Unbaptized babies will be saved

by Rusty Lindquist on June 26, 2008 · 55 comments

If you are one who has suffered the loss of a child that was not baptized, and have been coldly told by your church that your child is damned, and will go to hell, I testify to you in the name of Christ that this is false doctrine.  It’s simply not true.  What’s more, they are still your children, and you will have the chance to be with them again.

Indeed, little children are born mortal, which means they’re subject to sin.  But that doesn’t mean they’re born into sin.  Sin is when we willfully transgress the laws of God.  If you at least had the chance to hold your little child before they were taken from you, and looked into their little eyes, and felt the unmistakable bond of love with them, then you too know that they are pure, that there’s no way their little spirit had willfully transgressed the laws of God.

Nobody can tell me that a little child, least of all an infant, is capable of truly understanding the laws of god and willfully disobeying them.

Little children are alive in Christ.  The Savior taught that we too, must become as these little children.  Little children are naturally full of hope, they believe, their eyes speak of their innocence, they’re full of love and life, not sin and iniquity. 

What terrible, mutated doctrine it is to say that these little spirits will be cruelly cast into hell.  How cold and calculating is that belief, a belief born out of commercialized religion.  Marketing to fear has always been successful, but it’s a shame it had to be put on you, in the name of religion, to compound your grief.  And how incongruous is that teaching with the notion that Christ’s mercy is somehow sufficient to save man from their sin, but somehow insufficient to save a baby from something over which they had no control, and who is incapable of sin.

But the true doctrine of Christ is that your child is not in hell, no, his doctrine is one of hope.

1 Corinthians 15:29 says “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  Why are they then baptized for the dead?”  Why indeed would there be baptism for the dead, if after you died it was too late?

But such is not the case.  They are your children still, and there will come a time when they will be with you again.  You will hold them again, look into their eyes, and feel that unmistakable bond of love. 

Sure, they will need to be baptized for their eventual exaltation, such is clear in scripture, but baptism for the dead as spoken of in Corinthians happens this very day in Mormon temples around the world.  Direct fulfillment of the words of both ancient and latter day prophets, making possible the salvation of souls who have gone before, without the opportunity to be baptized by one who has the proper authority of the priesthood of God.

I testify to you that this is true, and invite you to learn more about the miracles of Mormonism, and the clarity of pure doctrine.  May god bless you with strength, and bring your family together again in eternity.



Subscribe to Ongofu | Get Ongofu by Email

If you’ve enjoyed this post, please bookmark it by clicking on the button below, and selecting a service so others can find it too. Many thanks.

Bookmark and Share

{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }

1 ponderingpastor June 27, 2008 at 5:22 AM

As one who routinely baptizes infants in the Christian church, I’d invite you into some reconsideration of statements made in this post.

First, I agree with you that those Christians who claim that unbaptized infants are condemned to hell are both cruel and wrongly understanding scripture. The logic used to support that belief makes several wrong turns. Having said that, I continue to baptize infants.

Next, your definition of “sin” is far too narrow. Your definition is commonly used by those who object to the baptism of infants. If willfully transgressing the laws of God is the only element of sin, then perhaps you have a point. But scripture describes different types of sin, and asserts that human beings are sinful at our core. Yes, even infants. As sweet and innocent as they seem, infants are as self-centered as the best of us. They manipulate their environment in order to get their needs met. That’s called survival. Scripture includes all creation being broken/infected/distorted by sin. To claim an infant is sinless is to say they exist somehow outside creation. It is as dangerous and wrong to say that infants are without sin (a judgment God makes, not us) as it is to say that unbaptized infants are doomed to hell (a judgment God makes, not us).

The true doctrine is one of hope. Hope that a merciful God will not condemn those who have not had the opportunity for baptism because of the inaction of others.

The baptism of infants is a tremendous witness to the grace of God. It affirms that it God who is acting in baptism, rather than human beings who are claiming something. It lives the baptismal images of adoption, cleansing, rebirth, renewal, sealed, etc. found in scripture when talking about baptism. It affirms that all creation is broken, even that which we find to be innocent, thereby helping our understanding of our own brokenness. I find it quite interesting that most churches which do not practice infant baptism still use some kind of dedication of infants. Some claim that baptism is the Christian version of Jewish circumcision. It becomes a sign of adoption into the body of Christ, the community of faith.

Some observations from a Lutheran perspective.

Pondering Pastor

From Rusty:

I’m not sure I understand (truly). Lutheran’s don’t believe they go to hell, yet you believe that they are born in sin, and that in order to be saved you must be baptized, but yet you don’t practice baptism for the dead. I’m not sure how you reconcile that. If you don’t provide a way for the un-baptized to BE baptized, then you’re still saying that they won’t be saved.

Arguing over the definition of sin is simply semantics. In the Lutheran faith, what are people required to confess and forsake, and repent of? Is it not their actions that are contrary to the laws of God? Are they required to confess and forsake of things they have not done – or repent of what… being born? How do I forsake being born? What you describe is not sin, but mortality, the fact that we are carnal, and prone to sin. But being capable of sin is not sin itself. The potential for something is not the thing itself. The potential for salvation is not salvation itself.

Yet, I can understand why you describe sin this way, as it justifies the act of infant baptism, even though it is not supported in scripture. But what I can’t understand, is how you reconcile the issue I point out in my first paragraph – without providing a way for the un-baptized to BE baptized, how are you saying anything other than the un-baptized cannot be saved?


2 Margaret June 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Though I have never lost a baby, others in my family have. I just can’t imagine how inconsolable parents would feel if there were no way for those sweet innocent babies to live with them and our Father in Heaven. I also can’t imagine the kind and loving Father in Heaven that I have come to know somewhat, being so cruel. Of course He would provide a way for them to return to Him! And also to be with the families who loved them from the time of conception.

When I was studying Mormon doctrine as an investigator, this was a great comfort to me. There are a miriad of belifs about the next life after this one, but the only one that makes sense to me is that families and friendships extend beyound this life. Many relationships began in the life before this one and will continue for eternity. A little technicality like not being baptized before passing into the next life is not going to change that. The Lord has provided a way to solve that. How kind, wise and wonderful He is!!

AS for being sinners-how can one be a sinner until he or she understands what sin is and what the consequences of sin are. Certainly an infant or toddler, or even a small child is not capable of understanding sin. The Lord has told us that the age of accountablility is 8 years. For those who are born with severe mental handicaps, they may never be accountable, and thus will not need baptism.

I know these things to be true, and testify to them, as has Rusty, in the name of our Savior, even Jesus Christ


3 Jared June 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM

I myself am not a Mormon, but I am a follower of Christ. While I do believe that we are all born into sin and condemned from the start, I do not believe that babies who die would go to hell. However, I myself don’t believe in baptizing infants or in this baptism of the dead as you referred to it as. While I offer no antagonism whatsoever to those who practice it, I think that baptism should be the choice of the individual who is being baptized and not of those around them – what is the point of being baptized if you have no understanding or faith in what is occurring? Rather, I believe that since God is such a merciful God, the age of accountability comes into play- those who truly cannot understand the mechanics of faith and God due to some mental handicap, or because they are just not capable of understanding due to their age are allowed by God into Heaven. It would be cruel and unjust otherwise. I don’t think there is a set age for it however; more so, it depends from person to person, as all of us are different.


4 j potts August 3, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Jared; you make some great points but your arguments is not with the Mormons really, it is with John Calvin, the author of “original sin”.


5 Margaret June 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM

I recently asked a 14 yr old young woman to be baptized for my Mom, who died 15 months ago. My Mom can choose to accept or reject that baptism. Naturally, I hope she accepts it. We don’t believe that those who have died are forced to accept these ordinances we do. We are only giving them the opportunity to accept it.


6 ditchu June 27, 2008 at 11:54 PM

As one who has received a Luthern upbringing, thus being “Baptized” as an infant, I’d like to inform you that although theripudic for my parents it has not had any effect on the destination of my soul. I know this for fact, not just by faith, for it is testified to me by God. However many (like myself at one point) use this infant “Baptism” to qualify ourselves as being baptized, and thue falsely thinking we are in need of this ordiance no further. I however realized that this is a mistake in thinking and found that we are not Doomed to “Hell” by the act of Adam, Eve, or any other person but ourselves. Else how would Jesus be able to escape this horrific fate, or how would he be able to free us from it if he too was afflicted with the same sin of Adam if all humans are? There could have been no Atonement made for he could only pay his share in the debt.

No, It is mistakenly understood that it is Adam’s actions that direct us to “Hell,” But the true and reasonable fact is that we are Doomed by Our rebelous nature, a nature that children are not resonly responciable for, thus They are considered innocent until the they are accountable, and do not need to be baptized without their expressed consent, their desire to, and their covenant of Baptism.

God bless you,


7 ponderingpastor June 28, 2008 at 7:38 AM

We are commanded by Christ to baptize.
Scripture says if we believe and are baptized we will be saved.
Scripture does not say that only through baptism is one saved.
God can do what God chooses to do. God is gracious and merciful, full of steadfast love. I can commend an unbaptized infant into God’s eternal care with the hope that God redeems that sinner. If an infant dies before I perform a baptism, I will not baptize that dead infant because that infant is already under God’s care.

Understanding baptism as God’s action, not human action or even reception, understands baptism as God’s chosen way to act. That does not preclude other ways.

The understanding of baptism is one of the areas where Christians disagree in some profound ways. Lutherans reject the “age of accountability” in favor of “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.

To ditchu –
You are absolutely right that no human being can atone for another. But Jesus Christ, fully human and divine was born, or should I say made incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit. He can atone because he is divine, of one essence with the Father.

Mormons want to make salvation dependent upon adherence to the Law, the very thing Paul rails against in the first half of Romans. The theology of Mormons is more like that of Judaism than it is Christianity. All this legalism also restricts how God acts.


8 ponderingpastor June 28, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Oh, and I forgot. No, Rusty, arguing over sin is not just semantics. My understanding of sin is so much broader than yours, and so it has different consequences. It is a huge difference between Mormons and Christians. “We are by nature sinful and unclean.” Every action, even the most altruistic ones are stained by sin.

And no, I’ll not accept the parting shot. Infant baptism arises out of our understanding of sin and the witness of scripture. It does not justify the act of infant baptism.

Pondering Pastor


9 Margaret June 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM

“Scripture says if we believe and are baptized we will be saved.” I would add “after all we can do (good works). I’m wondering how infants can believe. How can they express a desire to be baptized? And, again, how can an infant sin? I think the 2nd Article of Faith fits here.
“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” See “Mormon Beliefs” at the top #2.


10 Rusty Lindquist June 28, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Jared, thanks for joining us and offering your insightful and respectful opinions, Margaret, Ditchu, thanks also for joining the discussion.

Pondering Pastor, you mentioned that “Mormons want to make salvation dependent upon adherence to the Law”, but I’d suggest that’s not true. It’s far more convenient (and marketable) to believe that our salvation is sure, regardless of what we do. Yet, it’s what the scriptures teach, which I explain in detail here (“Why Mormons believe in works“). God didn’t give us “recommendations”, he gave us commandments. I won’t be the one to tell another man that they’re optional, for I’d then share in his accountability for treating them so flippantly.

Also you say that baptism is God’s action, but if that’s true, then why do we need to perform it? If it’s suitable that he can simply judge the hearts of children, then why not us. It seems a flimsy, wavering point of view. But God does not waver. It’s either required or it isn’t. I guess that’s one of the big things that separate Lutherans and Christians, the belief in optional baptism. Christians would call that heretical.

But to your credit, I read your comments about the definition of sin not being semantics, but the basis for belief. It’s a good point, and far more substantial than semantics; in fact it’s most foundational.

But tonight as I sat on my couch, holding my 6 week old baby in my arms, looking into those helpless and innocent eyes, I couldn’t help wondering how someone could believe that such an one is capable of sin. The idea seemed laughable.

The capacity to sin is not sin, being mortal is not being sinful. There’s a fundamental flaw with the concept of being born into sin, and if as you suggest, so much of Lutheranism stems from that foundation, then I can’t help question the rest of the structure, particularly when coupled with the concept of optional baptism, and optional commandments. There sure seems to be a lot of convenience around these teachings, which I won’t go into here, since I’ve addressed it in an earlier link.


11 ditchu June 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Thank you, I think we are getting to the heart of this issue. The issue is about how we see people and their worth as human versus the Divine influence in us. You have shaped out the standard thinking on the half divinity of Jesus as his authority to atone for others. This would agree with the thinking found in cultures through out History, and is relevent in the Greek Panthion. Heraclese was half God and half human by the Greek stories and this gave him imortality and strength. But we are dealing with a different Mythology here. In the Christian Mythos, we can see reasoning to look at Jesus as being half God. But this thinking would make him half human and thus inherit the sin of Adam as all humans do, according to the Luthern/Catholic beleif system that we are “Sinners” because of the “Fall of Adam.” I would extend this to my beleif that grants Jesus Full Deity status. Even if he is Fully a God, being born from a human woman Jesus would inherit this “Original Sin” if humans do inherit the sin of Adam. There is no way past that point, excepting to ignore the implication that all Humans inherit this Sin.

No, again I must suggest that that theory is flawed. Again I suggest that humans do not inherit the sin of others but in their own indivisual way, being imperfect, do sin ourselves and thus we fall short of the glory of God. It is our natural state to sin, But Jesus did not sin and thus he, even being (Part) human could offer himself up for the atonement to happen.

I do not suggest that your ritual is wrong and without merrit, but I do think it has the potential to lend people the false sense that they have been properly Baptized. The way I see it, part of the Baptism is making the choice to be baptized, this choice cannot be made for others, and it is difficult to ascertain how someone can make this choice when they are unaware of its representation. However the ritual of chrisining or “baptising” (without imersion I might add as you most likely do not half drown babies) is probably improtant to your parishiners because it gives them a sense of protection and may releive much stress for parents raising these children. But is unnecessary for the innocent as children are, for they are as we all are in heaven.

Peace be with you,


12 ponderingpastor June 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Regretfully, I believe we have come to a major impasse in a couple of areas. Such is the reason for the division between churches … irreconcilable differences, if you will. Allow me some clarification, it is not an attempt to argue.

Rusty, you write describing my position as “the belief in optional baptism”. I think that overstates what I was trying to say. God saves who God will save. It’s not up to us. Scripture tells us BOTH that God will save those who believe and are baptized AND that God is merciful. I have no trouble believing both. It is possible the God saves some who have not been baptized … but I will still insist on baptism.

Re: infant faith … does an infant trust her earthly parents even before language and reason are fully developed? Of course! Why then cannot an infant trust her heavenly father with the faith and trust of an infant (which we cannot know because of the lack of language and reasoning skills)? I find it fascinating that some will accredit innocence to an infant, but postulate that they might not know or trust their creator. Is not Christian education much like Paul’s teaching about the altar/temple to the “unknown god” in Acts? Let me tell you about that which you already have some awareness.

It seems to me that if an infant is completely innocent, then there must have been at least one in the experience of all humanity, who did not choose sin at some point or another. If all we are talking about is capacity to sin, then doesn’t it follow that someone would have rejected sin, even into adulthood? If not, maybe it is more than capacity but something inherent that causes all to sin and fall short of the Glory of God. Might that not be Sin itself?

Infant baptism is attested to in some of the earliest writings of the church. Two stories in Acts suggest at least the possibility of infant baptism, and at least the probability that people within the households were baptized based on the faith of the father or mother. (The household of Cornelius and the household of Lydia.)

“Also you say that baptism is God’s action, but if that’s true, then why do we need to perform it? If it’s suitable that he can simply judge the hearts of children, then why not us. It seems a flimsy, wavering point of view.” Please don’t confuse what God “needs” and what “we need”. We need baptism as a sign, as a rite, as validation, as a witness to God’s action.” Does God need us to baptize? I doubt it. Do we need something in order to experience God’s action? Probably so. For some reason, this is how God has chosen to act and it is the witness of scripture. Likewise, does God need a certain amount of water for a baptism to be effective? I’ll immerse an infant if the parents will let me. Rusty’s 6 week old daughter will hold her breath if you blow in her face just right. I’ll guess that Rusty won’t let me try to hold her underwater though. But immersion is unnecessary because it is God’s Word and command connected to the earthly element of water that results in baptism … not how much water or how deep someone is thrust underwater. Much of what I’m reading here serves to limit God (immersion vs pouring, only saving those who are baptized in the way I define, etc.).

One last thing for this post. Ditchu has described what the early church abandoned as being heretical about Jesus. Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine (without sin). Mormons have rejected Trinitarian theology, which results in this kind of confusion. The half human half divine piece just is not taught in Christian churches and to suggest that I’ve been shaped by this teaching couldn’t be further from the truth. I agree, that if this were true, his atonement for others would not be possible.

Pondering Pastor


13 ditchu June 30, 2008 at 9:00 AM

I have a major issue with this statment and the philosophy that follows it: “God saves who God will save.” If thia is the thinking then why do anything at all. after all following the theory, that “God saves who God will save,” suggest that no matter what we do we are “Saved” or “Damed” due in no part to our actions, devotion, attitudes, nor faith. If God asks us to follow the commandments then this theory gives us license to not obey as we choose and no more condemnation will follow than if we choose to obey.
How can a Pastor truly beleive this?

Also much of my thinking on this topic stems from my experience in the Luthern church. But you posed the half God and Half devine theory in a logical path of your suggestion that Christ is Devine due to his conseption.


14 Jared June 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Ditchu, I think what PP might be trying to say is that God is the ultimate Judge of all creation, and it is not our position to say who and who will not be saved when they confront God on their day of judgment. While God has outlined for us in His Word the ‘necessary actions’ it takes to be saved (please don’t take that so literally, as I just couldn’t find better words to describe it); IE, having complete faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and following his teachings, it is still up to God in his complete benevolence who and who shall not enter the Kingdom of God. So in essence, ‘God will save who God will save,’ using his complete love and mercifulness, as well as his justice and rightfulness as a guide to such decisions.

For example, I believe that someone who has never heard the Word of God and so has not put their faith into Jesus Christ still has the ability to go to heaven through their personal understanding of God through what has been revealed to them, such as through their personal experiences, or through Creation itself. Just because they haven’t put their faith into Christ Jesus doesn’t mean they are barred from heaven. God will thus save who he deems to save.

I hope that this makes sense, and of course, it is all just my opinion and interpretation of my faith.


15 ditchu June 30, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Thank you! You clairified that well. I tend to agree with your line of thinking here, but the statment just does not sound correct that “God will save who he will, without regard to what we do and do not do. You did say it just about as good as I could that While God has outlined for us… the ‘necessary actions’ it takes to be saved.” He has given us comandments to follow, if we choose to ignore them after we receive this instruction, then we are dooming ourselves. See we are given a Choice and it is ultimatly up to the indivisual to choose God’s mercy or to reject him. I do not think God punished people unjustly or unfairly. If you never had the oppertunity to here of Him or his gospel then you will face a judgment that takes that into consideration. However if you have been extended every oppertunity to accept him and his Laws and you turn away from that way then it is your choice and your actions that prevent you from accepting his mercy.
See God has already extend his mercy to Man, That is what the Gospel is about. The Price of Justice has been paid, that is why we needed a Christ to “Save” us, and with justice met we are able to receive God’s mercy. It is up to us to accept it, or reject him.


16 ponderingpastor June 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Rusty did a nice job summarizing what I was attempting to say. Thanks Rusty.

Ditchu … clearly your claim to Lutheranism is suspect. You may have been raised in the Lutheran church, but what you write about demi-gods is more pagan than Lutheran. It is nowhere close to Lutheran teaching.

Christ is divine because, as we read in John 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it … And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

Pondering Pastor


17 ditchu June 30, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Thank you for this new phase of the discussion.
As to what I was saying about the “Demi-god” stuff is from my folklore studies, which is the study of what people think, say/wirte, and do. I have gathered from the accounts of roman/greek mythology a simily to how you seem to have suggested that Jesus id devine by his conception, but I would have to take the argument that if it were his conception that made him devine it would also make him human and the result of the rule of sin would effect him as well as any of us. The demi/half god term was emploied so we could dis-connect with out bias and look outside our current paradigms to see how logically this does not gel well with what we know of Christ.
I do agree that he is devine but it has nothing to do with how he was born.


18 Margaret June 30, 2008 at 6:06 PM

Where much is given, much is expected. In other words, those who who have been taught and understand Christ’s teachings will be held to a higher law. I’m sure everyone will have the opportunity to hear Christ’s Gospel at some point, but what I’m not sure of is; if someone hears it in this life and rejects it, will they have another chance in the next life? Maybe that’s one of those things that we don’t need to know now.


19 Jared June 30, 2008 at 11:07 PM

I believe that wholeheartedly as well; everyone is held accountable according to what they know or have heard about the Word of God. However, I do not think that after this life they will have another chance to repent. There is a crafty acronym for the Bible: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. I believe that to be 100% true. We are given this one life to do with what we please. If we find God in it, and live our lives for him, than we have spent our life well. It is only the person’s own fault if they refuse to accept the grace of God in this lifetime. Remember, it says that on the Day of Judgment, all will bow before God. What kind of faith would be shown if a person denied God their entire life, and then as they were judged, were saved? There would be no faith, for during that moment they would be actually witnessing God’s glory. Remember that Jesus said: “Those who believe without seeing are blessed.”


20 ditchu June 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM

There is some debate over the Day of judgment. I may disagree with you but I think it is not at the time you die. personally I see it as a Day that we all come before Christ and his judgment, A Day. I think for some they may have some time to wait on the other side before they need to be judged, it is in this time that these people can still change their minds about Christ.


21 Jared July 1, 2008 at 5:44 AM

I totally agree with you. I think as well that everyone will be judged at the same time, however, the reason I stated my opinion on that before the way I did was because I think that while everyone is awaiting judgment in Sheol (or Hades, or whatever you want to call it), we are going to be, figuratively, sleeping and in a state of unconsciousness and inactivity.

I might also remind you of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16; while it is a parable and I don’t think that we are meant to take how Sheol is portrayed in it literally (place for the blessed separated from the place of those in agony) I do think it carries the message that because the rich man didn’t accept God into his life while he was alive, he now has no hope of appealing to God.


22 ditchu July 1, 2008 at 8:40 AM

We always have hope. The problem of putting off the choice is that when we die our personality does not change. We will make the same choices in this life as after under the same influences.


23 Margaret July 1, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Ditchu & Jared, I appreciate your thoughts. I don’t believe we will be sleeping and inactive between death and judgement, though. I think we will be very busy! Some will be teaching, others will be learning, and there may be many other things to do there. I don’t think we will be idle.

I agree that we carry the same personality with us into the next life, but I hope the change of environment there will help many ,who are very dear to me, listen, when they wouldn’t here. It’s just a great hope I have…


24 Jared July 1, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Perhaps. While I don’t hold exactly the same view, what is my opinion anyways? We are all just speculating on what we have come to learn/believe off of what our personal experiences and studies have told us about God and the afterlife. While it is fun to discuss all of this and what may happen after we die, perhaps it is more fruitful to acknowledge that whatever may happen, we should try our best here on Earth to get the Word out to as many people as possible so we don’t have to worry about the unknown. :-)


25 Margaret July 2, 2008 at 8:02 AM



26 ryan July 3, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Getting back to infant baptism–it’s a simple argument, really, especially if broken up into parts.

First–is baptism required for entrance to heaven? It seems to me a commandment from God, not a guideline. I have faith that God is all-knowing and will be the fairest Judge we can hope to have for our own judgment. In this regard, good people who are trying their best who miss a requirement they weren’t aware of I doubt will get snubbed for eternity. That said, God gives us commandments or rules that must be met. He didn’t say, “It would be nice if you quit . . .”– He said, “Thou shalt not. . . .” Luckily Mormons have the ordinance of baptism for the dead, so both the rule and the exception can be fairly jugded. This could apply to over 90% of the world who have barely even heard the name Jesus Christ, much less get baptized into a christian church. It would also apply to infants who have not yet been baptized. And speaking of that, Is it Mormon doctrine that infants get baptized for the dead? When I read Mormon’s letter to Moroni (Mni 8) I sense that little children are alive in Christ and need no repentance nor baptism. If children die before reaching the age of accountablity, the atonement’s power redeems them. Do they then need the baptismal ordinance? I grew up believing they are “shoe-ins” to the celestial kingdom. Do we baptize them for the dead?

Second–is baptism only for those who sin? Of course the baptismal ordinance is for this purpose–the symbolic washing away of sin. But immersion symbolizes so much more–the death of the old selfish self and the rebirth of a new person, one willing to obey the commandments and to take on Christ’s name. He will intercede on our behalf and make us clean and pure so we can enter God’s presence. Here is where I want to agree with PP. We are inately evil and our natural selves will lead us to sin. Whether it is the slightest selfish thought or the worst of evils, we all need the atonement of Christ. No matter how far away from the door we are, we cannot enter without giving our whole selves to Him, promising to do everything He asks of us (alluding to C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” and Matthew 10:39). This is what baptism is all about. And Christ–being without sin–got baptized as well, in order to “fulfill all righteousness.” He showed us by example what we must do. If this were a guideline, I can’t imagine Jesus going through with it–it would be deceitful and hypocritical.

Third–can infants sin? I’ve seen some nasty kids out there–rude, inconsiderate, boisterous, and downright malicious. And yes, before age 8. infants, not so much. Their behavior is instinctual, but never malicious. I agree, PP, that infants are as selfish as they come. The whole world revolves around them–a cruel, heartless, sinful world. But I cannot see it making the infant sinful just by being born. Jesus lived in this world, but was sinless.

I have a broad definition of sin–anything that prevents you from entering into God’s kingdom. Baptism is an ordinance that overcomes sin and allows the baptized to be born again, renewed and refreshed. It is a contract/covenant we make with Christ. Persons incapable of understanding the terms or conditions of any contract make that contract null and void. Baptism, I believe, is the same way.


27 Margaret July 3, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Ryan, I have had a very recent experience with infants, the Temple and baptism. My Dad had 3 brothers who died as infants. I am a convert and just did the Temple work for those 3 uncles. The only ordanance required for them was sealing to parents. That is all that is required for a child who dies before turning 8.

All I know about sin and children under 8 is that the Lord has told us that the age of accountability is 8 years. I have faith that the Lord can’t be anything but honest with us. If He says it is so, then it is so. I realize that before one can accept this, one has to have a testimony that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. I do.


28 ponderingpastor July 8, 2008 at 9:52 AM

I’m curious.

Where has “the Lord told us that the age of accountability is 8 years”?

Pondering Pastor


29 Margaret July 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Salvation of Little Children
By Elder Bruce R. McConkie
of the Council of the Twelve

“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, not a goal to be attained when a specified number of years, days, and hours have elapsed. In our revelation the Lord says,

“They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me.” (D&C 29:47.)

“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.”

“And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.” (D&C 68:27.)”

I know you don’t accept these sources, as you have said it before. Nevertheless, these revelations were given by the Lord to Joseph Smith in Sept. of 1830.


30 ditchu July 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Margret here has shown you some revelation from God. The viability of these words to you may hinge on the case of your view of God’s silence or influence. Does God continue to speak to his children or has he become silent? How you answer this question deturmines your ability to understand Revelation as a current Phomonia.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints has faith in the current dispension of Revelation from God, and this in part of that Revelation.



31 ponderingpastor July 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Thanks Margaret. Ditchu is partially right that my willingness to accept this depends upon my willingness to accept this as a current revelation from God. But you see, this is one area where Christians and Mormons differ significantly. We don’t accept that Mormonism has a revelation from God in these writings. Do we believe that God continues, through the Holy Spirit, to speak to God’s children. Yes. You see, Ditchu, you incorrectly assume that Christians do not accept revelation as a current phenomenon. You are right in your last sentence.

Pondering Pastor


32 ditchu July 8, 2008 at 5:57 PM

2 corrections:
1: Allow me to be clear that I make no broad assumption about christians here, I made no assumption here at all. I was simpely allowing you to disagree or agree on the principal of current Revelation. Also I was explaining how the LDS view these things in light of Revelation. I am glad to note that you are allowing for Christiandom to have Revelation this day but there are some who would go the way that God is Silenced.
2: “Mormons” are Christian. As a Lutheren I was taught that a christian is someone who “Takes upon themselves the name of Christ” and “Follows Jesus Christ.” As a member of the LDS Church (“Mormon”) I am taught and encuraged to continually do this and Thus I am a Christian. My being a Christian in this istance makes “Mormons” Christian as much a Lutherens are Christians. Thus your argument is not between “Christians” and “Mormons” but between Christians and other Christians.

Thank you,


33 ponderingpastor July 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Unfortunately, without holding to the Holy Trinity, Mormons cannot be called Christian. Christians worship one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A “person to takes upon themselves the name of Christ and follows Jesus Christ” is not sufficient. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian.

As much as Mormons claim the title, they do not meet the standard. Christians define the term. Not those who are outside the traditional faith.

Pondering Pastor


34 Rusty Lindquist July 8, 2008 at 10:05 PM

I’ll dedicate a post to this. I’m tired of this ridiculous semantic distinction. Based on your own description, Lutherans are not Christian, nor are Catholics, nor Protestants, not any others, for the current definition of the “Holy Trinity” held by modern Christians is different than the view at the actual time of Christ. If those followers were true Christians, and you don’t believe what they do, then neither are you Christian, at least according to your own description. Based on this description, Mormons are the only Christians, for they believe in the exact doctrine as it existed in the time of Christ. At the minimum, according to the scholars in the Bible Dictionary, Lutherans are not Christians. Lutherans don’t get to set the title, for you’re outside the traditional faith. It’s the most silly and laughable of all statements I hear from critics, and it certainly deserves a good strong post that can market on Google.


35 ponderingpastor July 9, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Ah, but Rusty, that is because you draw a distinction between Christianity of the 1st -5th centuries and that which followed the creeds. I don’t. I see it as continuous. You might assert that there was no understanding of the Holy Trinity in the first few centuries of the church, but I claim you are wrong about that. I see the first chapter of John, certainly written in the first century, as a great witness to the unity of the Father and the Son, and at the same time a distinction between the “persons of the Trinity”. Given your bias, I agree you find this a ridiculous semantic distinction. But for me it is foundational. It is as foundational for me as “Joseph Smith is a prophet of God” is for you. And no, Mormons are not the only Christians unless one accepts your definition and assumptions. Be careful, Harper’s Bible Dictionary is not the only “authoritative” source.

You see, once again in our conversations, we understand there to be different critical divergent points. Our differences result from those critical divergent points and the value *we* assign to them. I don’t accept your “critical divergent points” any more than you do. Good dialogue is the result of that realization and finding common ground, if there is any. Mormons seek to remove that common ground by “invalidating” our foundational creedal witness. We remove that common ground by “invalidating” the status of Joseph Smith as prophet and by holding fast to the importance of the creeds. To do anything other than that would be to deny who we are.

Therefore, whether or not you are “tired of this ridiculous semantic distinction”, it is a critical divergence between us.

Pondering Pastor


36 ditchu July 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM

The Christian is for any follower of Christ.
Your Definition is not one for the word Christian but is the deffinition of Trinitarian. You worship the three in one God, and so do “Mormons.” The difference is that your vague definition of 3 beings in one allows for people to have differing opinions on the physical state of God. Some think it is really one being that has 3 forms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Others beleive that God is 3 beings Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with one mission. You too easily discount the knowledg and experience of others, and are too exclusive, shutting others out of your private religion. I have come across this attitude before but rarely with lutherens and I am taken aback that a Professing Lutheren Christian would try to shut the door on other peoples faith in God by lableing them “Non-Christian” and redefining the termonology to do so. I Know God on a personal level and, I would be hard pressed to consider others who follow the teachings of Christ Jesus “Non-Christian” because they do not agree with my views. If I am not a Christian by your definition then you can have your Private church, and I don’t want any part of your exclusion. If that is the way you see christianity then you don’t even know who Christ is.



37 Margaret July 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM

When Christ returns, He will most assuredly define in no uncertain terms what a Christian is, for every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is the Christ. Many will have much tl learn on that day. It is not up to man to define what a Christian is, but up to Christ.


38 Margaret July 9, 2008 at 3:54 PM

I’d also like to say that I know of no real definition of a Christian in the scriptures. I see no purpose for us to haggle over it. It seems to me that one who follows Christ’s teachings and tries to be like Him should qualify as a Christian. If someond thinks of himself as a Christian, far be it from me to tell him that he is not. That is not my place, just as it is not my place to judge another’s heart. Let’s be more mature than that!


39 ditchu July 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Thank you for bringing me back to civility. I heartily Agree with your last statment.


40 Terry July 9, 2008 at 5:27 PM

If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you don’t understand who God is. You may say the word “God” but you don’t understand His nature. Secondly, you couldn’t possibly understand who Christ is. It is my conviction that true salvation is built upon an understanding of the deity of Jesus Christ, that He is both God–fully God, and that God at the same time is fully God, and that that’s the whole point of what He did in the gospels. I mean, Jesus was never satisfied with having people accept Him as anything other than God. I think that was the whole thing that He was demonstrating, was the Trinitarian nature of God. So, I think not to understand the Trinity is not to understand who God is and it’s not to understand who Christ is and therefore, it’s not to understand the gospel properly.

Isaiah 48:16 says, “Come near unto Me, hear this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.”

Why is the son called the Son? For one primary reason, and that is because He bears the same nature as the Father. It is to make sure that we understand. It’s a concession to us as human beings because the Father didn’t create the Son. There never was a time when there was only a Father until He had a son, and there was never a mother.

When you’re in the Old Testament and there is a text or passages about God, when you see Him as Father in the Old Testament, you see Him as Father of the nation Israel because He brought the nation into existence. Or, you see Him as Father of mankind because He created mankind. But, when you come to the New Testament, God is identified as the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not to indicate that God created Him, or brought Him into existence, like He did Israel and the human race, but to indicate that He is of the same nature. And, Jesus defined that very clearly when he said, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father. I and the Father are one. I work and the Father works, and there’s no difference.”


41 ditchu July 9, 2008 at 5:56 PM

I understand the Trinity. I will tell you that it is not an incorrect concept but many people have differing views of the trinity. The Trinity is a general view of the Godhead. The issue we keep stumbling on is that people think the “Mormon” view of the “Godhead” is outside that of the Trinitarian’s. This is not factual.

The “Mormon” view narrows down the Trinity to show that there are 3 distenct personages in the Godhead and not just one 3 faced being.

It is not that I do not beleive in the trinity but that I understand that it is not as limmited a consept as many make it out to be.

For more on my view of the Trinity :

Thank you,


42 Margaret July 9, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Terry’s comment is massively confusing and illogical to me. I don’t think the Godhead is meant to be so confusing.


43 Ringer October 9, 2008 at 9:24 PM

Rusty with your parenting experience, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that your child came into the world with an insatiable faculty for evil. Even before birth, your baby’s little heart was already programmed for sin and selfishness. The inclination toward depravity is such that, given free reign, every baby has the potential to become a monster.

Original sin is the biblical doctrine that explains your child’s sinful proclivity. It means children do not come into the world seeking God and righteousness. They do not even come into the world with a neutral innocence. They come into the world seeking the fulfillment of sinful and selfish desires. Scripture also teaches a doctrine called total depravity, referring to the extent of original sin. Although the outworking of the sin nature does not necessarily attain full expression in everyone’s behavior, it is nonetheless called total depravity because there is no aspect of the human personality, character, mind, emotions, or will that is free from the corruption of sin or immune to sin’s enticements.

Put bluntly, sin is not learned—it is an inbred disposition. Your kids got their sinful nature from you, you got it from your parents, your parents got it from their parents, and so on, all the way back to Adam. In other words, Adam’s fall tainted the entire human race with sin. Both the guilt and the corruption of sin are universal. The apostle Paul wrote, “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added). “Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men” (v. 18), meaning we inherited the guilt of sin. And “through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (v. 19), meaning we inherited the corruption of sin. No one is exempt. No one is born truly innocent.

That means that left to themselves, your children will pursue a course of sin. And left entirely to themselves, there is no evil of which they are incapable. You may find that hard to swallow, especially when you see them as newborns. Infants seem to be the very epitome of chaste, precious, childlike innocence. But don’t let the cute cheeks, the playful coos, and the bright eyes fool you — those children are a miniature version of you! The depravity that lives in their hearts is just waiting for the opportunity to express itself.


44 ditchu October 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM

you stated:”Original sin is the biblical doctrine that explains your child’s sinful proclivity.”

Please for sake of this argument outline for me from the Bible the idea of Original Sin.

I truly believe that all children are born innocent, even if deeds turn out to be considered evil that in reality, “they know not what they do.”

I can use a statment by christ to support the idea that “Little Children” are innocent: Matthew 19:14
“But Jesus said, Suffer little bchildren, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Is not Christian Values based somewhat in Jewish Tradition? Jewish Tradition sees people as innocent until they are old enough to be accountable Also they are Children until they reach sufficent age to understand Right and Wrong. Would you condem someone to a hedious fate when they do what they think is right? Are you sure you are Righteous in the task of taking away people’s choices and forcing the ordinance od Baptism upon them? Is not the choice more important than the ritual, more lasting in the heart of the indivisual?

I hope you think about this with more depth than reciting the idology you grew up with.



45 Rusty Lindquist October 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM


I understand this is your view, and appreciate that you likely intend well, but still, it saddens me that you believe it, because it’s incorrect, and damaging doctrine. It grieves me greatly that this view is taught so extensively among men, for it is contrary to the teachings of the Lord, and for this purpose have I written this post.

For there are those parents out there who will have looked into the eyes of a child, quite possibly their own, and seen precisely why the Savior taught:

“Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14,24)


“Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:14).

I don’t read these and draw the same conclusions as you. Little children are alive in Christ. They are whole, and the whole need no physician. They are not capable of committing sin, for sin is willful transgression, it’s knowing the truth, comprehending the circumstances, and still choosing error. Little children are incapable of this, and the curse of Adam is taken from them, through Christ.

I believe that it is solemn mockery before God to baptize little children, and to claim the un-baptized child that dies is hell-bound. Little children need no repentance, neither baptism.

To believe that little children are inherently evil is to say that God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons, for how many have died without baptism, without even the chance or the choice, or even the awareness.

It’s a view founded in logical fallacy. It does not follow that because one has the capacity to sin, that he is therefore sinful. That’s a tremendously slippery slope. It’s like saying that because you have the capacity to murder, therefore you are a murderer, and we should punish you accordingly. How dreadful would be the consequences if society and the judicial system were to adopt this viewpoint.

While I may inherit the consequences of my father’s actions (back to Adam), the books of life, out of which I shall be judged (according to the bible), are written according to my own works, those things for which I am personally accountable and responsible for. There’s no guilt by association.


46 ditchu October 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM

There are two confroting Theologies on the nature of Man:

1. We are inharently Evil.

2. we are inharently Benolovent.

Theory 1 would have us either inherit the evil of our Fathers (one inturpratation of: “the sins of the father upon the heads of the children.”) or somehow as human receive – Original Sin, from the fall of Adam.
Or as human (not-devine) we are born evil

Following the Philosophy of theory 1: we need to work to put away our evil and become benolovent.(stained form the actions of our progenitors.)

Theory 2 is in following that we are benolovent at birth and either some evil corupts us (and it is up to the righteous to resist coruption) or we are given Choice to act without total restriction to evil doing.

Theory 2 applies when we see we are Created in the Image of a Benolovent God. Theory 1 applies when the image we are created in is either of some evil/wrong commited, some evil thing differant than anything holy, devine, and benolovent, Or we are created in the image of our God who is Hateful, spiteful or just Evil.

What I know of the God that I put my faith in Theory 2 is the view I adhear to and see the wonderous world a Benolovent God Created.



47 Ringer October 11, 2008 at 7:56 AM

All humans are born in sin. If infants were not sinful, if they were not morally corrupt, then they wouldn’t die. If they were born innocent or pure or morally neutral there would be no basis for their death. The very fact that they die indicates that the disease of sin is there in them because sin is the killer. It is in their inherited sin nature that the seeds of death are planted.

And furthermore, do you know any adult that chose not to sin and therefore perpetuated some holy perfection? Do you know any adult that didn’t repeat Adam and Eve’s conscious rebellion against God? Do you know any adult that didn’t actually sin? No, the only persons who don’t actually sin are those who die in infancy and the only reason they don’t actually sin is because they die before they can manifest their sinfulness. They die before they can make a responsible moral choice to rebel against God which all of them will do if they live. Any child who lives to the point of moral responsibility, any person who gets beyond that condition where they can’t understand and they can’t convincingly grasp the truths of salvation, any child who lives pass the point of responsible moral to the point of responsible moral choice will choose to sin. We all do. The Bible is absolutely clear that all infants who survive end up wretched sinners because it’s in their nature. First Kings 8:46, “There is no man who doesn’t sin.” Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, in sin my mother conceived me.” It doesn’t mean he was an illegitimate child, that’s not the case. But from the very conception sin was there imbedded in his nature.

Since it is true that all those that are conceived are depraved sinners, what implications does that truth of depravity have on dying children and their salvation? Well, it makes their salvation solely a matter of sovereign grace. They don’t deserve to be saved because they are guilty sinners by inheritance. If they are saved it is by the sovereign grace of God based on nothing that they can do, nothing they can achieve and nothing they can merit. The salvation of those souls then is absolutely consistent with the salvation of adults which is also based on sovereign grace apart from anything that they can do. they are saved through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ, His death for them because He bore the wrath of God for them as for all who could and would believe. They’re saved then by grace, by sovereign grace. The only difference between their salvation and mine is faith is a part of my salvation..it’s not a part of theirs. But then again, faith isn’t something we contribute, faith is a gift from God. So they are saved by grace in sovereign election so that the work of Christ is freely applied to them. Mine is justification by faith, theirs is justification without faith because without the knowledge and ability to understanding convincingly sin and salvation, they cannot exercise that faith.


48 Margaret D October 11, 2008 at 10:05 AM

Ringer, I find your beliefs very sad and comfortless. Not at all like the kind, wise, loving Heavenly Father and Savior in the scriptures. I hope that some day you will open your eyes and experience the joy of the truth! Heavenly Father has a wonderful Plan of Happiness for all of us who will follow Him.


49 Ringer October 11, 2008 at 12:33 PM

In Isaiah 13:16 when God called for judgment on Babylon, He said, “Their little ones will also be dashed to pieces before their eyes.” When God called for Assyria to make a war of judgment on Israel He said in Hosea 13:16, “Their little ones will be dashed to pieces,” same statement. The same was said of Assyria’s war on Egypt in Nahum chapter 3 and verse 10. Amazingly Psalm 137:8 and 9 says, “O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blest will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us, how blest will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rocks.” Blest will be a nation who punishes Babylon, even including the death of little ones.

Psalm 58:3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb. And those who speak lies go astray from birth.” Psalm 143:2, “In Thy sight no one living is righteous,” that is from conception on, in the womb, at birth, in infancy, in childhood or adulthood, no one is righteous. Proverbs 20 and verse 9, “Who can say I have cleansed my heart, I’m pure from sin?” No one. Ecclesiastes 7 and verse 20, “Indeed there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, and who can know it?” Everything in Scripture cries out about the sinfulness of man.

Jesus in Matthew 15:18 says, “The things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and out of the heart come evil thoughts and murders and adulteries and fornications and thefts and false witness and slanders. These are the things that defile a man.” It’s what comes from the inside. In Romans chapter 3, “There is none righteous, no not one.” Romans 3 goes on to describe the wretchedness of the human heart.

So, the Bible tells us that sinfulness is not a condition that comes upon people when they’re old enough to choose to do evil. It is the condition of the entire human race and every conception brings into being a sinful life. Ever since Adam and Eve everyone born has been born in a fallenness sinful state. That becomes evident as soon as any behavioral choice is made. We’re born sinners, we are also born guilty because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.


50 ditchu October 13, 2008 at 12:17 AM

Out of all of the many versuses you took there from the Bible only three deal with Children and two of those speak nothing about the benovolence or wickedness of a baby/child.
the clostest you get is:
“Psalm 58:3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb. And those who speak lies go astray from birth.”
Personally I’d take Jesus’ words over David’s – who himself was an adulterer – unworthy to build (let alone enter) the temple of God.

Isalm 143:2, “In Thy sight no one living is righteous,”
This one you got wrong,
“2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be ajustified.”

good luck in the future,


51 ditchu October 13, 2008 at 12:19 AM

Again could you distill for me where exactly in the Bible is tells us that we inherit Adam’s transgression/Sin?

So far I seem unable to find it.


52 ryan October 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM

This is a brilliant discussion and readresses concerns that haven’t been hit upon in some months.

Thank you, Ringer, for finding biblical evidence that are are sinful by nature. The Book of Mormon adds to that sentiment, “The natural man is an enemy to God” (Mosiah 3:19). The scripture poignantly continues, and puts this discussion back on track. ” . . .unless he becomes as a little child, full of grace and truth.”

We all agree that our nature is to sin. That is why I agree with PP, all kids–including Rusty’s adorable baby boy–if left to themselves will sin and become corrupted. Naturally, we are sinful. Just look at “The Lord of the Flies.”

But we are not left to ourselves. We come into this world as a member of a family. We have parents who love us and want to teach us correct principles. They correct us when we are wrong and show how we hurt ourselves, others, and the Lord when we choose wrong. We are taught about the nature of God and are told to emulate Him. We learn catch phrases like “What would Jesus do?” to help us learn good from evil.

But as described above, we all turn to sin. We all in time fall short of the glory of God. So we all need the Savior to intercede on our behalf.

The traditional Christian view states we are sinful from birth. Regarding adults this is a non-issue because we all know we have sinned, and we all need Christ. But regarding infants who die before baptism, how do we cope with the inherent difficulty of consoling parents and their loss? I’ll summarize the viewpoints above in the following list.

Some would say the baby is damned.
Others reason that a loving God will not be so cruel and will provide a way, though we don’t know how.
Still others conclude that baptism isn’t necessary in the first place.
Mormons believe that God did reveal his will and it is not to baptize infants. Doing so is unnecessary, as “little children are alive in Christ.”

Ringer listed some passages that he interprets as original sin. I read the same passage and conclude that my nature is to choose evil so I have to try all the harder to lose my carnal self in following Christ.

So in conclusion, we all have differences of opinion. I notice that many traditional Christians following this blog find differences between the Mormon view and theirs and exploit these differences. But this is a mormon blog–a place to open your mind and see the Mormon view point. You may not agree, but you should be able to see the rationale behind the doctrine. Your arguments have only shown that Mormonism is different from the traditional view and therefore is “non-Christian” or just plain wrong.

Mormonism was founded on untraditional principles because tradition has separated mainstream christianity from God. So He set things right by re-establishing His church on the earth without all the man-made traditions that had infiltrated true doctrine.


53 ditchu October 13, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Forgive me but I see too much conjecture on what is ment in the scriptural referances people are starting to bring up.

Where is the natural Man a child?

Again, Children are not Men, so using any referance that depicts man and men are not sufficently speaking of children and babies. As the audiance of any scriptural referance tends to be an adult or adulesant. One could argue that any broad term refering to man does not automatically infer the same about children.

It has been revealed unto us in our day that the age of accountability is usually about 8 years old. this is when children can take responcibility for their actions. Before they are old enough to make a big dicision as to accept Baptism they have no need for it, for God will be the judge and it is through his Prophet that he made this plain.

God bless,


54 Catalino Estrella Jr. October 17, 2008 at 2:35 PM

May I add something about this “original sin theory” that was mentioned by Ringer. Common sense will dictate to us that what we have inherited from the trangression of Adam was not the sin per se but the effect of that trangression which is physical death meaning a separation of the spirit & the body concluding that what we have inherited from Adam is mortality. Like Adam, we are now subject to physical death because we became mortals as what Adam has become which necessitate that a Savior should come to save us in this estate that we fell in too.
We never inherited Adam’s sin fo. Everybody knows that “As in Adam all men died, all men will be made alive thru Christ”
Before the transgression, Adam status is that he was not yet a mortal man and not subject to death and to any negative effects of earth life. He moves and acts as he was quickened by the Spirit of God. After his transgression, his status changed to being mortal and is now subject to physical death as he was now quickened by blood, the life giving substance of physical or mortal man. In short, what we have inherited from Adam is not his sin but the effect of that transgression or sin if you wish to call it, and so like Adam we are now subject to physical death and all of us thus need the effect of the atoning sacrifice of our Savior Jesus Christ to return to that place where our spirits are foreordained to be. I hope Rusty could help me elaborate more on this subject I started. Thanks in advance, Rusty!


55 Tanya October 18, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Catalino, have you ever put your theory to the test? Spent any time in a day care lately? In the line at the grocery store? On the school bus? Why do children die?


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: