Next up is this weird post from The Nehor:

Since this thread is still open, I'd like my point addressed. Doesn't God himself remove agency in cases of handicapped children?

Physical handicaps no, he just removes freedom.

Mental handicaps, I have no idea. I've worked with the mentally retarded at a Group Home for years. Some I think are at least partially responsible, some probably not.

I know a lot of morons (I.e. non-retarded individuals) who probably aren't going to make it to celestial glory on a free ticket so where do you draw the line?

And, more from Mr. Cho:

Nehor, I know I'm not God. I never said I was. And to the person who mentioned above about taking the exam for children.. it is kinda like that and it is NOT a good thing. However look at the prize. It's the eternal glory of the highest level for these 'victims' while the murderer is condemned to.. most likely telestial kingdom (my guess), though I don't know for certain, because I'm NOT A GOD.

I must say, despite the ugliness of the suggestion, that Scott Cho *does* have sort of a point, at least within the context of LDS logic. After all, if Blood Atonement, "lying for the Lord," castrations, the Danites, and divorce are all merited due to "eternal glory," is murder really all that far out there?

Next, S. Cho tries to keep things on-topic:

Physical handicaps no, he just removes freedom.

Mental handicaps, I have no idea. I've worked with the mentally retarded at a Group Home for years. Some I think are at least partially responsible, some probably not.

I know a lot of morons (I.e. non-retarded individuals) who probably aren't going to make it to celestial glory on a free ticket so where do you draw the line?

The line in this context is the age of accountability. that's what we are talking about. Can we get on the subject and stick to the topic?

With this next post, however, one cannot help but begin to question Mr. Cho's seriousness, and he starts to seem a bit like a troll:

Please PEOPLE!! Let's focus here. I'm not talking about murder being OK, or retards going to heaven or whatever! I'm talking about children going to celestial kingdom in the case of dying before reaching the age of accountability. And since being murdered as a baby would qualify this situation, wouldn't the crazy EVIL mass baby murderer be making a self-sacrifice if he knowingly killed the babies to send them to heaven??? AND NO, I'm not going to kill any babies and please, don't kill babies and blame it on me.

Next, the poster called "Son" shows a blatant disregard for the notion of "continuing revelation":

for you, Nehor. http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/dc/137/10#10

Thanks, guess I need a new one. This is the qualifyer of the doctrine.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: 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;

If they would not have received it while on earth, then there is no promise. Catch 22

By the way, my D&C is from 1974, how many more chapters are there in the newer ones?

(emphasis added)

Wow.... If you are looking for another "wow" moment, here is comes, courtesy of Scott Cho:

Oh man, this thread isn't about retards. It's about baby killing.. can we focus on the baby killing?

And I state again, I'm NOT FOR baby killing. Murder is wrong. Taking away free agency is Satan's idea. But if a murderer did kill babies to send them to celestial kingdom, should we not acknowledge that he sent those souls to God's highest glory at the cost of his own soul???

And Oracle offers up this trenchant observation:

I know and have worked with many autistic children. What say ye, Charity? Were these earthly-caused handicaps that hinder these children from being able to distinguish good from evil? And how are they to be judged because of this inability?

My brother has a book (purchased at Deseret Book, I believe) that elaborates on the idea that these autistic/retarded children had actually chosen in the pre-earth life to have this handicap because of their high valiant level. Their efforts would absolutely give them a pass to the CK. I will hunt down the title.

If you believed this thread could not get any better, you would be wrong:

So, staying with the current topic.. who do you think is following the Christ's spirit of self sacrifice? A man that kills 1000 babies to send them to heaven at the cost of his soul or a good church member that does all that church asks of him so that he himself can go to celestial kingdom.

Certainly, such "self-sacrifice" would put Abraham to shame! Anyhoo, I, for one, have been wondering what happened to Skylla (sidenote: structurecop prognosticated that Scott Cho would be "censured"). Whoops, here she is!

Please PEOPLE!! Let's focus here. I'm not talking about murder being OK, or retards going to heaven or whatever! I'm talking about children going to celestial kingdom in the case of dying before reaching the age of accountability. And since being murdered as a baby would qualify this situation, wouldn't the crazy EVIL mass baby murderer be making a self-sacrifice if he knowingly killed the babies to send them to heaven??? AND NO, I'm not going to kill any babies and please, don't kill babies and blame it on me.

How disappointing I have to spell it out. It's a sick thread. We are not going to entertain the idea of killing babies to get them to Heaven. Go discuss it on a board that welcomes such an offensive question.

Skylla

Of course, this was the end of Scott Cho's participation on the board. Indeed, he was banned. Though surely this has to rate among the most spectacular bannings in MAD/FAIR history. There is an epilogue to the story, though. Read on:

I'm sure this just means I'll get banned too by posting this question, but why in the world would you ban Scott Cho? The guy came here with a serious question about a very serious loophole in your scriptures. Rather than addressing his question for what it was, you took the substance of the subject (which he repeated MANY times he wasn't advocating) called him a sicko and banned him.

He agreed with your assesment that the specific question itself was sick and deplorable, but the apparent loophole in the D&C is very definitely NOT sick and an issue which bears discussion. Rather than discuss that with him in a civil tone, you laughed at him, hated him, and banned him. If these are your true beliefs and you knock on my door every weekend trying to express those beliefs, I would imagine you were capable of defending them when a question comes up, even one that might make you a little uncomfortable.

Simply because the subject matter of the question happened to be taboo, you decided you wouldn't answer the very difficult question posed to you by a person, who was up until the end, very agreeable.

NoMo

In case you were wondering: Yes, NoMo was promptly banned. But, some posters did attempt an actual reply, such as The Nehor:

Read the closed threads again. I and others did offer a defense. We also had a good laugh. [Mister Scratch's note: he also had a lot of fun engaging in what can only be described as "homoerotic antics" with Oracle] I think the banning came because of the way he approached it. He was equating mass-murdering to the self-sacrifice of Christ very, very blatantly despite the obvious sin implications.

Next is a typically dumb post from Cal "I wish I would pass the sacrament" moriah:

It was refusing to abide by the mod's ruling and bringing it up again right away that likely got him banned.

I haven't read the first thread so I don't know how it went, but even if the second thread about it was civil so far, going against a mod's ruling if not appreciated.

PS: if the scriptures covered each and every possible aspects of our lives, they would take up all the space in the BYU library...which is a good size library.

"Loopholes" are rather a waste of time and show less of a desire to learn and more of a desire to debate, in my opinion.

Well, what does an total and complete refusal to examine the "loopholes" show? Hardheadedness? (Incidentally, Cal was the one who spent and long and very emotional bit of time examining the "loopholes" which may or may not allow women to conduct their own church services---a thread which is fully documented in "Calmoriah and the Small Beginnings of Apostasy". See my blog for details.)

In any case, this is the finale of the thread:

I'm sure this just means I'll get banned too by posting this question, but why in the world would you ban Scott Cho? The guy came here with a serious question about a very serious loophole in your scriptures. Rather than addressing his question for what it was, you took the substance of the subject (which he repeated MANY times he wasn't advocating) called him a sicko and banned him.

He agreed with your assesment that the specific question itself was sick and deplorable, but the apparent loophole in the D&C is very definitely NOT sick and an issue which bears discussion. Rather than discuss that with him in a civil tone, you laughed at him, hated him, and banned him. If these are your true beliefs and you knock on my door every weekend trying to express those beliefs, I would imagine you were capable of defending them when a question comes up, even one that might make you a little uncomfortable.

Simply because the subject matter of the question happened to be taboo, you decided you wouldn't answer the very difficult question posed to you by a person, who was up until the end, very agreeable.
NoMo

It wasn't a difficult question. It was a disgusting question.

Skylla

Would it be more correct to say that it was BOTH "difficult" *and* "disgusting"? Regardless, this certainly ranks among the more entertaining thread[s] in recent Mopologetic history, and it surely must have been one of the more noteworthy bannings. As to the esteemed Mr. Scott Cho, we can only wonder what became of him.

[_Dr. Shades]

Oh man, this thread isn't about retards. It's about baby killing.. can we focus on the baby killing?

Now THAT is about the most signature-line worthy pair of sentences I've ever seen. I'm torn. . . should I be laughing out loud at the sheer outrageousness of those sentences, or abjectly weeping for humanity?

[_asbestosman]

Oh man, this thread isn't about retards. It's about baby killing.. can we focus on the baby killing?

Now THAT is about the most signature-line worthy pair of sentences I've ever seen. I'm torn. . . should I be laughing out loud at the sheer outrageousness of those sentences, or abjectly weeping for humanity?

As I recall, someone did make it their tagline on MA&D.


As to the loophole, would you like me to discuss it here, Scratch without using the words, "sick" or "Satan"?

[_Ren]

As I recall, someone did make it their tagline on MA&D

It was 'The Nehor' if I remember correctly.
That had me laughing for weeks :)

[_silentkid]

Thanks for compiling that post Scratch. That thread is pure genius.

[_Mephitus]

This was a loophole i have always had stuck in my head since i was a deacon and had heard the justification story of killing laban for the plates.(better that one should fall than many go unknowing) I've never brought it up since every Mormon I've known would NOT discuss it since it was such a deplorable (yet scripturally supported) idea. I mean, under the way that the D&C put it, you could almost have just one guy going around with just that singular job. More or less guaranteeing the highest kingdom to children at the sacrifice of himself.

[_Gazelam]

Babies who died before the age of accountability don't get a free ticket. They will be raised int he Millinium and will also have to go through trials.

There is no free ride to heaven.

[_moksha]

Those MAD forum mods, deciding that Baby Killing should be a taboo subject! What were they thinking? This Baby Killing idea would be a welcome and viable topic for debate in Mormon Critic Circles. My only concern here, is that the advocates would quickly outnumber their Mormon dissenters.

[_The Nehor]

As I recall, someone did make it their tagline on MA&D

It was 'The Nehor' if I remember correctly.
That had me laughing for weeks :)

I did use that tagline for a bit. It was a fun one. Though I blanked out retards to make it less offensive.

To address the issue in question briefly though I don't see a scriptural loophole. Nowhere in LDS theology is disobedience to God glorified on the pretext of helping others. The concept of defying all moral law to save others appeals to our culture which seems obsessed with the 'anti-hero' persona. Comparing Abraham's obedience to God to someone violating all of God's laws is a no-starter.

If God wanted everyone to die before the age of eight he really wouldn't need anyone else's help to get the job done.

p.s. I know I was leaving but I was checking in on some last threads I was still in and this one brought up nostalgia....plus I can't sleep due to a nasty bronchial infection. Night all.

[_Ray A]

....plus I can't sleep due to a nasty bronchial infection.

Porter? Or Merc?