We believe that men will be apunished for their bown sins, and not for Adam’s ctransgression.
19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he eyields to the enticings of the Holy fSpirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a jchild, ksubmissive, 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.
The LDS faith does not believe in Original Sin. Adam’s sins are Adam’s, Jenna’s sins are Jenna’s, and your sins are yours.
Wikipedia describes Original Sin as thus:
This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a “sin nature”, to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.
In many Christian churches, baptism at infancy is required to negate the effects of Original Sin. St. Augustine taught that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin. This doctrine appalls me. What of my own brother, who lived less than 15 minutes? How can you claim an innocent child who never made a conscious choice (other than to take a few breaths) will be sent to live with the devil? According to that definition of Original Sin he is now residing in a place of endless torment with murderers, liars, thieves, and Hitler. (Remember, I don’t believe in that kind of Hell, but if you believe in Original Sin like that you do).
[Editors Note 5-5-09: Christianity runs across a broad spectrum, and I think I made it clear by including the statement from Wikipedia that there is not one way to define the term Original Sin. I have made one change to the paragraph above, changing "the definition of Original Sin" to "that definition of Original Sin". I'm glad to find out that my belief that the majority of people believe baptism is necessary or hell is imminent for children was a misconception.]
Please tell me how you can believe that my brother is living in hell.
Jesus Christ suffered in Gethsemane, and died on the cross for the sins of all those who have ever lived. He took the responsibility for Adam’s sin, so we don’t have to suffer for them.
And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the aatonement of him and the power of his redemption. Moroni 8:20
Through the power of modern revelation we have learned that the choice to be baptized is to be made when each person reaches the age of accountability, or 8 years of age.
But behold, I say unto you, that little achildren are bredeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;
Wherefore, they cannot asin, for power is not given unto Satan to btempt little children, until they cbegin to become daccountable before me;
This doctrine also applies to those who do not ever have the mental capacity to make the choice to be baptized. God loves his children, whether young or infirm, and sent his Son to enable them to return to live with Him.
Other than Jesus Christ, each person who has ever lived on earth has broken commandments or failed to act according to knowledge of the truth. Beginning at the age of 8 years old, each person must repent for their sins and reconcile themself with God. The Apostle John taught: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, [Jesus Christ] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–9). Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, each person can repent and be forgiven.
I am so grateful for this knowledge. I believe that Jesus Christ died and was ressurected so that we might also live once again.
May 3rd, 2009 on 11:00 pm
Hey Jenna,
I don’t normally read your Sunday posts, let alone respond to them, but here I am.
I’m Catholic and was Baptized to erase “original sin.” No, I don’t believe that your brother is in hell, nor do I believe that those unbaptized and die are either. (I think the term is actually “limbo” though…a place bewteen heaven and hell. I’m not sure I believe this either though, as I believe that as long as we are good people and live the best life we possibly can God will accept us through the gates of heaven.
I know many find strength in their convictions by quoting the Bible, but I feel VERY differently about this (I have seen harm and hate be done by those that do this). This is why I am reluctant to read and respond to those that do (why I avioid your Sunday posts!). I am one of those “cafateria” Catholics…I pick and choose what I believe and practise. Thus, I believe that the most important thing is to be the best and most loving and accepting person you can be.
Happy Sunday!
Reply
Ms Snowflake Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Hi Jenna,
I am not a Catholic, nor in any way religious, but I wanted to also point out, at least my very basic understanding of limbo, at least as I can understand it from the Catholic religion.
Not only is there more than one Limbo (“an idea about the afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the damned”), but there is actually a “Limbo of Infants”. Wikipedia claims that “Limbo is not an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or any other,” but many Catholics I know have been taught the idea, including those I know from ranging in ages of 20s-50s.
This is the information it states on the Limbo of Infants:
“The Limbo of Infants is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]”
From this information, it seems (at least to me) that there would still be theological debate as to whether unbaptized babies are “in a state of maximum natural happiness” ranging to “damned.”
I just wanted to clear this up a bit and let you know that there are people out there who believe in many different states and places for the human soul, and that different beliefs are even, in a sense, allowed to be held within a single faith such as Roman Catholic.
(Note: information on Limbo found on this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo and I am not, nor never have been, a Catholic, in case there are any practicing Catholics who want to clarify or correct anything I brought up. Thank you.)
Reply
R Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Thank you, Ms. Snowflake! “Limbo” is actually now an officially *suppressed* term (meaning that priests can get in trouble for teaching it as their personal view) and was never officially condoned by the Church (so people could talk about it, but it wasn’t official teaching). And while I suppose that some Catholics who choose their own doctrine could believe that unbaptized babies are damned, it isn’t one of the theological options for those following Rome.
Reply
HamiHarri Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Awesome responses Ms Snowflake and R. Thank you.
Limbo, in my opinion, is just another one of those things that man/woman has created…like the Bible (in my opinion, as always
) that was written to suit, well those that wrote it - and in my opinion, was not necissarily the true word of Jesus or God. And although I was Baptized, Confirmed and Married in the Church, and will Baptize my own children one day, I will teach them that although the Bible has some lovely stories of good, the more important thing is to live a good and honest life. I honestly don’t think God will care if we know the Bible inside and out, nor do I think God will care if we attend Church every Sunday, or even at the end of the day if we were Baptized or not…or even if we follow an organized religion - but he will care if we are accepting and loving of all God’s creatures. Jenna, I’m sure that your little brother is smiling down on us all from Heaven
Reply
May 3rd, 2009 on 11:02 pm
Wow hon, you know I never gave much thought to the second article of faith — but I haven’t had the same experiences as you. Our beliefs of sealing and child purity would give me a lot of comfort in that case. I hope it does.
Reply
May 3rd, 2009 on 11:11 pm
I am so thankful for the gift of the Atonement. Happy Sunday indeed.
Reply
May 3rd, 2009 on 11:16 pm
Our Christian Church believes in original sin. It is true, we believe that we are born in sin, and we must be saved to go to Heaven. We must make the conscious choice to live a life for God, and pray for forgiveness for our sins. We believe that Jesus died for these sins, so that we can be holy through Him.
However, we understand that little children, or those that may have a disability may not be able to make the conscious choice. We believe that on Judgement Day, they will pass through to Heaven, because they were unable to make the decision themselves. We have a loving and merciful God. He would not send babies to Hell for not being able to choose Life (salvation) or Death.
Reply
Mandy Sue Reply:
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Oops..that’s supposed to say Life OVER Death.
Reply
May 3rd, 2009 on 11:31 pm
Well, if nothing else, this has taught me to be more educated in Christian apologetic works. I vehemently disagree with you (though I most certainly do not believe that innocent children go to Hell upon death), but I lack the Biblical training and argument to defend that. You may very well get an email one of these days though
Thank you for sharing, as always.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 12:01 am
Wonderful post! My mom told me a story once from when my older sister was only a few days old. She was sitting on the porch with her when a baptist minister walked by and they started talking (this was in LA, btw). My mom asked him, “Can you look at this perfect, innocent, new baby and tell me if she died right now she’d be crawling on the floors of hell forever?” and he affirmed that yes, in fact, he did believe that. I know many Christians obviously don’t believe that, but there are plenty that do. I’m so grateful for the plan of salvation and the atonement!
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 12:07 am
I have spent my entire life around non-LDS Christians, and have received a lot of Protestant religious training, and never once have I heard anyone express a belief that unbaptized babies go to hell (not that I haven’t heard other beliefs I strongly disagree with). I don’t believe that is a common Christian belief. I can’t speak for official Catholic doctrine (as I am not Catholic), but I also don’t know any Catholics that would claim that either. If that were the case, I imagine priests would regularly baptize babies at hospitals as soon as they were born. There is a difference in baptizing babies (and a belief in original sin) and believing unbaptized babies go to hell. Point being, I really hope you don’t think other Christians would think such a horrible thing about your innocent baby brother. (And if they do, I apologize on their behalf!)
Where does the age of 8 come from? I have also heard that age as important from Baptists and have always wondered why. I have read and studied the Bible and do not see it there.
Interesting post, thanks.
Reply
Kristin Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Jessia,
)
I spent most of my life attending a Baptist church and never knew that 8 was supposed to be such an important age.
Could be just my church, so other Baptists, feel free to comment. Coincidentally, I was 8 when I was baptized.
Reply
Jessica Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Oh, ok. Maybe it was just a personal belief, rather than an official doctrine or teaching. Thanks.
Reply
Mary Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I believe it is fairly common to baptize babies ASAP if it is believed they may not live. My nephew had to have life-threatening surgery (and he surely would not have lived without the surgery) within hours of birth, and my Episcopalian sister had him baptized just before the initial surgery. I think my cousin’s extremely prematurely born daughter was also baptized in the hospital.
Reply
Jessica Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
But was it really to prevent them from going to hell? There are other reasons to want to have your baby baptized.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
The age of 8 was revealed to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants (a book of modern revelation).
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 1:12 am
I believe that as humans, we are naturally inclined to sin. So while I don’t believe that we collectively bear the transgressions of people before us, I have to say that I believe in our possession of a sinful nature. That said, I also believe that there is an age of accountability: while an infant may be born with a sinful nature they’re not held accountable for any wrong doing because that action wasn’t a conscious decision. Once there is an ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, however, there will also be an ability to understand the necessity of redemption through grace.
I certainly don’t believe that infants who die are subject to an eternity in hell and cannot grasp the thinking of those who believe so. How could that possibly be?
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 6:44 am
Jenna, have you read much of Augustine? The man was brilliant, but rather austere in general and with his own set of issues in understanding and articulating faith (as we all have our issues). It is a pity to think that everyone who believes in origional sin believes that all the unbaptized are damned. I’m going to have to review the different beliefs (I know that there is much controversy over the different wording of the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs, but I can’t remember the terms off the top of my head). I know what *I* believe about origional sin, but the religion major in me feels the need to defend everyone who believes in whatever version because I am pretty sure that your attack does not apply to any of mainstream Christian thought. And there is no reason to not play fair
Also, what makes you think that believing in origional sin requires one to believe in a specific sort of hell? Couldn’t one believe in origional sin but also believe that people wouldn’t be punished at all?
Is the age of 8 understood by Mormons literally, metaphorically, or both?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I wouldn’t call it an attack, nor “not playing fair” since I never specified any specific religion or person for believeing any specific way about original sin. I simply said that there are those who believe in infant baptism because they believe babies who die without baptism go to hell, which is true (see Kelli’s comment above about her mom’s interaction with a Baptist preacher).
Attacking an idea is very different from attacking a people or peoples.
Are there religions that believe that all sinful people just “go to heaven”? I think that most religions that believe in sin, repentance, redemption, also believe in some sort of punishment for not repenting of sin.
The age is literal. I guess you could also say it is symbolic, but I’m not sure I would term it metaphorical.
Reply
R Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I did not feel attacked in a personal way, but you wrote that “According to the doctrine of Original Sin he is now residing in a place of endless torment with murderers, liars, thieves, and Hitler. (Remember, I don’t believe in that kind of Hell, but if you believe in Original Sin you do).” It seems that that qualifies as an attack on those who believe in original sin, which is all of traditional Christianity. And the way that you phrased it “if you believe” made it seem to me as though you were attacking your readers’ beliefs. ::shrug:: This post just didn’t have an abstract “let’s discuss removed ideas” feel to it.
Also, Baptists do not baptize babies. I cannot think of any version of Christian who baptizes babies who would flatly state that they baptize babies in order to prevent them from going to hell in a direct sense.
And I decided not to come back to comment explaining what I understand to be various Christian understandings of origional sin because you are already flooded with comments! I guess people finally found a Sunday post worth talking about! Congrats.;-)
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 7:15 am
I’m a Unitarian Universalist and we don’t believe in original sin. Or baptism. Or uh, anything, officially. Our only real “official” belief is that Unitarians reject the idea of original sin. I’ve always thought that original sin was a horrible concept. I do appreciate your concept that each person’s sins are their own to answer for - and that we do not carry the burden of somebody else’s sins - because I’ve always thought if we had to carry Adam’s sin, shouldn’t we have to carry the sins of all of our ancestors? Man, that is a lot of sin.
Reply
Christiana Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I *think* in the Old Testament it is said that children do carry the sins of their fathers, and Christians say that by Jesus dying for their sins it absolved them from carrying the sins of their fathers.
I just finished The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs and it was a pretty interesting read. I couldn’t find the correct passage to site though, so poo to me
Reply
Ellie Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I stick by my “man, that is a lot of sin” comment. As a law student, I think that any court would rule that amount of sin unreasonable for anybody to carry :-p.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Actually, the name “original sin” is a little misleading. It is not that we bear Adam’s sin (ie, one time he yelled at Eve because dinner wasn’t ready when he got home), it’s that all humans are affected by the decision he made to turn away from God through his very first sin.
Children “bear” the sins of their parents by just living through the messy after-effects of their parents’ sins. If my dad was an alcoholic, I’m certainly going to have some sort of scars on my own life because of that.
Jesus did say in the Gospels that no one is punished by God for the sins of their fathers or their children (healing the man blind from birth) — but Adam’s sin and its consequences is unique.
So yeah, I agree with you — that amount of sin is too much for anyone to carry. Good grief, if you consider how far generationally we are from Adam and Eve and the exponential amount of sin involved there… it’s staggering.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I like this. It’s different from the idea that we are “born sinful”. To me it means we are born with a “sinful nature”, or the inclination to sin (we call it acting upon the “natural man”)
Sorry for the overuse of quotation marks. I’m not sure who or what I’m quoting, but I’m in a quotation mark kind of mood.
Reply
Katy Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Yes - I agree Jenna. We LDS believe in what we call the ‘natural man’ and that we have that have to overcome our desires to sin and do things that would remove us from our closeness to God. What we just can’t get behind (thanks to revealed scripture and our understanding of the perfect fairness and perfect mercy of God) is the idea that even though children are definately born into this sinful, imperfect world - until they reach the age of accountablity - they can in no way be held responsible for the sinful actions of the world. They arrive perfect, with a clean slate, and should they leave this earth at a very young age, go back directly to our Heavenly Father’s presensce.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Um, well… no, actually. If that’s what you’re taking away from what I said then I misrepresented myself. I’m sorry that what I said was misleading.
I DO believe that we are born sinful (Ps. 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”), and I do believe in total depravity, although a more accurate term would be radical corruption, with the root of “radical” meaning “core” — we are corrupt to our core, and while we CAN rise above our nature to do good things, there is no part of us that could ever deserve to live with God without His intervention through salvation.
So I suppose that raises questions about my ambiguity about whether infants go to heaven… I talked to my husband about this last night (husbands are GREAT theological resources
), and he mentioned there are two other places in Scripture that can be referenced to when you talk about infant salvation. He said that John the Baptist leaped in the womb when he first met Jesus (also at this point in the womb) — the implication in Scripture is that tiny baby John was praising God and worshipping Christ through this action, even though to us it doesn’t seem like he should even be conscious. My husband also mentioned how in Romans, Paul said that while they were in the womb, before Esau and Jacob had done anything right or wrong, God chose Jacob over Esau… yes, Jacob went on to be born and live and consciously choose God (with a lot of screw-ups as well!), but it shows that God’s plan does extend even to the tiniest forms of human life.
As to the idea that “They [children] arrive perfect, with a clean slate, and should they leave this earth at a very young age, go back directly to our Heavenly Father’s presensce.”, combined with the given age of 8… I mean, anybody who’s had younger siblings or children or babysat or REMEMBERS being that age knows that kids from an age much earlier than 8 know the difference between right and wrong, and knowingly choose wrong sometimes. Children are by no means innocent.
Reply
Mandy Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:01 am
You explained Original sin SO much better than me!!
Reply
Christiana Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I wasn’t judging or anything, I was just trying to explain where that thought originated from and one reason why people view it differently.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 7:24 am
What a lovely post! I really appreciate the LDS version of sin and atonement. It makes much more sense than the Catholic sin I was brought up around.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 8:42 am
I believe in original sin in that once sin entered the world through Adam, we all now have a sinful nature. If left to ourselves, we will sin; it’s what we do:
Romans 5:12 - “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned”
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 - “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Furthermore, I don’t believe that baptism saves a person. It is an outward expression of an inward transformation. In fact, many Christian traditions don’t support infant baptism at all, because a baby can’t possibly have made a conscious decision to follow Christ.
So I don’t believe that babies go to hell. And I don’t believe that they need to be baptized, either.
(After going back and reading your post on salvation, exaltation, and damnation, I am now realizing how many more differences there are between the LDS faith and that of mainstream Protestants than I ever thought. I think it might get exhausting to counter every point I disagree with; but I still appreciate the learning experience.)
Reply
Kristin Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Well said Kathleen!!
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Reply
kaitlyn Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Ah. There are the words I was looking for. Excellent response!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Same question for you that I asked Kathleen below if you are interested in answering!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Kristin I’d love to know your answer to the question I posed to Kathleen below!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Kathleen, I’m curious, how do you reconcile this scripture with your belief that baptism is not necessary:
John 3: 5
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Reply
Kathleen Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
The original text for the word “water” is ambiguous as to what it means. It could mean spiritual cleansing, the “water” or fluid of physical birth, or possibly baptism. I can’t say that baptism is a requirement for salvation based on such an unclear verse when there are so many other verses in the Bible that clearly state that it is faith and grace alone that can save us.
God does ALL the work; we can’t bring anything to the table. But when we accept such an amazing gift, our good works naturally follow (one of them being baptism). When we receive the Holy Spirit, we are transformed by love and it overflows into our life. This is what I find so beautiful about Christianity. I reject any kind of salvation that depends on works. I give ALL the glory to God.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I hope my tone comes across appropriately with this question, as it is not meant to be antogonistic, but why do you think Jesus went through the effort of being baptized if it was “just for show”? Why would the Father send down the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove if it was just a meaningless act that no one else was supposed to engage in? Why would John the Baptist be spending his days baptizing in the wilderness if it wasn’t necessary? Couldn’t have been doing much better things with his time than baptizing if baptism is not important?
I see Christ’s effort to be baptized, the Father showing his approval, and John the Baptist’s dedication to the act as signs that the act is extremely significant. And that is why there is a verse found in the bible clearly stating that all those who would like to enter the Kingdom of God need to do as Jesus did, and be baptized to live with God once again. Jesus Christ didn’t even need to be baptized, for he had no sins to repent of, yet he engaged in the ordinance anyways to prove the necessity of all men undergoing the same thing.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I think that you’re drawing a false dichotomy here, Jenna. Although I reject the “necessity” of baptism I still maintain that it is a commandment, not a suggestion. Sort of like it is the law in America that you MUST have a driver’s license to operate a vehicle, but if you are a 15 year old kid with a learner’s permit and you are the only one who can drive your father who is having a heart attack to a hospital, you can drive without one. Does that make sense?
I talked to my husband about it — he reminded me of the thief on the cross, to whom Jesus said, “Surely this day you will be with Me in paradise.” That thief was definitely going to die that night — remember the soldiers came die to break the legs, so he died just a short time after Jesus, and he did not have time to be baptized in his belief. Also, none of the Old Testament believers were baptized (to the best of our Scriptural knowledge) and yet it would be foolhardy to believe that they can’t be saved.
So, to sum up — baptism is NOT meaningless, and it is REQUIRED of believers. If I were to see someone who said that they were a follower of Christ but that they didn’t think they needed to be baptized, I would tell them that they needed to think that one through again ’cause it’s not an option. On the other hand, God is not crippled by our lack of action to save those that He intends — if a person should be wandering through the desert, suddenly come to faith in Christ, and then die without ever coming across water to be baptized, then I believe he’s still going to heaven.
Let me know if this made sense — end of a long day and maybe my analogies are a bit screwy.
Reply
kaitlyn Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I’ve been trying to approach this question honestly and I’ve been having a hard time.
That is because I’m not currently baptized. Yet, I believe that I am a follower of Christ and that I will spend eternity in Heaven.
I view Baptism as an outward expression of inward faith. Baptism is something you do, and I don’t believe that anything we do or do not do will get us to heaven. I believe it is only through belief in Jesus Christ that we will go to heaven.
That said, I do believe that we should make that outward show of our acceptance of Christ.
But as MrsW pointed out — even those that are not able to be baptized before death are still able to inherit the kingdom of God through simple belief.
Also, I’m set to be baptized in June. I’m waiting to be able do it in a large group in a body of lving water (a lake). I’m very, very excited for it.
Reply
Kristin Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
While I agree with all the MrsW said, I’d like to add this.
Jesus came to create a new covenant, to reconcile creation to Himself, to convert us to a new teaching (that the Son of God is sacrificed for us and we are no longer under the rule of the Law). And as the last prophet under the Old Covenant, John the Baptist was acting as was commanded by God, prior to the coming to Christ. Conversion from a pagan life to that of Judaism was done through baptism.
Still it remains sign of our conversion. It is an outward sign of an inward change. Genuine repentance and faith will be evidenced by our baptism and good works.
Reply
Kathleen Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I agree with what MrsW and Kristin said. I never meant to say that baptism isn’t important, just that it isn’t absolutely necessary for salvation. Thanks for making me think!
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 8:51 am
Hi Jenna,
Thanks for writing this…as a practicing Catholic and someone who really does believe in the fundamental doctrines of my church, I really do enjoy your posts every Sunday. At the very least, it serves as information for me to learn about another faith. But usually it makes me think about my own faith. Thanks for giving me this opportunity.
Anyway, I wanted to share two articles with you:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
and
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1647
No, I don’t think that your brother is in hell…just as I don’t think that my own stillborn brother is there. God loves all of his children, big or small. Apparently other Christian religions believe what St. Augustine wrote. Thanks for sharing the LDS view on the subject.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 8:58 am
It is pretty confrontational to assume that everyone who believes in original sin that they must believe your brother is in hell. I understand that of course that is a very sensitive, emotionally charged topic for you, but number 1, there are obviously a lot out there who DON’T believe your brother is in hell and who also believe in original sin, and those who believe that all unsaved do go to hell don’t hold it in a personal way against anyone, just as an understanding that yes, even “innocent” babies, ANYONE without the salvation of Christ, deserves hell. Personally, I’m in a gray area on this… I would really like to believe that somehow stillborn, miscarried, aborted babies and babies who die early (as well as the mentally infirm) will go to heaven somehow, but I don’t see a lot of hard proof for it. But I know that there is much that God has done and can do that I don’t fully understand, so I hope.
I find it interesting that the Mormon religion rejects original sin, as it is one of the things that is pretty much clearly laid out in the Bible:
Romans 5:12-14 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.” And really all through the end of the chapter, Paul keeps repeating “Sin came to all through Adam.”
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
This flat out contradiction between a lot of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a big reason why I can’t believe in it — I understand that you believe in latter-day revelation, but latter-day revelation that contradicts earlier revelation is saying that God made a mistake earlier, which I can’t believe in.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Oh, and also, I don’t believe that baptism is NECESSARY for salvation. I believe that any believer who is able should want to be baptized and seek it out, but if they somehow can’t before they die, it’s not going to send them to Hell.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:07 am
And I didn’t do a very good job explaining what I believe original sin is — heh, early morning commenting!
Kathleen and Rebekah both seem to be where I am on it; I am not RESPONSIBLE for anyone’s sin but my own, but Adam had the responsibility, as the father of the human race, to turn us all towards or away from God, and by his sin, he turned us away. Now we can be as good as we want but because we are fundamentally turned away from God, we CAN’T have salvation except through Christ.
That makes me wonder, if (hypothetically) there were to be a perfectly good, never-ever-sinned-not-once human being (besides Jesus, who was a special case being both God and man), would that person need to be saved according to Mormon beliefs?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I guess it depends on what you mean by “saved”, because if their ever was such a person (which there wouldn’t be) he would still have the effects of the atonement wrought upon him. But that isn’t possible. Can you imagine the self-control it would take to never make one mistake? Never think ill of another person? Never speak an unkind word? It’s why what Jesus did was so miraculous. It will not ever be duplicated. He was the Only Begotten of God.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I pose the same question for you that I posed to Kathleen above:
I’m curious, how do you reconcile this scripture with your belief that baptism is not necessary:
John 3: 5
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Reply
Rebekah Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:19 am
That refers to a spiritual cleansing, not actual water. https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-John-3-5.html
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I’m liking Rebekah’s response so far… I will run it by my philosopher husband and get back to you. Off the top of my head, I would say that I don’t like the idea of any human action becoming a prerequisite for salvation — suppose God should call a person for salvation, and oops, they die before baptism… is God’s purpose somehow now thwarted because someone never poured water on their head?
Reply
Kristin Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:17 am
MrsW,
I understand the questions you have about babies who died, technically unsaved. This is just my opinion…and I can’t say that I have Biblical/scriptural proof to back it up. We choose to accept the gift of salvation. We are not forced. So a child who dies minutes after birth or a mentally disabled 40 year old, who cannot understand the concepts of sin, repentance, salvation and grace, cannot be expected to be punished by an eternity of separation from God (my interpretation of Hell).
I suppose I look at it this way….God’s salvation is bigger than I could ever imagine. Big enough to redeem the Hitler’s and Osama Bin Laden’s of this world. Bigger than all my understanding. I also know that God is perfectly good. And His ways are right and just. We may not understand Him sometimes but I hold onto this.
Just a few thoughts I hope can help.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I think you and I would probably phrase our understandings of salvation a little differently (I don’t believe we’re forced, but I also don’t believe that in our sin we’re able to choose or would if we could), but I do agree that God is amazing and how I understand His salvation doesn’t somehow limit Him from doing what He wants to (consistent with His nature, of course).
A professor in college once told me that in the account in the Bible of when David and Bathsheba’s son died as an infant, David said “He cannot come to me, but I can go to him” (no reference, sorry!), which seems to hint to me that David expected to meet him in the afterlife.
Reply
HamiHarri Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I would love to read a LDS response to this (Jenna?):
This flat out contradiction between a lot of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a big reason why I can’t believe in it — I understand that you believe in latter-day revelation, but latter-day revelation that contradicts earlier revelation is saying that God made a mistake earlier, which I can’t believe in.
—-
I’m guessing LDS are taking the same liberties with religion that I do…pick and choose what I like? Although I don’t take liberties of rewritting/renaming books to suit my needs…just through the actions of how I live my life.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Yeah, I would like to see a response as well… if it is the case that it’s a simple matter than picking what you like, then with all due respect, I can’t really have a true discussion with you anymore. I believe that religion is not a set of beliefs that you feel good about or like, but a set of beliefs that you hold as true. And quite honestly, I can’t argue (not “angry” argue but “debate” argue) about what you feel or like, as that’s just personal preference.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I don’t think there is a disparity. Please see below.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Please see below.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
1st, I never said that all who beleive in a type of original sin believe that children go to hell. It’s why I put the quote from Wikipedia in my post, which states that Original Sin is defined in many different ways by many different religions.
And there is no contradiction in terms of the bible and book or Mormon over how Adam brought sin into the world. Just because we reject the term “Original Sin” and how it is defined, does not mean we reject the idea that Adam chose to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and had to leave the Garden of Eden (a perfect place) and with his choice brought sin into the world. We reject the idea that people are born into the world with sins upon their heads, rather, they are born into the world with a nature that we like to call “the natural man”. We must put off the natural man, which is inclined to do evil, and seek to do good. I see no contradiction between those teachings and those found in the Bible.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“Eve and the Choice Made in the Garden” is a fabulous book that deals specifically with the LDS view of Adam’s transgression, the consequences, and the meaning.
Honestly, it made way more sense to me than the traditional, mainstream Christian view. I’m not LDS, but on the concept of original sin, Adam and Eve, etc., I think their explanation makes the most logical sense to me personally.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 8:58 am
Catholics (nor any other mainstream Christian religion) teach that babies go to hell. Lutherans specifically teach that baptism is a way of giving your baby back to God, showing everyone that you will raise the child, to the best of your ability, to follow God. Original Sin isn’t the belief that I am responsible for the sins of everyone, it teaches that through Adam sin entered the world. Which created the need for redemption. We are all born into sin, but we only answer to God for the sin we have committed. This topic is covered in the New Testament when Jesus heals a blind man and rejects the then modern day assumption that he or his parents had sinned and because of that sin he was blind.
Reply
phruphru Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I think you mean Catholics do *not* teach that babies go to hell. Just wanted to make sure folks realized that. Jenna, I love your religion posts, but I agree with the previous poster that the way you presented this particular topic was definitely on the confrontational side.
Reply
Rebekah Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
You’re right! Thanks for catching that.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
The way you defined it is how I would define it as well. This has been an interesting thread about how different people interpret the term “Original Sin”.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 8:59 am
I would like to say that through this blog you are breaking a lot of rumors and outright lies about the Mormon church. Perhaps you can do the same with lies about other Christian religions?
Reply
Cristin Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Jenna - you made my blood boil today. I went to a university with many strongly opinionated Christians of multiple faiths. The number of times that people informed me that I am “not really Catholic” because I believe X or Y or Z infuriated me. It is not up to any missionary or human to classify my belief system or tell me that any two concepts are intrinsically joined for every believer. Your comment
“Remember, I don’t believe in that kind of Hell, but if you believe in Original Sin you do”
seemed very out of character today. It was unlike what you’ve professed in your blog to presume to understand what people believe. In general, I find your posts to be open minded and willing to understand what people do believe, and I was surprised at your tone when informing readers what we must believe. I hope you’ll consider not generalizing about “us” (not the collective reader group, nor any one religious group) in return for the multiple times you’ve asked us not to watch Big Love or google LDS topics.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I would really love to see Jenna’s response to all of our comments… I do understand that it must have been tempting to be pre-emptively defense when it comes to such a sensitive topic as your brother (I can tell that you love him very much!) but I know that I felt kind of hurt that you assumed what other Christians would believe when those of us who typically comment on your Sunday posts are very respectful of not making assumptions about your faith but listening and learning from you. Please, in the future, show us the same respect.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I beleive in that paragraph it was clear I was speaking to those who state that “those who aren’t baptized will go to Hell”
I specifically pointed out above that statement that the term Original Sin runs a broad spectrum. There is no such thing as a universal definition for it throughout Christianity. The example cited by Kelli above points out that there are those who still tell people there babies will go to Hell if they are not baptized. This is why the English language needs both two kinds of “yous”. Now I understand why most other religions have it. Rather than considering that I was speaking to “you” Cristin, look at the sentence and see how I was speaking to “You” “people who would tell me that babies who go unbaptized go to Hell”
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 9:07 am
I understand Rebekah’s concerns but really, how can Jenna break the rumors and outright lies of other religions when she is not of those religions? Why don’t people of those religions tell us what they believe and break those rumors and lies for themselves as it would put a lot on Jenna to try and find the answers to all questions about other religions and it would mean more coming from those that believe in those concepts. Just an idea.
Reply
Turtle Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:15 am
I think you are right in so far as Jenna doesn’t set herself as assuming that she knows what other religions preach/teach. In this post, Jenna made a couple of definitive statements regarding people who believe in the concept of original sin- which essentially, in my Catholic conception just means that sin is a natural inclination of human nature and that we need God’s grace (ideally through baptism) to combat it. It is excellent that Jenna wants to explain her own beliefs and to combat rumors or misunderstandings as regards them, but it is counter-productive to make claims about other faiths that she doesn’t understand.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Again, I specifically put in the Wikipedia information that stated “This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a “sin nature”, to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.”
That is not making definitive statements. I did say definitely that St. Augustine taught a certain doctrine. Was that wrong? Also, is it wrong to assume that there are people out there who believe in Original Sin and address those specific people for a paragraph? Maybe my mistake was writing “in many Christian churches” and I rescind that if so. But it does not mean that there are people out there teaching this very doctrine. Sometimes I think a certain principle can best be outlined by expounding upon the stream of thought which lies directly opposite to it.
Reply
Turtle Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
St. Augustine certainly did claim that unbaptized infants go to hell, but the the teaching authorities of the Catholic Church never did (admittedly St. Augustine is a great Catholic theologian). It is also certainly not wrong to assume that there are people who believe in original sin- I myself, as I acknowledged above, do. This, however, is where the problem is- although you offered via Wikipedia a broad definition of the definition of original sin, your own understanding (at least as it came across syntactically in the paragraph in question) seemed to paint all believers in original sin with the same brush. I think it is worth acknowledging that (assuming your intentions were as you say to address this minority of believers who most directly oppose your beliefs) the paragraph is easily misread and doesn’t draw this distinction clearly. this is clearly an emotionally charged topic for you- as you take great comfort in your own faith’s teaching on this issue. but I think this can be a double edged sword as people of other faiths who felt misrepresented by your post took its accusations more personally because of it is so clearly a deeply emotional issue.
Reply
Rebekah Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I quote, “In many Christian churches, baptism at infancy is required to negate the effects of Original Sin.” and then later on in the same paragraph “According to the doctrine of Original Sin he is now residing in a place of endless torment with murderers, liars, thieves, and Hitler.” I took it personally because in that paragraph you basically say that if you believe in Original Sin, you believe that babies go to hell. I have never ever ever ever ever heard any priest, pastor or deacon tell me that babies go to hell, and I’ve been in various churches my entire life. I also went to parochial school until 10th grade. All we’re asking for is the same understanding and research that you plead for when explaining doctrines (like being sealed in the temple) that most christians are unfamiliar with. It’s offensive to ask for respect and then not show it when talking about a holy sacrament.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I agree… I went to read that Wikipedia article on Original Sin and noticed that it went on to explain individually what most of the modern major branches of Christianity believe concerning original sin — NONE (if I recall correctly) held firmly to the Augustinian position.
What I object to in your original post is that fact that you said “many Christian churches” and then in the next breath jumped to Augustine, then going on to berate anyone in the audience (so far no one) who believes as Augustine did. What if I, as a Protestant, had a semi-wellknown blog read by Christians and Mormons, said “Many Mormons believe XYZ” and then in the next sentence, with no distinction that I was now speaking on a minority position, jumped to something about polygamy or the prohibition against the ordination of black men and talked about how offensive I found that. You’d be somewhat offended, wouldn’t you?
Especially considering that you very often tell your readers to not google Mormon topics, I find it surprising and disappointing that you would choose Wikipedia as (so it appears) your only source to discuss a religion of which you’ve never been a member.
Reply
phruphru Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Well said, Mrs. W.
Reply
Rebekah Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:24 am
I agree Turtle.
Reply
Amanda W Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:51 am
I understand where you are coming from, however, I don’t think that was her intent. So I guess I could say, I would like to know more about this belief of original sin. I have read the other posts and they have been very insightful. I too am LDS and I have never understood the concept of original sin because like Jenna I believe that “men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgressions”, however, it is insightful to learn what others believe and why they believe what they do.
Reply
Rebekah Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Here you go: http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=s&word=SIN.ORIGINAL.
Reply
Turtle Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am
And for Catholics, there’s no better source on official teaching than the Catechism, On original sin: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm
Baptism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm
The baptism section describes how we don’t know but have hope that unbaptized babies are taken to Christ (1260). It is also describes a teaching of Baptism of Desire- 1258-1260.
Reply
Amanda W Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Thanks. I look forward to reading other’s personal beliefs as I have above as this discussion continues.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 11:45 am
This site has wonderful, Biblical references to this question:
http://gotquestions.org/baptism-salvation.html
“Anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ as being required for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add ANYTHING to the Gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that we must be baptized in order to be saved is to say that we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation, but cannot be a requirement for salvation.”
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
To you I pose the same question I have posed many times above:
I’m curious, how do you reconcile this scripture with your belief that baptism is not necessary:
John 3: 5
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Reply
tammom Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:24 am
A child IS born of man and the spirit - if man (and woman) has accepted Christ as his Savior. You are specifically talking about your baby brother (I lost one, too, though he lived for 3 months but died unbaptized). As Lutherans, we do believe in infant baptism - and as Beth states below, we go through confirmation to affirm our baptism. My 13 year-old daughter was just confirmed 2 weekends ago, and it was nearly as special for me as my own was umpteen years ago. She (and I) made the CHOICE to live a Christ-centered life. I’m not negating that we believe in baptism or even baptism as one’s pathway to heaven. What I responded with was scripturally-based evidence that one can *still* have the opportunity to go to heaven, if they believe in Christ’s ultimate gift to us as our salvation.
And truly, isn’t that what faith is? Faith that God is the Master Planner in our lives? No matter how many words are written in the Bible or how many words men put down on paper - God has the last word. I don’t know what His plans are - but, I trust Him to decide whether the unbaptized are heaven-bound or not.
Reply
Ginger T. Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 3:37 am
And as I say unto….how do you reconcile baptism by proxy with that statement.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 1:01 pm
I grew up Lutheran where we believe in baptizing babies. Infants that have not had the chance to be baptized do not go to Hell, nor are they in limbo. They go to Heaven (much like how in your faith a child younger than 8 cannot be held accountable and gets a “free pass” to Heaven - for lack of better terms).
Our baptism is a dedication so to speak. The baby’s parents and Godparents stand in front of the church and publicly proclaim that they will raise the child in the church. From what I have learned from LDS friends, your church does a dedication as an infant.
The Lutheran church (ELCA) does a public proclamation of sin at the beginning of services (this can be found in the Lutheran Book of Worship). We can do an individually repent, but the church does not require it. If you read this, we are only repenting our individual sins, not those of others.
Finally, in middle school I went through 2 years of rigorous Catechism instruction. There, I learned about the doctrine behind the church. At the end of instruction, I had the choice to make a confirmation (public affirmation of my baptism) in which I stated in front of the church a that I have learned, understood, and am willing to accept my faith and all that it entails.
Baptism is a choice that my parents made for me…I affirmed that I believe everything that was implied when I was an infant. It is not a one-time deal that we do not build upon, and further make the decision for ourselves.
For more information, visit http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief/ELCA-Confession-of-Faith.asp. (The word catholic appears many times in our articles of faith, in this case we are not speaking of the Catholic Faith, but rather of a ‘universal’ church). Luther’s Catechism is also another good source of information as to beliefs behind the Apostle’s Creed, Commandments, etc. I recommend the small catechism (the orange version) for a brief version.
My question is why is 8 the age of accountability? Why not earlier (b/c children know that their actions have consequences at much younger ages) or later (when the child can better understand their faith/decisions)?
Reply
Beth Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Here’s a link to the ELCA’s view on baptism - http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/Baptism-Lutheran-view.aspx
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Very interesting Beth. So you were baptized as an infant, but you go through steps when you are older to confirm that you accept those beliefs and will live by them? I like that.
I believe there are many things in the Gospel that make us wonder “why do it that way?” We believe 8 is the age revealed by God, so that is the age we go by.
Reply
Christiana Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Catholics also go through confirmation (as a teenager) as well as first communion (around the age of 8 if I recall).
Reply
Kimberly Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Yup. Catholics become accountable for their sins at around seven years old (what is called the age of reason). This is when they make their first Confession, followed by first Communion. Most get Confirmed as teenagers, although this can done at any time after you hit the age of reason.
Reply
Kimberly Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Oh, and Confirmation is also where we are sealed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit. I think it’s the same with the LDS Church?
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 1:07 pm
Jenna — I think you’re painting non-LDS Christians with an awfully big brush. I think it’s important for you to know that, unlike the LDS church or the Catholic church, Protestants have a huge diversity of viewpoints on theological issues. In many Protestant churches, exploration and discussion are encouraged and there is not one way that every believe MUST believe about every issue. If, to your way of thinking, all non-LDS Christians think your brother is in hell, I have to tell you that that is simply not accurate. I know he’s with God.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Thanks Jessica. I specifically stated in my post, using the quote from Wikipedia, that there are a range of different belief systems on the subject of Original Sin. My address in the paragraph below that was to those who believe a certain way about the subject.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 1:09 pm
I think Jenna was more speaking to the point of how can those Christians, who believe in Original Sin, who believe that you burn in hell for all eternity without faith in Christ, reconcile the fact that *most* of them still believe babies won’t go to hell.
What I mean is, I have a lot of friends who ardently state that those who do not believe in Christ will burn in hell. Yet, most backtrack on the subject of babies and children “well, God will sort it out” or “well, of course children don’t go to hell”. The question that must logically then be asked is, where are you getting this information? How can you say, in one breath, that anyone who doesn’t believe in Christ will burn in hell, but then you make an exception for children? To my knowledge, there hasn’t been any revelation to this end to any mainstream Christian church- I think Mrs. W. stated there wasn’t much proof for it being true. So, the real question is, how do you balance the absolutist burning-in-hell-without-Christ claim existing at the same time with a statement that children are exempt? What authority states that? What age?
Does that make sense? I think Jenna was presenting her post as saying “if I take original sin and the need for Christ to save one from burning in hell, the logical conclusion would be that this little boy is burning in hell”. And, unfortunately, the Mormon church is the only church I know of that claims specific revelation as to an age of accountability. Any other church that says “oh, no, kids won’t burn in hell without christ” seems to be doing so just out of realizing the alternate would seem pretty cruel. Yet there is no revelation or scripture to point to- unless I just don’t know of it, I’d be happy to hear/learn of it.
Reply
Mandy Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I did address this partially in my comment earlier. However, the general consensus at my church is that there isn’t MUCH scripture to back up the idea that babies (and small children) would go straight through to Heaven, as they do not have the mentality to choose right over wrong. God over Satan. Life over death. However, Matthew 19:14, which states Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
As it doesn’t really specify an age, we generally go along the “age of accountability” which means there is no specific age. It depends upon the ability to choose.
However, as I stated before, one who is not saved, will just have to “stand in line” on Judgement Day and obviously small children and babies who were not able to make the decision would pass through to Heaven.
Reply
Sophia Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Thanks for the additional info Mandy
Reply
Jessica Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Sophia, in the denomination I grew up in (United Methodist), we believe that reason is an appropriate tool to use when analyzing questions of faith. Although there may not be a specific authority which we cite that says that babies will not go to hell, my reason tells me that God (from everything we know about him) would not allow such a thing to happen. One can arrive at beliefs using reason even apart from revelation — I think God WANTS us to wrestle with these questions and use our (God-given) intellects!
Reply
Sophia Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I agree completely Jessica- to me (I was raised Unitarian Universalist) reason has to come into play.
Reply
Katy Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Being LDS, our doctrine -especially anyting as vitally important as saving principles - does not come from the discussions or consensus of men. People in our church don’t figuratively or literally take a vote on these major principles, we have faith that these principles come from God.
OF COURSE, I agree with all that’s said about using our intellects and God wants us to use reason and to not blindly shut off our brains and just act as religious zombies. He asks us to pray and find out for ourselves if we are seeking a testimony in any doctrine or principle we are trying to understand. BUT - that doesn’t mean we as His child can come to conclusions on important saving matters relying solely only on our own imperfect, human rationale.
Mormon doctrine is very consistent - no matter which congregation you attend anywhere in the world, you will learn the same things that others are learning. The bishop or other teachers in California don’t preach different doctrine from the bishop in Australia. I think sometimes the problem (for lack of a better term) with other individualized congregations is that the collective whole of that specific religion can believe and teach different things depending on that ministers/leaders way of choosing to interpret something.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Mormon doctrine may be consistent across geographies, but it does change with latter-day revelation. Men on earth interpreted God’s message to stop polygamy, right? One day, it was acceptable (encouraged?), and post-revelation, it wasn’t! So it does change over time, just like other denominations.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Cristin,
I don’t think that it can be denied that “continuing revelation” can be seen throughout the scriptures. Moses went up on the mountain and received the 10 commandments, that was a “change”. Then he received the Law of Moses, a much more detailed set of rules to follow. Another “change”. Then Christ was crucified and the Law was done away with. That was another “change”.
The Church is often criticized for instituting these revelations, because we are “changing” the way the Bible tells us things should be done. But things were changing for the people living in Bible times because of revelations from God. Why shouldn’t these changes happen in our modern times because of the voice of God as well?
Reply
Katy Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:12 am
My brain is not working…for this past week in fact…so I’m glad you jumped in with this point. I had this same idea going through my head that I wanted to express but lacked the mental clarity to do so today!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Aaahhhhh. that is me taking a big sigh of relief because someone finally understood that I did not ever say “Anyone who believes in Original Sin only believes this way”. In fact I did just the opposite.
I’ve defended myself approximately 10 times above, but I guess I could have just referred people down to your excellently worded comment. I feel like I can trust you to speak your mind when you think I’m in the wrong, so it’s nice to hear your thoughts in this case.
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 1:44 pm
I’m of ultimate sin. Never been baptized, live with my hubby before we were married, and had sex long before I met my husband. Yep, I’m a sinner.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Alison, your comment made me laugh and think of the Billy Joel tune… my mother was horrified when I came home singing it one day and said that sinners are much more fun (I think I was about 10). This is in a light-hearted spirits folks, no disrespect to fellow Catholics or other religious folk on here!
You got a nice white dress and a party on your confirmation
You got a brand new soul
Mmmm, and a cross of gold
But Virginia they didnt give you quite enough information
You didnt count on me
When you were counting on your rosary
(oh woah woah)
They say theres a heaven for those who will wait
Some say its better but I say it aint
Id rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun…
Thanks for making me laugh, Alison (New Wife)!
Reply
R Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I’m Catholic and that song always makes me smile. And, while not intentional, it also reminds me to pray rather than judge:
“You said your mother told you
All I could give you was a reputation
Ah she never cared for me
But did she ever say a prayer for me?”
I want any children of mine to always be able to answer that with “of course! My mom prays for *everyone*”.
Reply
Alison Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Sad for me, i don’t listen to lyrics, but this song sounds good to me.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Lucky for you, the Mormons will baptize you after you die and then you go still go to Heaven.
Reply
Alison Reply:
May 5th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Good to know I’ll always have you Jenna!
Reply
May 4th, 2009 on 1:48 pm
Sophia, in the denomination I grew up in (United Methodist), we believe that reason is an appropriate tool to use when analyzing questions of faith. Although there may not be a specific authority which we cite that says that babies will not go to hell, my reason tells me that God (from everything we know about him) would not allow such a thing to happen. One can arrive at beliefs using reason even apart from revelation — I think God WANTS us to wrestle with these questions and use our (God-given) intellects!
Reply
May 5th, 2009 on 5:16 pm
[...] finishing I was left with a deeper sense of respect for organized religion, and for those who are able to eloquently deliberate on the Bible; I’ve also been left with a hunger to learn, read and interpret more. On the train back up [...]
May 5th, 2009 on 5:31 pm
Jenna, I just read through all of the comments, and I think that I might have an idea of the source of confusion. My guess is that you think that you are talking about a “common” sort of Christian who believes:
1. In origional sin.
2. That origional sin requires baptism for it’s remission.
3. That infants must either be baptized or else damned.
The thing is, I don’t think these people are as common as you think. In fact, I am really curious as to what sort of Christian it is that you are talking about. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians etc. baptize babies. But they wouldn’t say that unbaptized babies automatically go to hell. Many Baptists will say that faith in Christ and a “sinner’s prayer” is necessary to go to Heaven, but fundamental Baptist doctrine is that baptism must *follow* a reasonably mature faith. Thus they will never baptize babies.
If you want to explain what sort of denomination you were thinking of, that might help us understand who it is you *do* mean, since you apparently aren’t just referring to those of us who believe in origional sin. And if you really don’t mean *all* who believe in origional sin, please consider editing because the exact words in your post declare that those who believe in origional sin believe that your brother is in a place of endless torment. It may not be what you mean, but it is what is there in the post.
Reply
May 6th, 2009 on 11:13 am
It is nice to see the editor’s note up there now. I hate to seem like a stickler or beating a dead horse, but honestly, I take you, Jenna, and your faith and your posts about religion very seriously. I don’t agree with you sometimes, but I have a GREAT amount of respect for you (and a little jealousy… I wish Mr. W and I were as diligent about scripture study as you and TH are
). So when I see this sort of misunderstanding take place, it really bugs me until it’s settled, not because I want to prove you wrong or I’m being a jerk, but just because I find these discussions and these posts so valuable that I don’t want to see them end in dissension.
Thank you for helping me come to a better understanding of what I believe about original sin!
Reply
May 6th, 2009 on 5:52 pm
Hey Jenna,
In one of your comments, you pointed out how even Jesus, who was without sin, needed to be baptized. So I was wondering, was your brother baptized by proxy at the point he would have reached the age of accountability, or is that unnecessary?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Not necessary. We believe Christ’s sacrifice covered the sins of those who die before they turn 8 years old. He gets a pass that takes him straight to Heaven, no baptism necessary!
Very interesting question though.
Reply
May 20th, 2009 on 6:42 pm
[...] so that title isn’t entirely accurate. But Jenna’s post on sin got me thinking about how the doctrine of origional sin is actually a positive [...]