LDS Alright then, Mormons, let's have it out

[mmksparbud]

God is very powerful. He is powerful enough to make us equal to Him:

(New Testament | John 17:21 - 23)

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

You are confusing God's power with the love for power that man has. We can be one with God in mind and character only. We will never be His equal Only Jesus is for He was equal with God from eternity. Again, we are not His natural children---Jesus needs no adoption, His inheritance if from being the natural son of God---we have to be adopted for we are not His natural children. Just another thing that JS and BY got wrong.

 

[mmksparbud]

We teach the Godhead of the Bible:

(Book of Mormon | Mormon 7:7)

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 20:28)

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

No, they are totally different from the Godhead of the bible. Our Father was never human, He never had a Father or grandfathers, He never had a wife, He and His Son were totally One, of the same substance, Jesus became human at the incarnation, but He is still God, and created everything from nothing. The Holy Spirit is everywhere at the same time---NO! Your godhead is totaly different from our Godhead. You just call them by the same names. The true Godhead knows the difference and therefore you are most certainly guilty of breaking that commandment.

 

[He is the way]

You are confusing God's power with the love for power that man has. We can be one with God in mind and character only. We will never be His equal Only Jesus is for He was equal with God from eternity. Again, we are not His natural children---Jesus needs no adoption, His inheritance if from being the natural son of God---we have to be adopted for we are not His natural children. Just another thing that JS and BY got wrong.

The Bible states that we are ALL children of God:

(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6)

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

We are all children unless we do not endure chastening:

(New Testament | Hebrews 12:6 - 10)

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

All males are Christ's brothers:

(New Testament | Matthew 23:8 - 11)

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

I am not confused God does have that much power.

 

[He is the way]

No, they are totally different from the Godhead of the bible. Our Father was never human, He never had a Father or grandfathers, He never had a wife, He and His Son were totally One, of the same substance, Jesus became human at the incarnation, but He is still God, and created everything from nothing. The Holy Spirit is everywhere at the same time---NO! Your godhead is totaly different from our Godhead. You just call them by the same names. The true Godhead knows the difference and therefore you are most certainly guilty of breaking that commandment.

You said: "He and His Son were totally One, of the same substance" So they both have bodies of flesh and bones:

(New Testament | Luke 24:39)

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[mmksparbud]

The Bible states that we are ALL children of God:

(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6)

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

We are all children unless we do not endure chastening:

(New Testament | Hebrews 12:6 - 10)

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

All males are Christ's brothers:

(New Testament | Matthew 23:8 - 11)

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

I am not confused God does have that much power.

Yes---adopted children.
Rom_8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom_8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Gal_4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Eph_1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

We are to reflect His character whiloe here on earth--we do not wait for our heavenly home. We are His adopted children and heirs. We are not His natural children, but He adopts those who love Him. God is not made---no human can become God. You are God, period. He was God from everlasting to everlasting---there was never a time where He did not exist---always God. No humanity in Him-=--Jesus became human--but always divine. We have no divinity---therefore we are adopted. We can not become God and God will not be making us God--He is God, He shares His love and everything He has---you can emulate you earthly Father---you earthly father will always be your father---you can not become physically as he is. You can only be like him in character and actions. If God were going to turn you into a god just as He is---He would not have said He adopts us. We will never be Him, He is always Supreme God of the universe and the only Godhead of the universe.

 

[mmksparbud]

You said: "He and His Son were totally One, of the same substance" So they both have bodies of flesh and bones:

(New Testament | Luke 24:39)

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Here we go again for the hundredth time!! I said they were of the same substance---then Jesus became human---there never was any humanity in the Father, He had no Father, no Grandfathers. He never became God, He has always been God. Jesus became human, different then from His Father, yet still retained His divinity. He is our Creator/brother now. We will never be brother to the Father, we have no divinity in us to share with Him and He has no humanity to share with us---therefore---we are His adopted children.

 

[CaspianSails]

You said: "In the context of Ephesians the word alone is not necessary as it is understood within the structure and meaning of the passage."

Alone is not to be understood are even part of that passage. Verse 10 is not to be left out of that passage. We live by EVERY word of God, not just the ones we like.:

(New Testament | Ephesians 2:8 - 10)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

As servants of God we are to do the works He has given us to do.

I believe in my original post that I included verse 10 and did NOT leave it out. It does not follow in verse 10 that it is a requirement for salvation it is a statement as to what is the outcome or for what purpose does God provide salvation for mankind. I addressed this fully in my post. Those who want to add verse 10 as a requisite for Christ to restore man to God misses the word for and ignores completely verses 8 and 9. It goes to James chapter 4 which teaches that faith without works is dead. Not that faith is dead but a faith that results in no action is dead. This means God does not simply provide faith for salvation but also to fulfill His work through those who believe. Christians should be people of faith that results in action. However, the works are not that which provides salvation, rather it is the grace of God through the faith He provides and belief in the finished work of Christ.

 

[He is the way]

Yes---adopted children.
Rom_8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom_8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Gal_4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Eph_1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

We are to reflect His character whiloe here on earth--we do not wait for our heavenly home. We are His adopted children and heirs. We are not His natural children, but He adopts those who love Him. God is not made---no human can become God. You are God, period. He was God from everlasting to everlasting---there was never a time where He did not exist---always God. No humanity in Him-=--Jesus became human--but always divine. We have no divinity---therefore we are adopted. We can not become God and God will not be making us God--He is God, He shares His love and everything He has---you can emulate you earthly Father---you earthly father will always be your father---you can not become physically as he is. You can only be like him in character and actions. If God were going to turn you into a god just as He is---He would not have said He adopts us. We will never be Him, He is always Supreme God of the universe and the only Godhead of the universe.

Because the only way back to our Father is through the atonement:

(New Testament | Romans 3:19 - 24)

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

[He is the way]

I believe in my original post that I included verse 10 and did NOT leave it out. It does not follow in verse 10 that it is a requirement for salvation it is a statement as to what is the outcome or for what purpose does God provide salvation for mankind. I addressed this fully in my post. Those who want to add verse 10 as a requisite for Christ to restore man to God misses the word for and ignores completely verses 8 and 9. It goes to James chapter 4 which teaches that faith without works is dead. Not that faith is dead but a faith that results in no action is dead. This means God does not simply provide faith for salvation but also to fulfill His work through those who believe. Christians should be people of faith that results in action. However, the works are not that which provides salvation, rather it is the grace of God through the faith He provides and belief in the finished work of Christ.

We are not saved by works and neither are we saved without them:

(New Testament | Matthew 25:31 - 46)

31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes I read the NOT ONLY part. That does NOT mean that baptism is to be done for infants. Infant baptism is just plain wrong. It is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Disregarding your ignorance and offensiveness (people's children are akin to pigs?), it should be pointed out for the sake of the thread that the baptism of infants was the norm for the majority of Christianity's existence, with early references in Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), Origen (d. 254), and Tertullian (c. 198). Origen and Tertullian even refer to the practice as customary, indicating it was already well established in their own times and places.

Insofar as it is still carried out in the Catholic, Orthodox, and several of the more traditional Protestant churches (by at least some among the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians), it can still with reason be said to be normative in Christianity, despite the fact that several less-traditional types of Protestantism do disagree with it.

That you rely on a Roman Catholic idea like the 'age of reason' (which they use to determine things like the appropriate age to begin administering the sacraments of confession and communion, not baptism, just FYI) really shows a poverty of thought among the Mormons, as they again show themselves to be reliant on the intellectual prowess of an 'apostate' Christian church in order to figure out what why they should be doing what they do. I guess this whole 'apostasy' thing doesn't affect things like the Biblical canon or some of the philosophical trappings that the Mormon cult finds it most useful to grasp at, lacking any such reason of its own for upholding such a prohibition.

Also, while it may seem uncouth, I have to wonder 'aloud' now: what of mentally disabled Mormons? The same RCC that you have copped this 'age of reason' thing from (surely without realizing it) does acknowledge that mental disability may prevent some people from ever attaining 'reason' no matter their age, and they certainly do not cut such people off from baptism or communion on that account (I have no idea about confession, though I would imagine that it is probably not done for people who are not able to form intent, either in the commission of sin or in the development of conscience). I would hope for the sake of any such people that Mormons would follow the RCC in this as well and not deny the mentally disabled among them the right to participate in Mormonism's religious rites, despite their never maturing to the level of being able to reason in this sense.

 

[mmksparbud]

Because the only way back to our Father is through the atonement:

(New Testament | Romans 3:19 - 24)

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Yes, well, that has nothing to do with what I said. We are His adopted children, we can only reflect His character, we will never be a God---there is only One Supreme God of this entire universe---your god is god only of this planet, there are many other gods out there of other planets---No! He is God of all galaxies out there, Creator of them all---none other.
Read Job---those gathered came from other worlds, Satan went there representing this world---but all of them were gathered there under the leadership of the One God of the universe.

 

[He is the way]

Disregarding your ignorance and offensiveness (people's children are akin to pigs?), it should be pointed out for the sake of the thread that the baptism of infants was the norm for the majority of Christianity's existence, with early references in Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), Origen (d. 254), and Tertullian (c. 198). Origen and Tertullian even refer to the practice as customary, indicating it was already well established in their own times and places.

Insofar as it is still carried out in the Catholic, Orthodox, and several of the more traditional Protestant churches (by at least some among the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians), it can still with reason be said to be normative in Christianity, despite the fact that several less-traditional types of Protestantism do disagree with it.

That you rely on a Roman Catholic idea like the 'age of reason' (which they use to determine things like the appropriate age to begin administering the sacraments of confession and communion, not baptism, just FYI) really shows a poverty of thought among the Mormons, as they again show themselves to be reliant on the intellectual prowess of an 'apostate' Christian church in order to figure out what why they should be doing what they do. I guess this whole 'apostasy' thing doesn't affect things like the Biblical canon or some of the philosophical trappings that the Mormon cult finds it most useful to grasp at, lacking any such reason of its own for upholding such a prohibition.

Also, while it may seem uncouth, I have to wonder 'aloud' now: what of mentally disabled Mormons? The same RCC that you have copped this 'age of reason' thing from (surely without realizing it) does acknowledge that mental disability may prevent some people from ever attaining 'reason' no matter their age, and they certainly do not cut such people off from baptism or communion on that account (I have no idea about confession, though I would imagine that it is probably not done for people who are not able to form intent, either in the commission of sin or in the development of conscience). I would hope for the sake of any such people that Mormons would follow the RCC in this as well and not deny the mentally disabled among them the right to participate in Mormonism's religious rites, despite their never maturing to the level of being able to reason in this sense.

Putting lipstick on a pig does not mean I am comparing children to pigs, rather is it a saying to mean it is a worthless thing to do. It is like saying flogging a dead horse. That is also a saying meaning a useless task. That is what baptizing infants is, a useless task. As to mentally the disabled:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints General Handbook of Instructions given to the priesthood leaders gives the following information concerning persons who are not accountable. “Persons who are not accountable and cannot knowingly repent need not be baptized, no matter what their age. They should be included as members of record with the notation ‘Not accountable’ recorded under the heading for baptism. If they become accountable, they can then be baptized.” (1968, p. 85.)"
From: Should mentally retarded children be baptized?

 

[He is the way]

Yes, well, that has nothing to do with what I said. We are His adopted children, we can only reflect His character, we will never be a God---there is only One Supreme God of this entire universe---your god is god only of this planet, there are many other gods out there of other planets---No! He is God of all galaxies out there, Creator of them all---none other.
Read Job---those gathered came from other worlds, Satan went there representing this world---but all of them were gathered there under the leadership of the One God of the universe.

Job is one of my favorite books. It mentions the sons of God in the pre-existence:

(Old Testament | Job 38:6 - 7)

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[dzheremi]

Putting lipstick on a pig does not mean I am comparing children to pigs, rather is it a saying to mean it is a worthless thing to do. It is like saying flogging a dead horse. That is also a saying meaning a useless task. That is what baptizing infants is, a useless task.

So your contention is that the majority of Christianity historically and currently has been engaged in a 'useless task' by baptizing infants?

As to mentally the disabled:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints General Handbook of Instructions given to the priesthood leaders gives the following information concerning persons who are not accountable. “Persons who are not accountable and cannot knowingly repent need not be baptized, no matter what their age. They should be included as members of record with the notation ‘Not accountable’ recorded under the heading for baptism. If they become accountable, they can then be baptized.” (1968, p. 85.)"
From: Should mentally retarded children be baptized?

Thank you for the information. To the traditional Christian, for whom baptism and communion are intimately and inextricably linked, this is unconscionable. You are not baptized as some sort of milestone in your mental or intellectual development; you're baptized because that makes you a fully recognized, communing member of the body of Christ. That is not excluding the understanding that baptism is for the remission of sins (though we don't look at things the same way with regard to the western idea of 'original sin'; it is more of an inclination and less of a crime committed -- i.e., in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, it is proclaimed "for no one is pure, even if his life be but a day", which is markedly different than saying, e.g., "for everyone is guilty, even though his life be but a day"), but does not limit the reasons we would baptize someone to just that. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

 

[mmksparbud]

Job is one of my favorite books. It mentions the sons of God in the pre-existence:

(Old Testament | Job 38:6 - 7)

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

No!!! That is not pre-existence---that is the conclave of representatives from other worlds and Satan came also with them. It can't be a pre-existence---This is occurring long after the fall of Satan and loooong after the fall of Adam and Eve!!

God is asking Job a rhetorical question!! the answer is obviously NO---Job was not there at creation! Good grief

 

[He is the way]

So your contention is that the majority of Christianity historically and currently has been engaged in a 'useless task' by baptizing infants?

Yes.

Thank you for the information. To the traditional Christian, for whom baptism and communion are intimately and inextricably linked, this is unconscionable. You are not baptized as some sort of milestone in your mental or intellectual development; you're baptized because that makes you a fully recognized, communing member of the body of Christ. That is not excluding the understanding that baptism is for the remission of sins (though we don't look at things the same way with regard to the western idea of 'original sin'; it is more of an inclination and less of a crime committed -- i.e., in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, it is proclaimed "for no one is pure, even if his life be but a day", which is markedly different than saying, e.g., "for everyone is guilty, even though his life be but a day"), but does not limit the reasons we would baptize someone to just that. It's not either/or; it's both/and.

If a child dies before it is baptized what happens to it?

 

[Peter1000]

2. No---He says they will die if they eat of it. Free will is not free will where there is no choice.
3. Innocent, yes, not stupid. They had nature all around them they could see for themselves quite fine.
and no, they did not have children in the garden, yet.
4. So? They did not get around to it yet! Good grief man--Eve didn't even get a name until after the fall! They were still getting to know each other, maybe we jump into the sack without knowing even the name of the other person, but they did not! The were innocent yes, again, not stupid. So they waited what is the big deal? Nothing states they would not have maybe the very same day they sinned but the fall happened first!
5. Again---free will. Where there is no choice, there is no free will. They did not have to succumb to the sin. God allowed Satan to do what he would do instead of forcing everyone to obey Him. God had the whole universe to think about--they saw and heard Lucifer, this beautiful being --totally malign God's character and lead 1/3 of His angels away from Him. He has waited it out for all the universe to see the end result of Satan's way--it was seen at the cross. That is when all of heaven knew for certain what Satan was---we are the only ones left that have not seen him for what he is.
6. Yes, they now became ashamed, something they had not been before. That is what sin does---0brings shame over what there should be no shame, it sepersters us from God. God had to spill blood that day to cover their nakedness with skins.
7. Of course they had to get kicked out--the bible says it was done so that they would not eat of the tree of life and live forever as sinners. Yes, God was prepared fopr the fall---Jesus is the Lamb slain froim the foundation of the world. Knowing soimething is going to happen does in no way shape or form mean that it was planned to happen with His approval!! I've said this before, I knew my stepdaughter would end up pregnant when I saw how she was behaving with her boyfriend---though I warned her---she got pregnant. Doesn't mean I approved nor planned it. That's what I think.

Then why put a tree in the middle of the garden that gives them the option to eat and die?
Why give them the free will to live in luxury for the rest of eternity, or eat and die?

Innocent, not stupid. Not stupid? They did not know they were naked. How much stupider can a person get than to look upon a woman full breasted and not know that she is naked?
And for all we know they could have spent thousands of days or years in the garden and did not have children, meaning that their innocence and their stupity ran pretty deep.

OK, God creates man and woman and they are in this luxury garden and loving every moment of it, right? Why would God allow satan to come and screw it all up? You know there is only 1 answer. God used satan to bring about the fall. There is only 1 answer. Yes A&E needed to make their free will decision, and they did. But why would they have made the decision to risk their beautiful life and the beautiful life with their children and choose to eat the forbidden fruit and get kicked out of their beautiful life and then die on a heap of dirt? Why? Did they know they could not have children except if they chose to fall? Now that makes sense as to why they chose to give it all up. They could not have children in the garden. Huh.

No, they were not just ashamed. Before they were ashamed, their eyes were open by eating the fruit, and now they knew they were naked and were ashamed. Huh, their eyes were open? How long were their eyes closed. And did God make them with their eyes closed, so they did not know what to do with their fully functional bodies? Yes, is the only answer.

You are right, God was prepared for the fall, he engineered it so that the earth could be populated and that Jesus Christ would come and fulfill his mission to save all men from the fall. OK, we got it.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes.

On what basis do you say it is useless, particularly in light of the fact that, again, for traditional Christians baptism and communion are intimately linked? (i.e., in the Orthodox Church, you will only be communed if you are a baptized, practicing Orthodox Christian; I know this is not the same for every church, but traditionally that has been the standard.)

In other words, I can see why it would be 'useless' from the Mormon perspective, where you'll apparently give communion to anyone who shows up and wants it (even non-Mormons), but it is certainly not useless from the Christian perspective.

If a child dies before it is baptized what happens to it?

Such matters are left to the mercy of God. In the funeral prayers, there is a portion in which it is proclaimed from the priest that we absolve the deceased of any sins they may have (I think this is to deal with the possibility of having died before being able to confess), and to my knowledge that is still prayed over a child or infant, even though we don't have any notion of an infant or child being sinful. Again, our conception of original or ancestral sin has more to do with the effect of the sin of our first parents on the human race (an inclination towards sin and therefore death, as expounded in HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's On the Incarnation, in his writing on what he calls 'the divine dilemma'), and less to do with sins of the individual, which presumably the priest would only know if the deceased had confessed something, which may or may not be the case (I don't know if there is a rule regarding when children should start requesting confession).

So unlike in Western Christianity, we have not dogmatized things like this. It is up to God, and He forgives and accepts whoever He will.

 

[mmksparbud]

Then why put a tree in the middle of the garden that gives them the option to eat and die?
Why give them the free will to live in luxury for the rest of eternity, or eat and die?

Innocent, not stupid. Not stupid? They did not know they were naked. How much stupider can a person get than to look upon a woman full breasted and not know that she is naked?
And for all we know they could have spent thousands of days or years in the garden and did not have children, meaning that their innocence and their stupity ran pretty deep.

OK, God creates man and woman and they are in this luxury garden and loving every moment of it, right? Why would God allow satan to come and screw it all up? You know there is only 1 answer. God used satan to bring about the fall. There is only 1 answer. Yes A&E needed to make their free will decision, and they did. But why would they have made the decision to risk their beautiful life and the beautiful life with their children and choose to eat the forbidden fruit and get kicked out of their beautiful life and then die on a heap of dirt? Why? Did they know they could not have children except if they chose to fall? Now that makes sense as to why they chose to give it all up. They could not have children in the garden. Huh.

No, they were not just ashamed. Before they were ashamed, their eyes were open by eating the fruit, and now they knew they were naked and were ashamed. Huh, their eyes were open? How long were their eyes closed. And did God make them with their eyes closed, so they did not know what to do with their fully functional bodies? Yes, is the only answer.

You are right, God was prepared for the fall, he engineered it so that the earth could be populated and that Jesus Christ would come and fulfill his mission to save all men from the fall. OK, we got it.

Why give them free will? If free will was not important to God, He could have wiped out Lucifer at the first sign of rebellion. He would then have had billions of beings all wondering if maybe all the bad things Lucifer had said about God were true. They would have served God out of fear of being obliterated also. God wants love from the heart--true love, not fear of being wiped out. Have you ever wandered what it was that Lucifer said to the angels to make them turn from God? It certainly was not how wonderful He was! He lied to them all about His true character. Just exactly what is it you would have done that is better than what God did in letting the universe see where Satan's way of thinking led to. Tell us you grand and marvelous way of dealing with the situation so that all the universe wouod serve y0u out of love not fear?

Innocent is not stupid. I've told y0o9u this before. I worked in a home for the mentally retarded. They did not have a clue about sex---nobody told them anything---they still had to watch them like eagles or they would all end up in the sack! It is amazing how they can all end up having sex without anyone telling them a thing about it. They were innocent---mentally retarded---yet they could still figure this out. Sometimes it took a while, but they figured it out. So please don't tell me that Adam and Eve would never have figured this out and go on to have children! That is what is just plain stupid!
No---it wasn't 1000's of years--If it had been, they would have been ankle deep in children. What makes you think Satan wasted anytime in getting them to fall? No way he would wait for more than a split second after their creation! Their eyes were opened---yes, disobedience brings an awakening of wrong. They now knew not only they had disobeyed, but were naked--they had been clothed with the light of God, that disappeared. Remember Moses and how his face shone so brightly that the Israelites could not stand it? Adam and Eve had that light about them---as soon as they sinned, the light surrounding them faded away---they were no longer connected to God, sin does that---it separates us from Him. They would no longer be able to tolerate being face to face with Him as they had been.

You are really bound and determined to blame God for sin aren't you? You keep asking the same question---again---free will. You have a very low opinion of God. If He wanted robots He would have done just as you said---give them no other optio09n but to do as He says. Then Satan would be right---as he said to God about Job---"sure, Job serves you---you have put a hedge around him and protect him"--he said Job did not serve out of love--God allowed Job to be hurt--God had been publicly challenged to prove that Job served Him out of love---This is one of Satan's attacks on the character of God in heaven---no one had any choice! Well, God gave it to them!! This is not just about Adam and Eve, and it wasn't just about Job---it's like the disciples also said---

1Co_4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

There is a whole universe looking on. God is allowing this whole panorama to develop to it's final end. At the cross the rest of the universe saw what Satan was all about---it is now our turn == we must spread His word---then will the end come.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

 

[He is the way]

On what basis do you say it is useless, particularly in light of the fact that, again, for traditional Christians baptism and communion are intimately linked? (i.e., in the Orthodox Church, you will only be communed if you are a baptized, practicing Orthodox Christian; I know this is not the same for every church, but traditionally that has been the standard.)

In other words, I can see why it would be 'useless' from the Mormon perspective, where you'll apparently give communion to anyone who shows up and wants it (even non-Mormons), but it is certainly not useless from the Christian perspective.



Such matters are left to the mercy of God. In the funeral prayers, there is a portion in which it is proclaimed from the priest that we absolve the deceased of any sins they may have (I think this is to deal with the possibility of having died before being able to confess), and to my knowledge that is still prayed over a child or infant, even though we don't have any notion of an infant or child being sinful. Again, our conception of original or ancestral sin has more to do with the effect of the sin of our first parents on the human race (an inclination towards sin and therefore death, as expounded in HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's On the Incarnation, in his writing on what he calls 'the divine dilemma'), and less to do with sins of the individual, which presumably the priest would only know if the deceased had confessed something, which may or may not be the case (I don't know if there is a rule regarding when children should start requesting confession).

So unlike in Western Christianity, we have not dogmatized things like this. It is up to God, and He forgives and accepts whoever He will.

I see it as useless because I believe all children who die before the age of accountability are saved by Christ's blood. Theirs is the kingdom of God. We are all at the mercy of God, He knows our heart. There is nothing we can hide from Him. God is LOVE and He wants us to LOVE everyone the way He does. He wants us to LOVE even the least of these His brethren. We will not be judged by the church we belong to, the church is merely an institution of learning as is the law. What are we to learn? We are to learn LOVE. If we do not learn to LOVE God and one another, we are missing the whole point.