LDS Race and the LDS Priesthood

[dzheremi]

They're regarded as not having the mental or moral capacity to understand why specifically something is good or evil, and so they aren't held accountable.

Similarly, persons with a significantly reduced mental capacity are likewise held unaccountable.

Does this mean that you wouldn't baptize such people, then? It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Mormons hold off on baptizing children of regular mental intellect until this time for precisely this reason. When if ever is a mentally retarded person baptized? Are they likewise encouraged to take the sacrament, if they cannot be assumed to understand what it is? What then of the temple worship, as well?

Sorry for all these questions. I don't expect individualized answers to any or all of them. I just find this particular topic fascinating, since much of western Christianity has diverged from the understanding of the Eastern churches on this matter (where people are baptized and communed as babies because they're people, not because they're necessarily mentally cognizant), so it very interesting to see the echoes of that thinking in religions that are even somewhat removed from that specific Western Christian spiritual milieu, as is the case with Mormonism.

 

[Rescued One]

"Baptism in the Mormon Church, following faith and repentance, is an ordinance to cleanse from sin those who are accountable for their actions. The minimum age for accountability before the Lord is given in the scriptures as eight years. Others, regardless of their age, who are not accountable for their actions are saved in the celestial kingdom of God by the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior in the same sense as those who die before the age of accountability. The decision in such matters does not rest with the individual nor with family or friends, but is in the province of the bishop of the person’s ward. Any individual may apply for baptism, but the decision to provide the ordinance in the case of members of families who themselves are members of the Mormon Church is made by the bishop of their ward after a searching interview with the individual. So, if I were you, I wouldn’t be at all concerned, but leave such decisions in the hands of the proper authorities."
Should a person with Downs Syndrome be baptized?

I also started a thread regarding infant baptism per Mormonism.

 

[He is the way]

That refutes Mormonism which claims that little children haven't sinned.

The Lord extends special protection to children and shares jurisdiction with earthly parents, even as we enjoy their presence. They cannot sin until they reach the age of accountability, which the Lord has declared to be eight years (see D&C 18:42; D&C 29:47). In fact, the power to even tempt them to commit sin has been taken from Satan. The prophet Mormon taught that “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin. …

Because they cannot sin, they have no need of repentance, neither baptism. Adam’s original transgression has no claim as a result of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Mormon declared the practice of baptizing little children to be a “solemn mockery before God” (Moro. 8:9), for repentance and baptism apply to those who are “accountable and capable of committing sin” (Moro. 8:10).

Because all children who die before the age of accountability are pure, innocent, and wholly sin-free, they are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven (see D&C 137:10; Mosiah 3:18). Understanding the special status of little children before God, because of their pure and innocent nature, brings understanding of the Lord’s commandment to “repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in [His] name” (3 Ne. 11:37). The childlike qualities the Lord had reference to are developed by yielding to “the enticings of the Holy Spirit,” so as to become “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.” Truly, such a person “becometh a saint” as spoken by Mosiah (Mosiah 3:19).
The Special Status of Children - Merlin R. Lybbert

I'm glad you're coming around to believing the Bible instead of Mormonism. You'll never be sorry for that.

Certainly a baby who dies at birth or shortly thereafter hasn't had time to commit sin. We also know that Jesus did not commit any sin. Do you also believe the Bible is wrong because of this? However I believe that children are not held accountable for sin until the age of eight.

 

[Rescued One]

Certainly a baby who dies at birth or shortly thereafter hasn't had time to commit sin. We also know that Jesus did not commit any sin. Do you also believe the Bible is wrong because of this? However I believe that children are not held accountable for sin until the age of eight.

What you believe is your own version of Mormonism that ignores Mormon leaders and Mormon scripture.

 

[He is the way]

What you believe is your own version of Mormonism that ignores Mormon leaders and Mormon scripture.

The scriptures agree with what I have said.

 

[Rescued One]

The scriptures agree with what I have said.

Moroni 8
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore little children are whole,
for they are not capable of committing sin;

 

[He is the way]

Moroni 8
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore little children are whole,
for they are not capable of committing sin;

That does not mean that they are good. You said:
"No, they aren't capable of sin. That means they are good."

Then you quoted Elder Oaks:

"We understand from our doctrine that before the age of accountability a child is 'not capable of committing sin'(Moro. 8:8). During that time, children can commit mistakes, even very serious and damaging ones that must be corrected, but their acts are not accounted as sins."
- Elder Dallin H. Oaks

Being incapable of committing sin does not keep them from making committing bad mistakes. I know from experience that children can be very mean to one another and I know that is NOT good. You are trying to equate being incapable of committing sin as to being good. It doesn't always work that way. If a person is forgiven of their sins it does not mean that they were always good. Neither do those that are without the law need repentance for they too are not capable of sin:
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:22)

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
However that does not mean that those without the law were good. Jesus said there is none good but one:
(New Testament | Mark 10:18)

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

 

[Ironhold]

Does this mean that you wouldn't baptize such people, then? It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Mormons hold off on baptizing children of regular mental intellect until this time for precisely this reason.

Yes.

If they die before they reach 8, their lack of baptism is not held against them.

When if ever is a mentally retarded person baptized?

Never.

Again, they are regarded as being functionally innocent due to their lack of capacity.

Are they likewise encouraged to take the sacrament, if they cannot be assumed to understand what it is?

It's up to the persons acting as caretakers.

What then of the temple worship, as well?

Kids aren't supposed to be going through the temple, period.

The ones I've been in that were large enough had on-site daycare or an equivalent.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Does this mean that you wouldn't baptize such people, then? It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Mormons hold off on baptizing children of regular mental intellect until this time for precisely this reason. When if ever is a mentally retarded person baptized?

A person must be of accountable age / mental capacity in order to be baptized and make that covenant with God. Up until a person reaches that age / mental capacity, they are considered innocent and not baptized. If a person never reaches that age / mental capacity, then they are not baptized.

Are they likewise encouraged to take the sacrament, if they cannot be assumed to understand what it is?

Up to the person's parents/caretakers.

What then of the temple worship, as well?

Temple covenants are not undertaken until adulthood / maturity.

 

[Rescued One]

That does not mean that they are good. You said:
"No, they aren't capable of sin. That means they are good."

Then you quoted Elder Oaks:

"We understand from our doctrine that before the age of accountability a child is 'not capable of committing sin'(Moro. 8:8). During that time, children can commit mistakes, even very serious and damaging ones that must be corrected, but their acts are not accounted as sins."
- Elder Dallin H. Oaks

Being incapable of committing sin does not keep them from making committing bad mistakes. I know from experience that children can be very mean to one another and I know that is NOT good. You are trying to equate being incapable of committing sin as to being good. It doesn't always work that way. If a person is forgiven of their sins it does not mean that they were always good. Neither do those that are without the law need repentance for they too are not capable of sin:
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:22)

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
However that does not mean that those without the law were good. Jesus said there is none good but one:
(New Testament | Mark 10:18)

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

If a seven-year-old kills his younger sister, he sinned. Mormonism says he didn't sin.

 

[He is the way]

If a seven-year-old kills his younger sister, he sinned. Mormonism says he didn't sin.

Most likely it was an accident, but in any case they would not have known the full ramifications of what they had done. In Canada a child under the age of 12 cannot be charged with a crime. In the United states only Oklahoma (age 7) will charge a child with a crime. In any case God has set the age at eight years old. A study found that 8-year-olds were just as likely as older participants to rate criminal acts as “more morally bad” than mischievous ones.

 

[dzheremi]

In any case God has set the age at eight years old.

God...or the Roman Catholic Church?

From the fourth Lateran Council, held 1215 AD:

Canon 21 (truncated, since it goes on about unrelated matters for another paragraph):

All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church (excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death. Wherefore, let this salutary decree be published frequently in the churches, that no one may find in the plea of ignorance a shadow of excuse. But if anyone for a good reason should wish to confess his sins to another priest, let him first seek and obtain permission from his own (parish) priest, since otherwise he (the other priest) cannot loose or bind him.

...

Funny how what you claim came from God was developed uniquely in the Roman Catholic Church many centuries before the establishment of your religion, and from there spread to all the Western Christian churches, "apostate" churches though they are. Hmmmm...

 

[dzheremi]

Meanwhile, in churches that haven't inherited practices from places they can't even properly identify (but otherwise teach are in apostasy...), a person's ability to reason has nothing to do with whether or not they are a person, and all people need Christ, and soooo...

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14)

 

[Ironhold]

Meanwhile, in churches that haven't inherited practices from places they can't even properly identify (but otherwise teach are in apostasy...),

Was this supposed to be an insult?

 

[mmksparbud]

Hmmm---there is no child baptism in the scriptures. The Jews did not consider a child an adult until the age of 12. On the other hand, the scriptures do not say not to baptize babies or young children. Circumcision was done at 8 days old--that is a sign of the covenant that God had with Israel, and baptism is a covenants between God and the individual. John the Baptist baptized Jesus at 30----which doesn't mean that we should all wait until we are 30. It seems that a child should at least be able to say that he is dedicating his life to God but Hannah gave her son to the Lord before she even had him, there is no record saying he was against it and he spent the rest of his life in service to God. Samson was the same-but he did not hold the responsibility very sacred until the very last. Our church does not do infant baptism, we dedicate our children to God as did Hannah, it is then up to the child when he is old enough to choose for himself what to do. But personally, I do not see that as a salvation issue as nothing states not to do it. It is just that the bible states that the disciples baptized people after the people had been instructed on what Jesus had done for them and they accepted Him as their God and wanted to do as He instructed. Babies simply can't make that declaration. Young children can and I seem to recall one child that was baptized at the age of about 8 in our church because the child wanted to so badly and everybody agreed he should be.
The very young do sin--but it is not held against them.
Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
And baptisms were never conducted in elaborate, highly expensive and ornate baptismals---all known baptismals were simple, plain stone ones or in rivers and lakes.The temple Seas were not baptismals, they were for ritual cleansing before entering the temple-you simply can't equate ritual, weekly, or daily cleansing to one time baptism. The disciples certainly didn't have fancy baptismals for their baptisms. And they certainly didn't sprinkle water over anyone. The very name means immersion.

 

[He is the way]

God...or the Roman Catholic Church?

From the fourth Lateran Council, held 1215 AD:

Canon 21 (truncated, since it goes on about unrelated matters for another paragraph):

All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church (excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death. Wherefore, let this salutary decree be published frequently in the churches, that no one may find in the plea of ignorance a shadow of excuse. But if anyone for a good reason should wish to confess his sins to another priest, let him first seek and obtain permission from his own (parish) priest, since otherwise he (the other priest) cannot loose or bind him.

...

Funny how what you claim came from God was developed uniquely in the Roman Catholic Church many centuries before the establishment of your religion, and from there spread to all the Western Christian churches, "apostate" churches though they are. Hmmmm...

Jesus said children are of the kingdom of God.

 

[dzheremi]

Was this supposed to be an insult?

No, just historically accurate.

You have inherited, just like Protestant Christians have, many of the presuppositions that go into how to be a church from the Roman Catholic Church, though in the case of your religion it is quite a bit more removed from its source than it would be for, say, Anglicans or Lutherans (as Joseph Smith came out of a revivalist area that had many different competing Protestant sects in it, not a more staunchly Roman Catholic area). So it does not surprise me to see Mormon people in this thread say that this "age of reason" thing comes from God, when in fact it is a medieval invention of the Roman Catholic Church. This is yet another side effect of Mormons not being taught Christian history, but instead this myth of the "Great Apostasy", in which the Roman Catholic Church must've certainly been involved (or else not all the church would've been "taken from the earth" or whatever, right? Were it otherwise, people could've still been Roman Catholic and been in the 'true', non-apostasized Church, and then there goes Mormonism's reason for existing as the true restored church of God on the earth).

 

[dzheremi]

Jesus said children are of the kingdom of God.

And yet you bar them from entering His Church or receiving His body and blood until they reach a certain arbitrary age at which they can assumed to be reasonable. Strange. I don't recall that in any of Jesus' sayings.

Should Christ not have healed the demon-possessed man, as the infection of the demons had reduced him to a place where he was not in rational control of himself? Or for that matter raised the dead, from whom He could not obtain rational consent in any way that would've been verifiable or could be assumed by those who observed them? (observed them being dead and hence unable to decide anything, that is)

 

[He is the way]

And yet you bar them from entering His Church or receiving His body and blood until they reach a certain arbitrary age at which they can assumed to be reasonable. Strange. I don't recall that in any of Jesus' sayings.

Should Christ not have healed the demon-possessed man, as the infection of the demons had reduced him to a place where he was not in rational control of himself? Or for that matter raised the dead, from whom He could not obtain rational consent in any way that would've been verifiable or could be assumed by those who observed them? (observed them being dead and hence unable to decide anything, that is)

(New Testament | Mark 10:13 - 15)

13 ¶ And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Little children don't need baptism or the sacrament until they become accountable for their actions.

I am not sure what you are getting at in the latter part of you're post.

 

[dzheremi]

(New Testament | Mark 10:13 - 15)

13 ¶ And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Little children don't need baptism or the sacrament until they become accountable for their actions.

I am not sure what you are getting at in the latter part of you're post.

It would probably be a good idea to separate your commentary from the verse with a space or some dashes or something, because the bit about "Little children don't need baptism etc." isn't in the quoted section, but the formatting makes it look like it is.

Anyway, my point with the last bit in that post is that if Jesus Christ had made observable or assumable rationality the litmus test for whether or not someone should be healed by Him, then He wouldn't have done many of things that He did. Rather, we agree with you that children should not be hindered from coming to Him, and so we baptize and commune them because we recognize that all people need to come to Christ, not because they are 'sinful' as infants or any such nonsense, but because by virtue of the fall of humanity, we are all born into a world that has been deformed by sin. In our liturgy one of the prayers says "No one is pure, even if his life be but a day", which is an accurate reflection of this understanding without saying "Everyone is guilty, even if they're only a day old". There's a very important difference between the two. The difference is between responsibility (I think you and I both agree that babies and small children are generally not expected to bear rational responsibility for their actions) and effect. As a result of the fall, we are effected by something that we are not responsible for. And so all people need Christ, and all people (including the babies, the mentally diminished, etc.) may be baptized and communed. We do not require rational assent from those who cannot be rational, just as Christ our Lord did not require it.