Folks. This is not about – do little children do things that are wrong? Of course they do. They specialize in it. It is not – do little children know between right and wrong? They do to an extent. They know what displeases mortals with whom they have contact. They, however, know nothing about the withdrawal of the Spirit.

“wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them;” (Mor. 8:8)

By nature, little children should also be carnal, sensual, and devilish. (the curse of Adam) But they are not. Why? Because God said so.

“And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old,” (D&C 68:27)

When God says eight years old, that is what He means. Which is to say that between 0 and 7 364/365 years they are not ‘sick’. They are whole. They are not capable of committing sin. To baptize a child during these years is solemn mockery before God. I don’t know, for sure, what that means but it sounds terrible. Understand! A discussion of baptism is a discussion about well defined law.

I’ve thought that was important for about thirty years.

How did Adam’s transgression affect us? By making us be born into a world where we are subject to “natural” impulses – to the animal instincts of our physical bodies. Or how a child of six or younger can have a serious drug or alcohol addiction.

I agree that we can be the source of temptation for another person, but are we the original source? Are we self-generators of temptation? Yes, we have “animal tendencies and instincts,” (i.e. anger, lust, jealousy) but are they truly self-generated?

I’m quoting Joseph Smith from memory (always a risky prospect), but he said in effect that the spirit of man stands independent of the spirit of God and the spirit of the devil. Clearly we can choose to do good in spite of temptation from the devil; it only stands to reason that we can choose to do evil in spite of influence from the Spirit of God. So, yes, we can self-generation our own choices, and we can certainly tempt, influence, and otherwise affect those around us. ..bruce..

So, little kids who do horrible things aren’t tempted, they’re just EEEVIL?

It is good to keep in mind that theologically we are not dualistic. We don’t believe in Ahura Mazda fighting Angra Mainyu. And giving Satan all the credit for inciting all evil is doing just that.

2. Preadolescent sexual behaviors are not *biological* in the common sense of the term. They don’t come from the hormonal cues and responses/cell signaling; the glands themselves aren’t sensitive/functioning as the post-adolescent glands do. I am not an endocrinologist, but I play one on TV. Other commenters have said this more clearly than I could.

or “premature” exposure to sexuality that wouldn’t fit the standard definition of “molestation” but might fit an expansive definition of “abuse”, which is a whole new topic in and of itself.

On the second question, pre-pubescent gender attraction is not sexual in nature. Sexual behaviors for kids (when more than playing doctor) would be a byproduct of sexual molestation. Gender attraction (wanting to be around that gender) is something that is often natural at a young age, but again, doesn’t necessarily indicate sexual preference. For example, a heterosexual man may be more comfortable around either male or female friends. It’s not an indication of sexual preference. “Chasing boys” as you describe is more likely a byproduct of your social environment either in the family or neighborhood.

Just a few thoughts.

A) We are told that we will not be punished for Adam’s transgression, but only for our own sins.

B) I believe if that statement is going to have any real, practical meaning it has to be interpreted in a way that includes the EFFECT of Adam’s transgression on each of us. Otherwise, it’s just theoretical.

C) How did Adam’s transgression affect us? By making us be born into a world where we are subject to “natural” impulses – to the animal instincts of our physical bodies.

D) Some of those instincts are fairly superficial and easily controlled – even changeable; some of them are deeply ingrained and very difficult, if not impossible, to change fully.

E) Every single one of us has some “thorn of the flesh”, like Paul, with which we will grapple until the day we die. That thorn is buried so deeply that it simply won’t come out – no matter how hard we try, since if it finally did, we literally would be perfect in all ways.

F) Therefore, it seems to me that the 2nd Article of Faith says that the Atonement covers all those things that we didn’t choose by simple virtue of our having been born of Adam and Eve into this fallen world. We need to strive to grow and progress and become perfect (complete, whole, fully developed), but the Atonement covers the gap between what we are and what we want to be.

G) Satan’s role, therefore, seems to me to be focused on tempting us to “strengthen” those characteristics we inherited (our “natural [wo]man”) that would keep us from becoming like God and “acquire” new negative ones that aren’t natural for us, while the Holy Ghost is working to weaken our inherited negative characteristics (ideally, to eliminate them) and acquire positive ones that aren’t natural for us – to become more complete, whole and fully developed.

H) That perspective allows for all influences to be active from birth on everyone, including children. The accountability issue, therefore, would be based simply on when the person would be able to understand well enough to work on changing (“repenting”, in the strictest sense of the word). The years up until accountability become a “grace period” where nothing is required of the child; the years after accountability become the time when we are required to engage in active repenting – active change.

I) Finally, this gives me hope for those who are born with ANY inclination that is considered “natural” and is so strong and deeply ingrained that it can’t be separated from who they are – that can’t be eliminated fully in this life. It gives me tremendous hope for any number of people, but especially for those who literally are attracted sexually only to those of the same sex.

And yeah, it’s false to think that temptation only comes from Satan. In the animal kingdom, if a monkey is starving and he sees another monkey with food he just might potentially kill that monkey and eat its food. That doesn’t mean Satan is tempting monkeys. A cat will sit and play with a mouse, bat it around, and eventually kill it to eat it. Torturing another animal? For fun? What’s the deal? That’s not Satan either. It just means that the natural state of this world is to kill or be killed. The natural man is an enemy to God and all that.

When we’re born a battle begins between our physical, natural selves, and our spiritual selves. It only makes sense to me that our natural selves are not too far from that monkey (Darwin alert! Darwin alert!).

Additionally, it’s almost useless attempting to demonstrate that this verse in JST was indeed written down somewhere on a forgotten manuscript…so in a sense, it is only useful to determine how this verse of the Bible interacted with Joseph Smith’s 19th-century mind. As far as I’m concerned, Joseph was receiving this revelation in relationship to the organization of the Church, not as a descriptor for every individual case. There are many 8-year olds who are not accountable. There are probably many 5-year olds who are.

I conclude that we can deem this verse of the JST to be a societal revelation (the Lord gives them all the time–one set of earrings, modesty, etc.), an easy-to-digest rule that allows us to maintain an order of progression into the Church that was never intended to be a sweeping description of men’s souls.

Imo, children still have the traits and personality characteristics they had in the pre-existence, and they bring those with them into mortality. If at age 6 they are deliberately killing and enjoying it, as some serial killers are reported to have with animals, then they are still committing a ‘sin’ even though Satan had no part in tempting then to do it and the atonement covers their needs without any request. But at some level they may know that they are doing wrong just like in the pre-existence some knew that Satan was doing wrong. Remember that in the pre-existence we and Satan still had the ability to do some limited wrong and some right too. Also the age of eight is a generic line in the sand, some take longer to reach the status of accountability since we are all different.

2) I’m really having some trouble here believing that you were attracted to boys at age 4. Actually I don’t believe it because that comes with puberty. And this ‘attraction’ is THE difference between us and pre-existence folk, or between us and children. I just can’t see Satan tempting a 10 year old pre-pubescent child into fornication, that child will just ask: what’s all that about?? Unless there are issues of abuse but thats another matter.

2) See my answer to #1 above. Feelings may be a “temptation” but that doesn’t mean Satan is standing by a kid’s ear. A child’s homosexual feelings may be a result of hormones, etc. that are only indirectly a result of Satan’s tempting. Also, a child may be influenced by their environment, which may be manipulated by Satan’s tempting. Referring to every influence that guides us to do things against God’s will as “temptations” is accurate, but it is also simplistic and not the whole truth.

Most of us are not really capable of sin until many years older than that–it’s transgression, as we don’t really understand the whys and wherefores.

normal heterosexual desires aren’t from God or the adversary. They are from a person. So, in regards to 4 and 5, yes, they are self-generated. Not chosen, and perhaps the entire mechanism hasn’t been figured out, but these emotions come from you.

So, homosexual desires could easily also come from within a person as well.

I agree that we can be the source of temptation for another person, but are we the original source? Are we self-generators of temptation? Yes, we have “animal tendencies and instincts,” (i.e. anger, lust, jealousy) but are they truly self-generated?

To answer your first question a little more directly, a child of such an age can commit horrible acts if s/he is taught how to do so by any number of people/influences (see 1 & 2). As a 7 year old, my sister taught me to say “naughty” words in a different language that what we spoke at home, but I did not understand what I was saying.

Your second question makes a leap in assuming that “such thoughts and feelings are tobe classified as temptations from the adversary…” Again, see 1′s answer. And, take a look at what Dallin H Oaks wrote in March of 1996:

Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and “lifestyle” we engraft upon them.

Also, I tend to believe that little children are capable of all sorts of things, good and bad. However, not being accountable means that the atonement covers them regardless.