Story Out of Kansas City Vindicates LDS Belief

'Twas a heart-wrenching murder, as a 5-year-old allegedly dragged an 18-month-old into a tub of water, holding the wee youngster's head under until he died. When questioned about the death, the 5-year-old said she just didn't like the infant. He cried too much, she said. She drowned him on purpose, she confessed.

Kansas City, where the ugly story unfolded, should never be so quiet as when it heard of this event. Breathtakingly shocking, The horror has no words.

But, perhaps just as shocking: Authorities were considered prosecuting the 5-year-old on murder charges.

Of course, the outcry is that a 5-year-old couldn't know the consequences. Does a 5-year-old know what death is? "Does she actually understand the meaning of drowning? Or the permanence of death?" asked a Kansas City Star news writer.

(Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/08/2937494/suspect-in-kc-toddlers-drowning.html#ixzz1Opt3smvFwerejoyoussprite)

While outcry across our nation might be, "No, no, no. A child so young could not have known what she was doing," there is a portion of America that might have a little more reason than most to believe that than the rest.

The LDS. It's part of their doctrine.  Children under the age of 8 are not accountable for any wrongs they do. "Little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin," says a book of scripture called, "The Book of Mormon."

Eight being the cut-off age, what think ye of this little comment, made on a online thread:

"I really just can't see a five year old being that methodical and logical about the whole thing. Their thinking just doesn't tend to be that linear at that age. The whole sequence of sneaking around at midnight + crying baby + full tub + holding baby under sufficiently = no more crying forever, just seems beyond the abilities of a child age. A nine year old, an eight year old? Sure. But I just don't see it with a five year old."

A nine-year-old, or an eight-year-old might have the realize what they were doing, you say? The writer picked the exact cut-off date the LDS use. Who knows, though, but what the writer isn't LDS. Still, at any rate, the age of eight is of interest. I don't know whether eight is a solid age when children start knowing the difference between right and wrong, but it is the age the LDS set for being of age to be baptized. An age had to be set, and eight was it. They baptize those who repent, and since little children have nothing to repent of, they don't baptize them.

Now, I am one of these LDS, and when I heard of this story, I quickly thought of the church doctrine. When I heard of the outcry saying a child so young could not know what she was doing, I thought how it all supports a doctrinal belief of which I know of no other church having.