Permission to baptize?

[dedge]

I didn't know where to post this question, so if there is better place for it please feel free to move it there.

About two weeks ago a friend of mine who is recently seperated from his wife (about 2 months) was called by his Bishop asking him if he would give permission to let his two children be baptized, 8 and 10 years old. He said no, not at this time, I really want to talk to my kids about this and see if it is something they want to do. He is seperated from his wife and she has issued a No contact order/restraing order against him, so he hasn't had the opportunity to talk to his kids about this. They haven't been going to church in the past and this is a new thing that thier mother just came up with over the last few weeks. The Bishop told him that his kids wouldn't be baptized without his permission, that the church couldn't baptize kids without permission of the parents.

He just found out that they were just baptized a few days ago. No one told him of this, and he found out by calling the Bishop to ask him a question, then the Bishop told him his kids are already baptized. When he asked the Bishop, why he lied to him the Bishop told him that they changed there minds and decided to baptize this kids anyway in secret. Not a single person on the kids father side of the family was made aware of this baptism, not the uncles, aunts grandparents, friends no one.

So my question is does anyone else think this is right?

It makes me sick, I've been a member of this church for my entire 37 years of life and I've never seen anything so wrong ever. My friend is livid, as a new hatred for the church because of this and is now tring to figure out how to take legal action if at all possible againt the church the missionarys and his Bishop. The first thing he did his ask to have his name removed from the church, yes he is a member (or used to be). The part that makes me sick is that I don't understand why anyone would want to rob a child of having her own father be present for her baptizim. And why would the church want to rob a father of seeing his children being baptized? He never was against them going to church or even getting baptized, he just wanted to be able to be there when they got babtized, but that was taken from him and his kids. And the church gained one more person that hates it, I actually don't really blame him for his hattred towards the church for this. I wonder how I would feel if someone was to do this to my children.

I think the church should need the permission of both parents to baptize children. What do you think?

[pam]

About two weeks ago a friend of mine who is recently seperated from his wife (about 2 months) was called by his Bishop asking him if he would give permission to let his two children be baptized, 8 and 10 years old. He said no, not at this time, I really want to talk to my kids about this and see if it is something they want to do.

Okay I'm a little confused. You say this is a friend..but then you say you want to talk to your kids about this to see if it's something they want to do. If this is a friend..why would you want to talk to YOUR kids about it?

[dedge]

Uhm, I guess I should have use quotes or something

"He said no, not at this time, I really want to talk to my kids about this and see if it is something they want to do."

I was talking about what he told the bishop...

[pam]

Okay gotcha..I was just confused for a moment. Thanks for clarifying. Those that know me well...know I'm easily confused. lol

[Dravin]

I think the church should need the permission of both parents to baptize children. What do you think?

My understanding is that permission from parents or legal guardians is required. Does the Father have parental rights? If not I could see it not being required, but the situation (as you describe it) seems off.

[pam]

Do they have joint custody? I know that when I divorced I got full custody meaning I didn't have to have his permission for any decisions made concerning the children.

[dedge]

I'm not 100% on the custody, everything is very new, they have been seperated for two months and the kids live with their mother. I don't think custody arrangements have been made yet, divorce papers haven't even been filed, they are seperated and my friend has been hopeing for some miracle to happen so they could work thing out. This is a case in which the church is actually helping a family split apart, not come togther. I still can't believe the Bishop flat out lied to him that way...

[john doe]

Wow, leaving the church over the actions of a couple of people in it seems a bit much to me. I'm guessing there's more to this story than what is being told, either to you or by you.

[Dravin]

I'm not 100% on the custody, everything is very new, they have been seperated for two months and the kids live with their mother. I don't think custody arrangements have been made yet, divorce papers haven't even been filed, they are seperated and my friend has been hopeing for some miracle to happen so they could work thing out. This is a case in which the church is actually helping a family split apart, not come togther. I still can't believe the Bishop flat out lied to him that way...

Keep in mind your friend's account is coming through his own filter. Not that no member of the church has ever acted inappropriately (if that is what this is) in a leadership position but I could see somebody turning something like...

Bishop: "We baptized them already, your wife informed us you don't have custody/gave permission and insisted."

... come out like you share. Heck, if the wife lied about the Father's permission (or forged it) I could see the Bishop being a little surprised and not given a chance to clarify. Don't know if it happened that way, but you yourself describe him as very angry, it is easy to distort things through that lens.

P.S. I don't want you to think I'm saying your friend must be incorrect, just saying it is a possibility alongside the Bishop behaving as described. There are three sides to every story, my side, his side and the truth. :)

Edited November 24, 2009 by Dravin

[dedge]

john doe, yes, there's always more to a story, I couldn't begin to put it all down here on this forum, but I got the basics down here so people would understand my questions. My friend isn't leaving the church because of this, he hasn't been active for a very long time. But, this sure didn't help bring him closer to church. Is it right that he be excluded from being at his own childrens baptisim, even if he's not active in the church?

[dedge]

Dravin, I understand your point on this, and I am taking that into account. I believe the Bishop was lied to by the kids Mother on this issue, but that being said, it doesn't aleiviate the responsibility of a bishop to tell the truth, he told my friend that his kids wouldn't be baptized without permission. This whole thing makes me sick.

Bottom line is I was wondering if the church needs permission to baptize kids?

Edited November 24, 2009 by dedge
Typo

[pam]

I'm not 100% on the custody, everything is very new, they have been seperated for two months and the kids live with their mother. I don't think custody arrangements have been made yet, divorce papers haven't even been filed, they are seperated and my friend has been hopeing for some miracle to happen so they could work thing out. This is a case in which the church is actually helping a family split apart, not come togther. I still can't believe the Bishop flat out lied to him that way...

I know you say this guy is your friend...but even friends tell untruths to gain sympathy. I wonder if this Bishop has not been told the entire truth. Again..your friend is saying the Bishop lied to him. I have to agree that we and you are only hearing one side of the story.

Sorry I'm repeating some of the things you have said. People are posting as fast as I'm trying to type this.

Edited November 24, 2009 by pam

[Dravin]

Bottom line is I was wondering if the church needs permission to baptize kids?

As a general rule yes. I don't know what particulars outside of some obvious ones (such as adoption) that modify that.

Feeling lied to is understandable, but we can feel lied to without having been lied to (I promise to pick you up and somebody tells me they'll do it and they don't for instance). I understand why you trust your friend in this matter, you are his friend after all, we however have no real clue what happened or what kind of people are involved.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Dravin
Belaboring the point

[OneEternalSonata]

Dravin, I understand your point on this, and I am taking that into account. I believe the Bishop was lied to by the kids Mother on this issue, but that being said, it doesn't aleiviate the responsibility of a bishop to tell the truth, he told my friend that his kids wouldn't be baptized without permission. This whole thing makes me sick.

Bottom line is I was wondering if the church needs permission to baptize kids?

Yes, as I've been led to understand permission is required from the party or parties who have custody.

[rockwoodchev]

Nothing surprises me anymore about actions like this taking place. It demonstrates over and over that the church is more important than family, while at the same touting how important family is.

[john doe]

Yes, as a general rule the church needs parental or guardian permission to baptize children. Although, if the wife has sole custody, she may be the only person needed to give permission. Also, if the wife has a 'no contact' restraining order he wouldn't be able to attend the baptism anyway as he wouldn't be able to be in the same room as her.

[Moksha]

Is it right that he be excluded from being at his own childrens baptisim, even if he's not active in the church?

The policy set forth by the Bishop the first time is there no doubt for a good reason. Subverting that policy makes all other questions resulting from that moot. Proceeding with the baptism itself was wrong and could cause heartache for the Church.

[FunkyTown]

john doe, yes, there's always more to a story, I couldn't begin to put it all down here on this forum, but I got the basics down here so people would understand my questions. My friend isn't leaving the church because of this, he hasn't been active for a very long time. But, this sure didn't help bring him closer to church. Is it right that he be excluded from being at his own childrens baptisim, even if he's not active in the church?

That is a big 'Depends'. For several reasons:

1) Was he accused of being violent? Given his raging anger over this, I wouldn't be surprised if he was accused of being violent. In a case where the safety of the wife or children was at stake, yes: It would be perfectly acceptable not to invite him to the baptism.(Note: I am not saying, 'Is he violent?' but rather 'Was he accused of being violent?')

2) Did the wife have complete custody? If so, then the answer is 'It's up to the wife. If she insists, then the Bishop has no recourse to ask that your friend show up.'

3) Did the wife say she had permission? If so, the Bishop would most likely have gone forward with the baptism.

My instinct is to side with the bishop on this one. He might have made a mistake, sure, but the reaction of the Father certainly doesn't sound good. May I ask why he said he didn't want them to be baptized in the first place?

[Hemidakota]

I didn't know where to post this question, so if there is better place for it please feel free to move it there.

About two weeks ago a friend of mine who is recently seperated from his wife (about 2 months) was called by his Bishop asking him if he would give permission to let his two children be baptized, 8 and 10 years old. He said no, not at this time, I really want to talk to my kids about this and see if it is something they want to do. He is seperated from his wife and she has issued a No contact order/restraing order against him, so he hasn't had the opportunity to talk to his kids about this. They haven't been going to church in the past and this is a new thing that thier mother just came up with over the last few weeks. The Bishop told him that his kids wouldn't be baptized without his permission, that the church couldn't baptize kids without permission of the parents.

He just found out that they were just baptized a few days ago. No one told him of this, and he found out by calling the Bishop to ask him a question, then the Bishop told him his kids are already baptized. When he asked the Bishop, why he lied to him the Bishop told him that they changed there minds and decided to baptize this kids anyway in secret. Not a single person on the kids father side of the family was made aware of this baptism, not the uncles, aunts grandparents, friends no one.

So my question is does anyone else think this is right?

It makes me sick, I've been a member of this church for my entire 37 years of life and I've never seen anything so wrong ever. My friend is livid, as a new hatred for the church because of this and is now tring to figure out how to take legal action if at all possible againt the church the missionarys and his Bishop. The first thing he did his ask to have his name removed from the church, yes he is a member (or used to be). The part that makes me sick is that I don't understand why anyone would want to rob a child of having her own father be present for her baptizim. And why would the church want to rob a father of seeing his children being baptized? He never was against them going to church or even getting baptized, he just wanted to be able to be there when they got babtized, but that was taken from him and his kids. And the church gained one more person that hates it, I actually don't really blame him for his hattred towards the church for this. I wonder how I would feel if someone was to do this to my children.

I think the church should need the permission of both parents to baptize children. What do you think?

If the Bishop asked the father and the father gave no permission, these baptized are voided. It requires the permission of the parent if the children are less than 18-years old. The father can ask for the original paperwork from the ward and have them remove from the roles of the church.

Yet, this is not uncommon when a Bishop does not pay heed to the parents. When I was away, the Bishop of my older ward decided to give the priesthood to my younger son. When I return home and found what was done, I told the Bishopric, this ordination is null and voided. Without my permission, they do not have the right to convey the priesthood office unto my son. Later, I ordained my own son to the priesthood.

[ADoyle90815]

I think that with the restraining order, he couldn't have attended the baptism even if he said "yes" because it would be a violation for him to be there. With a restraining/no contact order, it often means that the person who has that order against them has to find a different church building to attend. Someone in the LDS church would simply have to move because switching isn't as easy as it is in other churches.

[ryanh]

So my question is does anyone else think this is right?

Right? Perhaps not. Is it really so 'bad' that the kids were baptized?

What makes me sick is not that two kids baptized w/o their fathers explicit permission, but what the father did to put himself into that position, and the apparent lack of humility (based on what is written) to recognize his own inputs into the problem! Kids getting baptized is never so wrong as giving them a bad example of how to mistreat a spouse.

Being livid, the hatred, and considering legal action is all evidence of the problems that he is causing himself. Evidence that a true friend would gently point out to him IMO.

[dedge]

Ok, I just read the post since last night and I need to clarify some things, my friend isn't as angry as you think he his, and he's not going to waste his time in legal action against the church, I was just stating how he felt about being lied to by a Bishop. I won't comment on every assumption that people have made here on this thread, but I will say that it is very sad that the church is doing the opposite of what they teach. Rather than make the baptism of his children a positive spiritual experience, they decided to do it in secret, thus making it a strong point of contention between all parties, helping the parents to fight about such spiritual things isn't right (IMO). My friend has never been against the church or having his kids attend church, he simply wanted to be able to be there when his kids where baptized, in fact he told the bishop that he would like to baptize them himself, and rather then help him to make the choices necessary to have that happen...

well, I guess if someone is on the fence about their believes in the church and everything, you should just push them off, after all we don't actually need people with problems in this church anyway do we, people that are on the fence just don't belong to the fold, so it's best a Bishop just go ahead and do something to really turn those kind of people away for good...(Yes, I am being sarcastic, it's in my nature)

I guess, I'm upset, not that his kids are baptized but that it has been such a negative thing, I was really hoping to have this be a positive thing for this family.

[ryanh]

he simply wanted to be able to be there when his kids where baptized, in fact he told the bishop that he would like to baptize them himself,

Then you mislead us. You said:

He said no, not at this time, I really want to talk to my kids about this and see if it is something they want to do.

In addition, you used: "hatred for the church", "hatred towards the church", "livid" because it was against his will, etc, but say now he is not that angry.

One that is willing to take the chances of being a fence sitter can’t rightly blame others if they fall from that precarious position. Blame shifting, control, anger - those are the very issues that prevented him from having a happier marriage, or feeling the Spirit well enough to have the necessary testimony. WE are the only ones responsible for our own destiny. Others may have impacts, but those are negligible compared to our own efforts and choices in how we will respond to adversity.

Humility and recognition of the true problems are in order. Its time to look in the mirror and face the truth rather than looking for justification, isn't it dedge?

I was not able to baptize my daughter because of a perfect storm of timing, family trips, gossip and falsehoods, and my own limited attendance at the time. It hurts like the dickens just thinking about it even though it’s been more than 2.5 years. As much as I want to blame someone else, deep down, I know I am the only one that holds ultimate responsibility for the situation. So believe me, I can understand why he would be upset and hurt. But the chosen response so far has been inappropriate and only highlights where the true problem lies.

[john doe]

Was the baptism really done in secret? Did they do it in the middle of the night with no one there but the required witnesses? Or was he just not informed of it happening? As has been stated earlier, if the wife has a restraining/no contact order, he couldn't have attended anyway.