Email & Phone Conversations With Our Evangelical Friend

As I have mentioned previously, we have for some time been having conversations with an Evangelical friend. Several weeks ago we had several conversations and exchanged some emails on what we believe. I thought I would share them showing his name as “Evangelical friend”.

He had come across several anti-Mormon sites which he asked me about, so I sent him Elder Holland’s talk given to some evangelical leaders titled “Standing together for the Cause of Christ”. I provided the following introduction along with the talk which I posted previously.

There are many comments made and articles written by those of other faiths about our church that are contrary to what we teach. I have found some Christian sites that have grossly inaccurate information. I believe the church has reached out in recent years to those of other faiths in an attempt to improve the dialogue between us and them. In 2011 Elder Holland gave a talk to a national meeting of Christian Evangelical Leaders held in Salt Lake City, Utah. I thought it was pretty good, so I am sharing it with you.

He then sent me this email:

Elder Anderson,

Thanks for the email. I thought Elder Holland did an excellent job in explaining the issues involved and he nailed it when he said, “A question that continued to come up on both sides was just how much “bad theology” can the grace of God compensate for?

As you know this is the problem that I have been wrestling with, that is, despite some of Mormonism’s unorthodox doctrines, do Mormons believe enough of the gospel to be saved. We can discuss and defend our beliefs from now on, but the crucial and eternal issue is what must we believe or not believe to be saved.  I say “not believe” because some beliefs may nullify our trust in Christ’s death on the cross thereby cancelling out whatever else we may believe. For example Paul told the Judaizers that if they believed that circumcision was necessary in addition to what Jesus had accomplished on the cross they were fallen from grace. “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

I agree that there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what Mormons believe, but that is the fault, in my opinion, of the LDS church. If they had a clear and visible doctrinal statement open to the public it would dispel some of the myths and misunderstandings about the LDS church. The church could publish a little pamphlet summarizing their beliefs or put out something in the form of FAQ.

As I approach the final years of this sojourn on earth, I am reminded of the words of the old negro spiritual “I want to be ready to walk in Jerusalem just like John” and I'm sure you do as well. Thanks again for the email.

I then shared this with our Evangelical friend:

We look forward to meeting with you this evening, I wanted to make an attempt at responding to this statement of yours:

“I agree that there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what Mormons believe, but that is the fault, in my opinion, of the LDS church. If they had a clear and visible doctrinal statement open to the public it would dispel some of the myths and misunderstandings about the LDS church. “

We actually have the Articles of Faith.

The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor, in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed. They were subsequently published in Church periodicals. They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.

The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

 2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

 3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

 4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

 6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

However I believe much of the misunderstanding is because people outside the church often bear false witness against the church.

Richard Mouw, who is retired as president of the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.

In what the Deseret News referred to as "stunningly candid" comments, Fuller Theological Seminary president and Beliefnet columnist Richard J. Mouw apologized to Mormons for evangelicals' tendency to distort the truth about Latter-day Saints' beliefs. "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," Mouw said. The speech is making the rounds among surprised and generally pleased evangelical and Mormon groups.

I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe. I personally take great encouragement from words that Joseph Smith uttered on the occasion of the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April of 1830: "we know," Joseph said, "that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God." And then he added: "And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, and we know also that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength."

http://www.mormon.org/what-do-mormons-believe

After reading the Articles of Faith, he called me on the phone and was concerned that we didn’t believe in the Protestant doctrine of original sin. I told him that was correct, we didn’t believe that to be a correct doctrine. He then sent me this email confirming what I shared.

Elder Anderson,

I found this information on the web and it seems to agree with what you were saying about
original or inherited sin.

Do Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) believe in "original sin"? Original sin is the belief that because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (called 'the fall'), all infants born thereafter are tainted by Adam and Eve's sin. To become pure again all infants must be baptized. The second Article of Faith of The Church states:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

First, it's important to understand the difference between transgression and sin . Understanding this difference helps clarify what the second Article of Faith means by transgression.

In The Book of Mormon , and through other modern day revelation, we know that:
        1.      While in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence
        2.      They could not have children
        3.      They could not fulfill God's first commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:22,28) unless they transgressed God's second commandment not to eat of the fruit
        4.      Having children is good- and necessary- to God's plan
        5.      Eating of the fruit was not an evil thing in and of itself

President Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the Church, said:

"I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin.... This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin... for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!"

And in the Book of Moses we read:

"And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden."


That was the end of the article.

Much of what is said here I believe is unscriptural, but I will not go into it right now except to say
that President Smith's statement radically departs from the clear teachings of the Bible on the fall and especially when he says that "This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin... for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do."


This statement makes God the author of sin and that a transgression is not a sin.
In 1 John 3:4 It says "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law".

You can tell Elder Holland for me, that the LDS church is  going to have to come around to a more Biblical view of the fall and inherited sin before they are recognized as orthodox Christians.  Take care.

I then sent him this email:

Evangelical Friend,

Here is a little more on the subject of Original Sin. I think it gives a better explanation than I did on the phone. Like several topics we have discussed, I do not believe original sin is a biblical doctrine, but rather came about in the fourth century after Christ. Apparently it was used by Augustine in his argument to justify infant baptism.

Original Sin

True to the Faith, (2004), 110–11

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the “original sin.” In other words, we are not accountable for Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (Articles of Faith 1:2).

Through the Atonement, the Savior paid the price for the transgression in the Garden of Eden (see Moses 6:53). He has given us the assurance of resurrection and the promise that, based on our faithfulness, we can return to dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father forever.

Moroni 8:8. “The curse of Adam is taken from them in me”

Some people believe that because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, newborn babies come into the world tainted with sin. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that this teaching is false:

“All those who believe that man, yes, even newly born infants, are tainted with ‘original sin,’ (in other words the transgression of Adam,) deny the mercies of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. The Bible (as well as our modern scripture) teaches that Jesus Christ is in very deed, the Redeemer of mankind from the fall. He paid the debt that mankind became heir to through Adam’s transgression. The mortgage upon our souls was fully paid. It left no hangover penalty which required some act by, or in behalf of, any living creature, to free him from ‘original sin.’ The doctrine that infants come into this world under the curse of ‘original sin,’ is an abominable doctrine in the sight of God, and denies the greatness and mercy of the atonement. (See Moroni Chapter 8.)” (Church History and Modern Revelation: A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums, 4 vols. [1949], 4:99).

Is it true that because Latter-day Saints deny the doctrine of original sin, they are not Christian?

The notion of original sin as it is usually understood today in traditional Christianity is a distinctly late invention that evolved from the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. Tertullian (second century A.D.), who was very concerned with the idea of sin, says nothing of the doctrine of original sin. Indeed, very few of the Church Fathers up to the fourth century show any interest in it at all. It was not clearly enunciated until Augustine (fourth/fifth century) needed it in his battle with the Christian Pelagians, who denied the doctrine, and it came to be associated with the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418. ²⁰

As Norbert Brox points out, “Pelagian theology was the traditional one, especially in Rome. But the Africans, under the theological leadership of Augustine, managed to make their charge of heresy stick within the church, thereby establishing the Augustinian theology of grace as the basis of the Western tradition.” ²¹ Some modern scholars now raise the issue that Augustine, and not Pelagius, was the real heretic. ²²

Is it true that because Latter-day Saints reject the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, they are not Christians?

Perhaps the most famous statement of the Latter-day Saint understanding of the relation between grace and works is in 2 Nephi 25:23: “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” [2 Ne. 25:23] This idea is sometimes called synergism—a term Van A. Harvey has used to describe Roman Catholicism. ²³

The doctrine that salvation depends both on God’s grace and man’s good works is very old in Catholic theology. One of the canons at the Council of Trent specifically repudiates the notion of grace alone: “If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ’s sake alone; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema.” ²⁴ Are we to say, then, that Roman Catholicism is not Christian because it does not subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone?

The doctrine of salvation through faith alone, sometimes called solafidianism, is not a biblical doctrine: there are no instances in the New Testament of the phrases “grace alone” or “faith alone.” The philosopher-theologian Frederick Sontag argues that Jesus himself was interested not in words, and not even in theological dogma, but in action: For the Jesus in Matthew, he says, “Action is more important than definition.” ²⁵ Richard Lloyd Anderson shows that even in Paul’s major treatments of the doctrine of grace, particularly in Romans and Ephesians, there is a balancing element of works as well. ²⁶ Other New Testament writers, most notably James, make it clear that saving faith can only be recognized through works: “Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17.)

The generations immediately following the New Testament period also recognized the need for both grace and works for salvation. The famous Didache—The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles—which dates back to before A.D.70, is conspicuous for its moralism and legalism. ²⁷ It is also significant that “the oldest datable literary document of Christian religion soon after the time of the Apostles”—the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written in the last decade of the first century—emphasizes “good works, as it is in the Epistle of James, which may belong to the same time.” ²⁸ The second-century document Shepherd of Hermas contains twelve commandments. J. L. Gonzales writes that they “are a summary of the duties of a Christian, and Hermas affirms that in obeying them there is eternal life.” ²⁹

Even F. F. Bruce, who contends that Paul taught a doctrine of salvation by grace alone, concurs sadly that the doctrine was not a part of the early Christian church: “The Biblical doctrine of divine grace, God’s favour shown to sinful humanity, … seems almost, in the post-apostolic age, to reappear only with Augustine. Certainly the majority of Christian writers who flourished between the apostles and Augustine do not seem to have grasped what Paul was really getting at. … Marcion has been called the only one of these writers who understood Paul.” ³⁰

Marcion, incidentally, was a second-century gnostic Christian who distinguished between the gods of the Old and New Testament. He felt that the Old Testament deity was a lesser deity than the God of the New Testament and rejected the Old Testament entirely, as well as any New Testament writing “tainted” with Old Testament ideas. Marcion produced a canon of scripture that recognized no Apostle of Jesus except Paul. He considered the other Apostles falsifiers of God.

By contrast, in the fourth century, one prominent Christian bishop was teaching the necessity of rituals. “If any man receive not Baptism,” wrote Cyril of Jerusalem, “he hath not salvation.” He also wrote about an ordinance of anointing, which he called “chrism”: “Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians. … For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had no proper claim to that title.” ³¹

The Eastern Orthodox churches also do not accept solafidianism, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. “Eastern Orthodox Christians emphasize a unity of faith and works. For the Orthodox, being conformed to the image of Christ … includes a response of our faith and works.” ³² Sensing the danger that a “grace alone” position could become “cheap grace” (to borrow an expression from the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer) or “a theologically thin, no-sweat Christianity,” some modern Protestant writers have adopted a similar position, recognizing that works also play a vital role in salvation. ³³

With so many other past and present Christians rejecting the position that grace alone brings salvation, excluding the Latter-day Saints from “Christianity” for their belief in faith and works is not justified.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints easily meet the definition of a Christian as implicitly defined in the New Testament: they believe that ancient prophets foretold Christ’s coming, that Jesus Christ suffered for our transgressions, that he was put to death but rose from the dead, that through him we may obtain forgiveness of our sins, and that he will come again in glory.

The doctrinal reasons some Christians give for excluding the Latter-day Saints from Christianity make little sense, because many of the doctrines used by traditional Christianity are late developments, reflective of creeds formulated in the fourth and fifth century or developed during the Reformation.

The Fulness of the Gospel: The Fall of Adam and Eve

A series examining doctrines unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Most Christian churches teach that the Fall was a tragedy, that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit, they and all their posterity could now be living in immortal bliss in the Garden of Eden. But truth revealed to latter-day prophets teaches that the Fall was not a tragedy—without it Adam and Eve would have had no posterity. Thus, the Fall was a necessary step in Heavenly Father’s plan to bring about the eternal happiness of His children.

No Death, No Posterity, No Progress

“If Adam had not transgressed,” Lehi taught his son Jacob, “he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. …

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:22–25).

After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and Eve expressed gladness at the opportunity their transgression made possible: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11).

Partaking of the fruit brought mortality, with its many opportunities to choose between good and evil, and enabled Adam and Eve to have children. Thus the Fall opened the door for Heavenly Father’s children to come into the world, obtain physical bodies, and participate in “the great plan of happiness” (Alma 42:8). “Therefore this life became a probationary state,” a time to learn and grow, to repent and overcome weakness, “a time to prepare to meet God” (Alma 12:24).

Transgression, Not Sin

President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972) said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” ¹

Regarding this distinction, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed: “This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.” ²

Even though Adam and Eve had not sinned, because of their transgression they had to face certain consequences, two of which were spiritual death and physical death. Physical death came to Adam and Eve at the end of their earthly lives, but spiritual death occurred as they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cut off from the presence of God (see Alma 42:9).

Original Sin

The result of our first parents’ transgression, explained President Smith, “was banishment from the presence of God and bringing … physical death into the world. The majority … [of Christians] maintain that every child born into this world is tainted with ‘original sin,’ or partakes of Adam’s transgression in his birth. The second Article of Faith contradicts this foolish and erroneous doctrine.” ³ All descendants of Adam and Eve inherit certain effects from the Fall, but because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ we are held accountable only for our own sins. Children who die before the age of accountability are “alive in Christ” (Moro. 8:12) and have no need of repentance or baptism (see Moro. 8:8–11).

Commandments in the Garden

The Lord gave Adam and Eve commandments in the Garden of Eden, two of which were to multiply and replenish the earth (see Gen. 1:28) and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see Gen. 2:17). These two commandments were designed to place Adam and Eve in a position where they had to make a choice. President Smith taught: “The Lord said to Adam that if he wished to remain as he was in the garden, then he was not to eat the fruit, but if he desired to eat it and partake of death he was at liberty to do so.” ⁴ Faced with this dilemma, Adam and Eve chose death—both physical and spiritual—which opened the door for themselves and their posterity to gain knowledge and experience and to participate in the Father’s plan of happiness leading to eternal life.

Notes

1.        Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 1:114–15.

  2. “The Great Plan of Happiness,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 72.

  3. Answers to Gospel Questions, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. (1957–66), 1:82.

1.      Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:81.

The Salvation of Little Children

By Bruce R. McConkie

Of the Council of the Twelve

Nowhere does the Easter message of resurrection ring so triumphant.

Among all the glorious gospel verities given of God to his people there is scarcely a doctrine so sweet, so soul satisfying, and so soul sanctifying, as the one which proclaims—Little children shall be saved. They are alive in Christ and shall have eternal life. For them the family unit will continue, and the fulness of exaltation is theirs. No blessing shall be withheld. They shall rise in immortal glory, grow to full maturity, and live forever in the highest heaven of the celestial kingdom—all through the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah, all because of the atoning sacrifice of Him who died that we might live.

One of the great benefits of the recent addition to the Pearl of Great Price of Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom is the opportunity it affords to study anew the doctrine relative to the salvation of children. There are many valid questions which confront us in this field which are deserving of sound scriptural answers.

Two scenes showing the infinite love, tenderness, and compassion of the Lord Jesus set the stage for our consideration of the various matters involved in the salvation of children.

The first scene is set in “the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.” Great multitudes are before him; the Pharisees are querulous, seeking to entrap; he has just preached about marriage and divorce and the family unit. “Then were there brought unto him little children,” Matthew records, “that he should put his hands on them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them, saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved.

“But Jesus said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

“And he laid hands on them, and departed thence.” (JST, Matt. 19:13–15; italics added.)

The second scene is portrayed on the American continent. That same Jesus, the Compassionate One, risen and glorified, is ministering among his Nephite kinsmen. He has just prayed as none other had ever done before. “No tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak,” the Nephite historian records. (3 Ne. 17:17.)

Then Jesus wept, and said: “Behold your little ones. …

“And they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.” (3 Ne. 17:23–24.)

Jesus loves and blesses children. They are the companions of angels. They shall be saved. Of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Now let us record brief answers to the more commonly asked questions about the salvation of children.

What is a child and who are children?

A child is an adult spirit in a newly born body, a body capable of growing and maturing according to the providences of Him whose spirit children we all are. Children are the sons and daughters of God. They lived and dwelt with him for ages and eons before their mortal birth. They are adults before birth; they are adults at death. Christ himself, the Firstborn of the Father, rose to a state of glory and exaltation before he was ever born in the flesh.

What is mortal birth?

It is the process by which mature, sentient, intelligent beings pass from preexistence into a mortal sphere. It is the process by which we bring from premortality to mortality the traits and talents acquired and developed in our long years of spirit existence. It is the process by which a mortal body is created from the dust of the earth to house an eternal spirit offspring of the Father of us all. Mortality is fully upon us when we first breathe the breath of life.

Why are we born upon this earth?

We come here to gain bodies, bodies of flesh and blood, bodies which—following the natural death—we will receive back again in immortality. Those of us who arrive at the years of accountability are here to develop and to be tried and tested, to see if we can so live as to regain the state of innocence and purity which we enjoyed as children, and thereby be qualified to go where God and Christ are.

What is original sin?

This is the false doctrine that the sin of Adam passes upon all men and that, therefore, all men—infants included—must be baptized to be saved. It is, however, a fundamental principle of true religion “that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” (A of F 1:2)

Are children tainted with original sin?

Absolutely not. There is no such thing as original sin as such is defined in the creeds of Christendom. Such a concept denies the efficacy of the atonement. Our revelation says: “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning”—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—“and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God” (D&C 93:38)—meaning that all children start out their mortal probation in purity and innocence because of the atonement. Our revelations also say, “The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.” (Moses 6:54.)

Are children conceived in sin?

Since there is no such thing as original sin, as that expression is used in modern Christendom, it follows that children are not conceived in sin. They do not come into the world with any taint of impurity whatever. When our scriptures say that “children are conceived in sin,” they are using words in an entirely different way than when the same language is recited in the creeds of the world. The scriptural meaning is that they are born into a world of sin so that “when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.” (Moses 6:55.)

What about infant baptism?

Few false doctrines have ever deserved and received such a vigorous and forceful denunciation as that heaped upon infant baptism by the prophet Mormon. When that inspired author inquired of the Lord concerning the baptism of little children, he was told: “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; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them.”

Thereupon Mormon, speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, taught that “it is solemn mockery” to baptize little children; that they “are alive in Christ from the foundation of the world”; that it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of Christ to them; that such a belief sets at naught the power of Christ’s redemption; that those who believe such a false concept are “in the bonds of iniquity” and if cut off while in the thought shall be thrust down to hell; and that those who humble themselves and repent and are baptized shall “be saved with their little children.” (Moro. 8:8–25.)

Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom?

To this question the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10)

It is sometimes asked if this applies to children of all races, and of course the answer is that when the revelation says all children it means all children. There is no restriction as to race, kindred, or tongue. Little children are little children and they are all alive in Christ, and all are saved by him, through and because of the atonement.

Speaking of the Prophet’s statement that all children are saved in the celestial kingdom, President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “This would mean the children of every race. All the spirits that come to this world come from the presence of God and, therefore, must have been in his kingdom. … Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and all who rebelled were cast out; therefore, all who remained are entitled to the blessings of the gospel.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:55.)

How and why are they saved?

They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)

The following is from a non LDS site Bible.org

What are the historical origins of infant baptism?

The issue of baptism is one that has troubled Protestants for centuries. As we look into the history of the church the issue of infant baptism has not been the problem it has been in recent centuries. As the church was in an evangelistic mode in the first three centuries we find clear statements of the fact of adult baptism upon conversion. There was also the concept that baptism washed away all pre-baptismal sins. Hence there arose the practice of postponing baptism until one’s deathbed in order not to commit post-baptismal sins which would have to be dealt with through penance.

As the church conquered the pagan world we see infant baptism as arising as a universal practice. In part this appears to be based upon the fact that even in the ancient church there was the concept that baptism was the initiation rite into the community of faith, and infants are born into that community so are baptized. A second factor appears to have been the rise of the understanding of original sin and the belief that baptism washed away the stain of original sin. Third, the ordinances very early were understood as actually conveying grace and accomplishing something spiritually. As early as A.D. 400 Augustine appeals to the universal practice of infant baptism as proof that the church saw infants born with the stain of original sin. We find explicit mention of infant baptism as early as Tertullian around A.D. 220. Tertullian mentions the practice in conjunction with sponsors who would aid in the child’s spiritual training. I would assume that this is the origin of the practice of godparents.

Here is another non LDS Site

www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage

Original Sin and a Misapplied Passage

BY WAYNE JACKSON

The doctrine of original sin—the notion that one is born into this world hereditarily totally depraved—is widely believed in the religious world.

For example, the Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530), Lutheranism’s creed, asserted:

[A]ll men, born according to nature, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without confidence towards God and with concupiscence, and that this original disease or flaw is truly a sin, bringing condemnation and also eternal death to those who are not reborn through baptism and the Holy Spirit (Article II).

This, of course, explains the practice of infant baptism as advocated by numerous sects.

Likely, the passage that is commonly appealed to in an attempt to justify the concept of original sin is Psalm 51:5.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

Does this verse provide a basis for the doctrine of original sin? Assuredly, it does not. But let us carefully study the matter.

Preliminary Principles

First of all, it needs to be initially recognized that this passage is Hebrew poetry. And Hebrew poetry abounds with bold and imaginative figures of speech; it is frequently characterized by a freedom which departs from customary forms of expression. It is, therefore, a mistake of great magnitude to extract statements from poetical literature and thus employ them as a foundation for doctrinal schemes.

This is precisely the error of the materialists (Watchtower Witnesses, Armstrongites, etc.) who dip into Old Testament poetical books, like Psalms and Job, for their doctrines of soul-sleeping and the annihilation of the wicked.

Secondly, one of the primary rules of Biblical interpretation suggests: “The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another” (Dungan n.d., 196).

There are numerous Bible verses, in plain, literal language, that affirm the innocency of infants, and Psalm 51:5 must not be arrayed against these. Consider the following:

(1) Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Ezekiel 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Romans 14:12).

(2) Human sinfulness commences in that period of one’s life that is characterized as youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25).

(3) A child must reach a certain level of maturity before he is able to choose between evil and good (Isaiah 7:15, 16).

(4) The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:3; 19:14) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20). Surely the Lord was not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

(5) The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes.

Clearly, babies are not born in sin.

Psalm 51:5 Analyzed

Having shown what Psalm 51: 5 cannot mean, we now turn to some possible views of the passage that do not violate portions of Scripture found elsewhere.

(1) Since Psalm 51 is one of David’s penitent psalms revealing the anguish resulting from his adulterous conduct with Bathsheba, some have felt that verse five contains words that are figuratively put into the mouth of the child conceived by that illicit union (2 Samuel 11:5), thus acknowledging the sinfulness of that relationship. The sinfulness is therefore attributed to the parent and not the child.

T. W. Brents commented:

Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).

(2) Others have suggested that David alludes to an incident in his ancestral lineage, an adulterous affair (Genesis 38), whereby he was considered ceremonially defiled because he was of the tenth generation of that unlawful intercourse (Deuteronomy 23:2). This is probably a rather remote possibility.

(3) Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We all are conceived in and brought forth into a sinful world. But we do not actually sin until we arrive at a stage of spiritual responsibility.

Perhaps David also, by the use of dramatic language, alludes to the fact that sin had characterized his whole life, relatively speaking.

In a similarly poetic section, for example, Job, in denying that he had neglected his benevolent responsibilities, affirmed that he had cared for the orphan and the widow from his mother’s womb! Surely, no one believes that on day one of Job’s existence that he was out ministering to the needy! In fact, the Hebrew parallelism of this verse (Job 31:18), clearly indicates that the word “womb” is used in the sense of youth.

A Concluding Problem

Those who employ Psalm 51:5 to buttress the doctrine that sin is inherited from one’s mother are faced with a serious problem. Jesus was both conceived by and brought forth from a human mother (Luke 1:31). If original sin is inherited from one’s mother, Christ had it. If, however, someone should suggest that depravity is received only from the father, Psalm 51:5 cannot be used to prove it, for it mentions only the mother!

The truth of the matter is, the doctrine of original sin is not Biblical. It had its origin in the writings of the so-called “church fathers” in the post-apostolic era. Such men as Tertullian (160-220) and Cyprian (200-258) first formulated the doctrine and it was later popularized by Augustine and John Calvin.

Those who accept the plain testimony of the sacred Scriptures will reject this error.

Here is another non LDS Site you could check out.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/OS100bibleverses.htm

The booklet has copyright so I won't cut and paste, but I did print the title below.

"Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show that Babies are Born Innocent and Without Sin"-

Then this past week I sent him this:

Evangelical Friend,

You have been on my mind a lot lately. This morning when I was taking a shower after our morning walk, I got the distinct impression that the Lord wants you in his Church. 

If the spirit is talking to me that strongly, I know he has to be talking to you as well. I have the distinct feeling the Lord still has a work for you to do before you complete your "final years of this sojourn on earth". When I stand before the judgement bar of Christ, I do not want to be guilty of not telling you that I know that Jesus Christ lives, that he died for me and you, that he is my Savior and your Savior and that I love him, and that he has restored his Church on the earth in our time through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I know that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ and you will get closer to Christ by reading it than by any other book. I know that Christ has called a prophet in our day to assist in leading and guiding his Church.  I know that I am being fairly bold, but I feel like the spirit is directing me to do this. 

I believe our prior discussions have been for a purpose, because when you join the Church you will likely be hit with all the same questions from family and others and you will need to respond. We live in a time when many of the prophecies are being fulfilled and each of us, as we learn the truth must then do our part to share the message of the restored Gospel. The Lord is truly hastening his work in our day. I can see it almost on a daily basis.

If you do not already know the truth of these things, I would ask you to pray for a further witness.

We view you as a close special friend.

We look forward to meeting with you this week, if Thursday works for you, let's plan on 7:00. I will call you to confirm.

Elder Anderson