User talk:RobertC/Infant baptism

Messy discussion of issues

Hi Robert, A couple of questions...

>Christ is the only exception to the inevitability of sinning, presumably b/c of his uniquely extra-mortal birth, so he is the only one who was enticed by the devil and did not sin.

I know we have discussed this before. Here's my take... I lean away from this view and you lean toward it, and, I think, we both agree that the scriptures don't seem to comment on this point one way or the other. Is that accurate? Or do you think the scriptures support this view?

I think the scriptures support the idea that Christ was both tempted and did not sin (I'll look them up if this is what you're asking about). I'm not sure if there are scriptures saying that Christ was the only one not to sin (I'd be curious if there are if anyone knows off-hand). I do not think scriptures tell us why Christ did not sin, whether it was b/c of (1) his extra-mortal birth or (2) his unusual righteousness in the pre-existence or (3) any other reason. I don't really have much of a leaning one way or another even though I was probably leaning toward (1) earlier. --RobertC 18:11, 8 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I agree for sure that Christ was both tempted and did not sin. Sorry my question wasn't more clear. My question was whether the scriptures support his uniquely extra-mortal birth as the cause of his not sinning. Like you I don't think the scriptures tell us why Jesus didn't sin. --Matthew Faulconer 14:40, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

>I think what's most consistent with what the scriptures actually say (I'm most interested in doing theology that is based on the canonized scriptures (putting less stock in other prophetic quotes) is the view that infants will eventually have the possibility of being exalted without ever having to be baptized b/c these souls will never be enticed by the devil to sin.

What scriptures do you have in mind that support this view?

Hmm, I think I was just thinking about Moroni 8 saying that infants don't have to be baptized. I guess the question is whether this non-requirement applies to just this life or the next life too. Again, I don't really have a strong opinion, I just think if one wants to argue that infants eventually have to get baptized (when they have an opportunity to sin), then I think it'll be hard to find scriptures supporting such a view and so I think it should be labelled a speculative view. But if I were pressed, I think at this point I would probably lean against my earlier view. I think Moses 6:55-56 suggests that there is something fundamental to progession about experiencing sin (but I'm not really sure how to explain Christ as the exception to this...). --RobertC 18:11, 8 Oct 2006 (UTC)

>One implication (or at least related idea) is that Lucifer's negative answer to Eve's rhetorical question "is there no other way" is a lie. That is, there is another way, and that other way is the path that infants will tread.

At least on the face of it 2 Ne 2:11 would seem to contradict this view. --Matthew Faulconer 07:52, 8 Oct 2006 (UTC)

You mean there's no other way b/c we need to experience opposition (viz. sin) in order to progress (or truly be agents), like Moses 6:55-56 also suggests? I agree with this line of argument (but please explain if you had something else in mind), but it still leaves me wondering if Christ hasn't shown us that there is another way.

Consider this view: In theory the fall wasn't truly necessary—we all had the potential to be like Christ in being tempted and not giving in, and if this were to happen then we wouldn't have to experience sin or death. But we all (except Christ) give in to sin, so this theoretical possibility is irrelevant to our experience in this world.

The problem with this view is that it seems there would be no opposition—so I think it is a flawed theory. But I can't think of a theory that isn't flawed (either by not really needing opposition or by not being able to explain why Christ didn't give in to sin). Ostler tackles this difficulty by assuming that Christ was divine before this life but, in order to have complete knowledge, had to experience mortality (I'm probably somewhat misrepresenting his view, either b/c I'm remembering it wrong or misread it in the first place...). He backs up a lot of his views with Joseph Smith quotes (Sermon in the Grove and/or King Follett Discourse), but I'm not sold on this view (at least yet). I worry a bit about straining the intent of the scriptures in bringing these type of theological problems to the scriptures, but I am curious as to ways to think about these issues.... --RobertC 18:11, 8 Oct 2006 (UTC)

>I worry a bit about straining the intent of the scriptures in bringing these type of theological problems to the scriptures

Yes, I agree with this worry. Not that I think it is wrong to ask these questions, nor do I think it wrong to look to the scriptures to try to answer them, but we do have to be careful not to try to force out of the scriptures an answer (as you say, strain them) just because we want an answer--when in fact the scriptures may not speak to the real question we are asking. Part of the difficulty in this case is that the scriptures don't tell us much about what happens to infants who die without baptism. About them you say "when they have an opportunity to sin." It makes sense that if they are going to progress they need at least the opportunity to sin, but I don't think the scriptures say this, do they?

>Ostler tackles this difficulty by assuming that Christ was divine before this life

I know we spoke about this before on some page but I'm not sure where. My problem with this view is that it suggests that we, not being divine in the same sense, don't have free agency not to sin. But if we lack the free agency not to sin then we aren't guilty of the sin. But if we aren't guilty of sin then (because we want to say guilt is part of the definition of sin) we didn't sin. --Matthew Faulconer 14:54, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, I think most of our previous discussion was at the following page: User talk:RobertC/Fall. I think you raise a good question that I don't really have a good answer for. I plan to chew on it for a while and I'll get back to you with any new ideas. --RobertC 19:15, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

2 Ne 2:11 would seem to indicate the "life" was not possible without the opposing forces introduced in the fall. Such things as righteousness and wickedness, good and bad, health and sickness, holiness and misery. Would Adam have ceased breathing if he'd not eaten of the forbidden fruit. No, of course not. In our usual sense of the word, he would have been alive, but in another sense, life is strictly required to involve change; either growth or decay. (health and sickness, life and death) Adam's state, as a closed system, was unchanging, as was Eve's. He could not progress and he could not decay.

A joke the old institute director where I am used to tell illustrates the point wonderfully.

Q: Was Adam happy in the garden of Eden?

A: No! (He wasn't sad either!)

The same could be revised to "Did Adam like the Garden of Eden?"

Introducing life (growth) necessarily would introduce death (decay) and everything that goes along with them. Thus, if Adam was to progress and life was to exist, something equivalent to eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, had to happen. What does it matter if there was another way? It must've been an equivalent way and thus the story would be told exactly the same. The forbidding to eat of the fruit might actually have originally been a detailed list identifying a number of things that Adam or Eve might've done that would've been equivalent to the symbolic eating of the forbidden fruit. Thus if Adam hadn't eaten of the forbidden fruit then man would have never progressed and since the Earth was created for the express purpose of facilitating the progress of man, Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit would have made that purpose "a thing of naught" and the logical conclusion, as Lehi explains it, is that there is no God. (Since this state of things would have indicated an imperfection in God's wisdom and God is defined, in part, as a being of perfect wisdom, then there could be no God, but only some imperfect being pretending to be a God.)

--Seanmcox 05:40, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these thoughts Sean. I think what you've written does not address the concerns Matthew is raising, though I may be missing something in what you've written (in which case I hope you can help clarify to me what I'm overlooking!). --RobertC 19:15, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right that my comments don't address the main point, but rather, I was responding to the thought that perhaps "Lucifer's negative answer to Eve's rhetorical question 'is there no other way' is a lie." (For there actually was no other way, all other hypothetically possible ways being equivalent.) It is, however a very difficult discussion to follow, as broken up as it is. I may have not understood the context of the comment properly. --Seanmcox 19:31, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I agree I've made a real mess of this convesation—I'll start a new section and/or summarize the main points for future reference (I can't keep it all straight in my head any more!). I also appreciate/understand your point better now addressing the "no othe way" idea, thanks for clarifying. --RobertC 10:24, 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to jump into this discussion, since I feel the same reluctance Matthew and Robert seem to agree about to try to press the scriptures for answers to these sorts of questions. I hesitate precisely because I only want to jump into the discussion to say that we ought not even to look at the question. If the scriptures aren't talking about it, I don't think that that means that it is a forbidden subject, but that our way of approaching the matter is off, that the prophets' who wrote the scriptures wouldn't be able to make sense of the question. The scriptures distract such questions, not because these questions didn't occur to them, nor because they didn't think them important "for our salvation" (how I hate that phrase!), but because the questions betray a misunderstanding. I hope that makes sense.

All that said, C. S. Lewis' Perelandra is a most incredible exploration of the concept of a world without a Fall. He places it on another world (avoiding the problem Aslan himself would bring up to Lewis: I do not tell you what would have been), in fact, on Venus, and with all the richness of the Greek/Roman myths. Wonderful book. Anyway... --Joe Spencer 15:12, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Joe, thanks for bringing this book to my attention. Here is a fascinating book review by BYU's own John S. Tanner (I've only skimmed the review so far). I ordered his Anxieity in Eden book from the library to see if I can't figure out his take on these issues (if you already know his take, I'd aprreciate a hint as to the direction he goes). --RobertC 19:15, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Outline/summary of issues discussed so far

Here's a rough outline/summary of the issues discussed above (as I currently see them). This is mainly just to help me organize my thoughts and make more sense of the discussion above:

(1) What is the role of sin and opposition in progression? I think this is the meta-question motivating most of the discussion here. The scriptures seem to say that opposition is necessary, but that doesn’t speak as to whether sin is necessary to progression, and it leaves the concept of opposition fairly opaque. It seems relatively clear that everyone will sin in this life except for Christ and infants, so these are interesting cases to consider (to either test a theory with, or perhaps just to idly speculate on…).

(2) Why did Christ not sin? Scriptures don’t seem to answer this question. Here are some possibilities:

(a) Extra-mortal birth? I’ve proposed that Christ’s sinlessness is tied to his extra-mortal birth, but there’s not really scriptural support for it.

(b) Unusually righteous? Perhaps Christ was just unusually righteous in a way that we could be too. This seems to be Matthew’s leaning. Otherwise, in what sense did Christ really “show us the way”?

(c) Ostler’s view. I think Ostler’s view is a bit of a hybrid of the above two views.

(3) Will infants ever have to be baptized? Again, scriptures don’t seem to address this directly, but:

(a) Not in this life says Moroni 8, but that doesn’t rule out having to be baptized in next life.

(b) Will infants someday sin? This question seems related to the question about infants ever having to be baptized, but it may be importantly different. In particular, I think Ostler (or maybe I’m confusing his ideas with someone else at one of the many New Cool Thang blog discussions we had touching on these issues…) has suggested the need for baptism may not apply to sinning in some other sphere of existence (e.g. if infants are raised during the millennium or something and sin in during that sphere of existence, then perhaps the baptism requirement won’t apply to them there).

(c) If infants will not ever sin, in what sense will they experience opposition? Moses 6:55-56 and several 2 Ne 2 scriptures (and probably other passages as well) suggest that opposition (if not sin itself) is required for progression. The two cases that seem to challenge this idea are infants who die before the age of accountability and Christ.

(4) Was there in fact “no other way”? Was the serpent lying to Eve in saying this or was this a fundamental truth? Quotes from Elders Oaks and Nelson seem(?) to suggest that there was indeed no other way, but I’m less convinced that this is taught in the scriptures and am therefore leaving it open as a possibility.

(a) Did God set us up to fail? I think the main problem with believing that there was no other way is that it has God setting us up to fail. I’ve flip-flopped on this issue a bit—I’m more inclined now (than previously) to believe that there was in fact no other way b/c experiential knowledge is necessary to really know good and evil (this is from thinking about a phrase in Jim F.'s community article on Gen 2-3 in The Journal of Philosophy and Scripture).

(b) Was Eve's transgression necessary for opposition? Matthew has suggested that 2 Ne 2:11 seems to contradict the view that there was some other way. But I think this relies some link between Eve’s transgression with the opposition spoken of in the verse (perhaps I’m misunderstanding Matthew’s thinking here). If Eve's transgression was the only way to bring about opposition, then I think in fact there was no other way. But in what sense was Eve's transgression tied to the birth of opposition? I think Sean has also nicely pointed out how 2 Ne 2 seems to answer this question in the affirmative. I think this is also the thrust of Jim F.'s article. The problem though, as I see it, is that this implies that God set us up to fail as per (4a).

(c) Can you have opposition without sin? Can you really know good and evil without experiencing sin? This might seem a vacuous question but, again, Christ and infants seem like possible exceptions: did they experience opposition without sinning? Also, since Elders Nelson and Oaks have emphasized that Eve's action was only a transgression and not a sin per se (but I think it says in Moses that Eve have to repent of the act, so I'm not sure the meaning of the distinction…), then perhaps only transgression is necessary for opposition—but then we're back at the question of (4b). Also, I think this is where the discussion of Perelandra fits in (I still need to look at Tanner's review more carefully).

--RobertC 12:08, 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

no other way

It is interesting that in the Garden of Eden it seems that what the serpent says is often at least partly true. I think the question of whether what the serpent says in this case is a lie or not is maybe not the right question to be asking. Instead we should ask in what sense was it true and in what sense isn't it. (As a side note, though I sort of agree with Joe's comment (and maybe surprisingly, mostly agree with my own) that we should be careful about these subject, I do think it makes sense to ask what it means that Satan says there is no other way--I think that is a question directly about the scriptures.)

I think it very significant that what the serpent, Eve and Adam did may have been following some sort of approved pattern, it was a usurption in the sense that the serpent wasn't authorized to do it. Consider a somewhat parallel example. If someone without authority to baptize (person a) goes and tells someone else (person B) that they need to be baptized. Then person B asks if there is no other way to gain celestial life and person A responds that there is no other way. Then person A baptizes them. I don't take the statement that there is no other way as a statement that children must be baptized. And though in some sense the statement is true, it is wrong for person A to baptize person B. There are several things dissimilar about htis example. The most important difference I think is that in the baptism case we would just say that the baptism wasn't effective and rebaptize the person if they wanted to be. In the Garden of Eden, the results of what the serpent, Adam and Eve do is real and allows them to progress. --Matthew Faulconer 14:34, 11 Oct 2006 (UTC)