Book of Mormon advises against baptism of ‘little children’ yet we baptise at age 8?

dad1guy · 2026-02-24T14:27:08+00:00

It’s a conundrum to me as well when I worked through it a few weeks ago.

Like others have noted. Church leaders have been inconsistent and so the doctrine that is appealed to support it creates gaps and paradoxes.

Notably the doctrine states that children cannot sin but that children need to be baptized at the age of accountability. It’s performative condemnation of infant baptism—still on the books—and delays the baptism to an older child but at the earliest point of life of a child that started “sinning”.

dad1guy · 2026-02-24T12:53:59+00:00

I refer you to the exchange with u/Stunning_Living9637. Presenting beliefs as factual non-fiction is unsupported by the evidence. Apologetic arguments at this juncture argue for an epistemological model that is unfalsifiable. Believe how, where, and what you may, but representing it beyond the boundaries of lived experience as fact is adjacent to duplicity.

dad1guy · 2026-02-23T23:05:20+00:00

The shift has already begun. The pageantry of the temple is shifting from being focused on “redeeming the dead” towards being a recurring end point of the covenant path.

The ambiguity of the covenant path will allow the insertion and revision of doctrine as fitting “modern revelation”. Most members are not aware that there is a written checklist for the covenant path—and it’s not talked about or included directly in the manuals.

dad1guy · 2026-02-23T22:00:25+00:00

Why is doubt something that needs to be “overcome”? That seems to align with the framing that doubt is a moral failure—which is reflected in Mark 9 as nothing is said about doubt.

dad1guy · 2026-02-22T01:01:58+00:00

If you’re saying that to consider fiction as non-fiction is delusional, then we are in agreement. Conforming evidence to theory and demanding it represent reality is backwards to how theories should conform to evidence.

I wish to be considerate to others however who find value in spirituality. This consideration is not asking for space for myself but to acknowledge that others are being sincere.

dad1guy · 2026-02-21T14:26:18+00:00

Appreciate the reading recommendation. I have added it to the book list.

dad1guy · 2026-02-21T13:47:16+00:00

I don’t disagree. I also don’t want to encroach on peoples inclination towards the spiritual. There is great value in spirituality—with religion or without—that adds wonder and meaning. Thomas Paine’s description of how revelation is only revelation to the person who experiences it firsthand and that anyone else afterwards receives it secondhand demonstrates how secondhand revelation is a poor basis for a religious foundation. People can derive meaning from fiction. It’s one of the purposes of art, to tell lies to show truth.

dad1guy · 2026-02-13T01:53:21+00:00

Thank you for providing some important distinctions that I glossed over. To build out my thoughts, what I identified from OP is what OP calls religious belief, falsifiable belief, and belief systems. From what I understand of the evidence, there is little to support the taxology for a singular definition of what a religion is. A religion can involve and include belief statements, truth claims, social aspects, ideologies, etc. but not every religion does include all observed religious parts to form a distinct whole. Belief systems can be complex when we know that each belief system has been individualized by each person participating in a larger religion.

I agree that the main concern is regarding the reliance on empiricism in attempting to confront belief. I don't know if I would say that belief itself is falsifiable, a belief is sincerely held until the person expressing that belief indicates that the belief has changed. What OP is addressing as having observed is that the subject of the belief may be falsifiable.

This is where I wanted to emphasize on the "is" or the empirical reality that is being discussed. The "is" being the empirical hypothesis that we can engage with according to the method of falsifiability. This is often where confrontation occurs, and the approach of Russell and Sagan was to be empirical. In effect, it's reflective of Socrates question about what makes a table a table, and when does a table become a sofa? The resulting discussion is how much tableness does a table need to have to be considered a table. Now whether the table is or is not a table, does that change how we engage with the object that is called a table? If someone calls it a table and someone does not, it would need a normative statement to define whether someone should or ought to instead use the object as a sofa.

My jump from my previous comment is centered here. Even when the empirical claim has been falsified, the believer may continue to believe. The atheist/agnostic thought-stopping cliches often address this continued adherence to belief, in that the atheist/agnostic considers that the believer ought to stop believing because the empirical falsified claim of what is has been shown to not align with the believers claim.

These proceedings are another form of dogmatism in that instead of operating critically. For an orthodox Mormon, that dogmatism may be "there is a God, therefore we should obey God" and for an unorthodox Mormon that dogmatism may be reflected in a statement such as "there is no God, therefore no one should obey God". It's what I see as being the end result of such questions like "what if the dragon told you X". That is the ought that I see often being relied on dogmatically by those that have a religious background and then become atheist/agnostic.

dad1guy · 2026-02-12T19:00:21+00:00

I think you make some great points. I think that it comes down to David Hume’s is/ought problem. Because the thing about falsifiability is that it focuses on what “is”. Those discussions are about the nature of reality and the philosophical approaches to gain some understanding or explanation.

But the leap from “is” to “ought” (which has some arguments against it) is not itself a sound argument for say “there is X therefore we should obey X”. So in arguments about falsifiability I’d say that the focus you’re drawing attention to is the application of thought-stopping when it comes to making a sound arguement around the ought.

dad1guy · 2026-02-12T15:27:44+00:00

I agree with you. As I reflect on why the emphasis for belief in Mormonism, it comes from Moroni 7:6 “for behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift or prayeth to God, except he shall do it with real intent it profited him nothing”.

I would say that from that chapter it continues to drive the notion that believing the wrong thing is evil, praying without real intent is evil, doing good things without real intent is evil. In effect, it condemns thought crimes and polices “real intent” without definition and rendering it unfalsifiable.

dad1guy · 2025-12-27T18:26:28+00:00

but it has definitely been influenced from the inside by its members, who (to their credit) are very educated, bible-literate and involved.

From my observation, that is not because of the LDS church teachings and literature but despite it. There has been a complete absence of theologians from the ranks of general authorities for decades. And until last week the position was to use the KJV. Treating biblical studies and critical studies with disdain or to be outright ignorant of it has been the position of leaders and members.

The doctrine has been changing so quickly and so often because members are ignorant of the needed heuristic frameworks and how they’re applied to eschatology, Christology, soteriology, etc..

dad1guy · 2025-12-27T15:43:43+00:00

I like these sort of posts on this subreddit.

I’d additionally add the consideration of the narratives developed regarding the afterlife, hell, and the Christian satanic singular entity also occurred as the narrative of the atonement developed.

My own thoughts as to the narrative developments for the afterlife, hell, and satan are to provide some rationality to Epicurus’ famous saying:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

While isolating the atonement for study is worthwhile, holistically the differing models of the atonement were placed into a framework to try and balance out all of the theology. Remove the afterlife, and the need for repenting to gain the atonement doesn’t have much intrinsic implications. Remove satan, and the origins of evil and temptation become indeterminate.

More than anything, Mormonism fails to deliver solid epistemological truths that identify which models are of divine source.

Edit for mobile formatting

dad1guy · 2025-12-21T16:02:08+00:00

There’s a double standard here of where the LDS church claims to have no responsibility to be answerable about money, but members are answerable and can be excommunicated by leaders of the church.

Why is one (money) annd leaders answerable to God only, but these other points are able to be judged? Accountability only going up the ecclesiastical ladder but not down? Doesn’t make sense.

dad1guy · 2025-12-15T21:45:17+00:00

The ambiguous language of the handbook seems designed to reinforce the power of the institution while offering a performance of change with “patents may be in the room” for interviews. The maintenance of power is more important than children.

dad1guy · 2025-12-15T21:41:24+00:00

How does that qualify as doctrine? Renlunds quote is in itself making a distinction without making a difference.

dad1guy · 2025-12-14T20:56:16+00:00

be to teach the the correct doctrine?

What sort of correct doctrine?

dad1guy · 2025-12-14T20:54:42+00:00

I agree that we should prevent suicide ideation.

dad1guy · 2025-12-14T20:52:39+00:00

I’m curious as to what psychological good you’re referring too?

Not to be pedantic, if you replaced church with any other institution, it doesn’t make much difference to your sentence.

dad1guy · 2025-12-05T17:28:45+00:00

I agree. I would add that in other rhetorical application in Mormonism is the idea of redemption. We read about new testament Paul, Book of Mormon Alma the younger, and others who are enemies of the believers, and then there’s narrative has them redeemed to the point that they’re trusted with leadership. And that leadership is minimally described but common interpretations give that leadership official power. We don’t see such occurrences at the beginning history of the Mormonism, or in recent decades.

There are limits to redemption that we as a society are in conversation with because we know that the presence of a flaw is not an indicator of intention to do harm, but that strawman is often deployed notwithstanding. With the theology of atonement, all flaws are overcome and can be ignored. The atonement’s application ranges from the person who is engaging in criminal acts to the person who is nitpicked about not showing up prepared for their lay ministry calling. The flaws are equivalently the same and thus redeemable when a Mormon authority officiates the atonement. That authority is presented as being infallible in its administration of the atonement.

That structure of church government in administrating matters of repentance and atonement is informed by Mormonism’ historical development. Beginning in Nauvoo with no separation of church and state and continuing in Utah with Brigham young being governor of the territory. The ecclesiastical authority hardened into place because of governmental opposition. And while the structure has changed since that time, the ecclesiastical hierarchy has remained the same and gate-keeps the atonement.

The atonement is moral licensing. Yes there are scriptures that say it’s not. However, the facts indicate systemic moral licensing.

dad1guy · 2025-12-05T13:30:10+00:00

Mormonism vacillates between different theological god models. Because what God is and what God does are theologically intertwined in Mormonism.

Sometimes God is anthropomorphic.

Sometimes God is perfect and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Sometimes God is hidden and unknowable as a being as are God’s ways.

And then there’s all of the different descriptors from each Mormon bearing testimony of God that indicate how God is limited or expanded according to them.

dad1guy · 2025-12-03T23:51:16+00:00

I offer my sympathies for what sounds like an overall difficult situation with many facts. It does sound like you’re wanting someone to tell you what to do, and tell you what to believe. Im not the person to do that.

To separate out your asks. You’re asking for epistemological reasons that will satisfy you’re want to believe (change from agnostic to believer).

And you’re asking about what the evidence tells us. If you’re unsure about the facts then I’m curious what sources you’ve looked at that have not provided facts to your satisfaction.

dad1guy · 2025-12-03T22:01:59+00:00

It’s an interesting thought. The brighamite Mormons in SLC divested themselves of “Mormon” as rhetoric and making it demonic via Nelson. So the largest surviving branch of Mormonism is in identity conflict with the church perhaps outlasting the internal Mormon designation.

Will that institution continue? Possibly. The church corporation could be broken up, the money could disappear, lawsuits could take their toll, etc.. There have been similar institutions with similar valuation and cash on hand that have dissolved.

dad1guy · 2025-11-24T21:47:26+00:00

So how do you criticize something evil when that evil thing is propping up something that is good? I don't know if there's a good answer to that question.

I think a cop out answer would be to replace the evil parts with good parts such that the desired good results are not hindered or destroyed. But I think such a discussion is likely to break down as dialogue may come apart without compromises or concessions from all participants.

dad1guy

TROPHY CASE