Baptizing children with non-Mormon parents

[Maureen]

When the policy came out not allowing children of married gay couples to be blessed or baptized Elder Christofferson explained why:

“It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.”

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

Since RooTheMormon has joined this forum it made me wonder if this type of policy should be extended to very young children of non-Mormon parents. Roo has pointed out that she sees her parents as "heathens" and she mentions that her family's conversations are about "despising mormons for certain things". Roo was baptized at a very young age. I'm often shocked when non-Mormon parents give their permission for a very young child to be baptized into this religion not really knowing how that might affect the relationship between them and their child. The LDS church was concerned with children of gay couples and how the church's influence and parent's influence might be at odds for the child. I'm wondering now if the LDS church should have a policy where children of non-Mormon parents should not be allowed to join until they reached the age of 16 (with the parent's permission of course).

M. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by Maureen

[Vort]

51 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Since RooTheMormon has joined this forum it made me wonder if this type of policy should be extended to very young children of non-Mormon parents. Roo has pointed out that she sees her parents as "heathens" and she mentions that her family's conversations are about "despising mormons for certain things". Roo was baptized at a very young age. I'm often shocked when non-Mormon parents give their permission for a very young child to be baptized into this religion not really knowing how that might affect the relationship between them and their child. The LDS church was concerned with children of gay couples and how the church's influence and parent's influence might be odds for the child. I'm wondering now if the LDS church should have a policy where children of non-Mormon parents should not be allowed to join until they reached the age of 16 (with the parent's permission of course).

It is truly wonderful that this is not your decision, and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Thus, you are free to let it go, seeing as how it's none of your business anyway, and go on merrily with your life, worrying about things that actually pertain to you.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

When the policy came out not allowing children of married gay couples to be blessed or baptized Elder Christofferson explained why:

“It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.”

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

Since RooTheMormon has joined this forum it made me wonder if this type of policy should be extended to very young children of non-Mormon parents. Roo has pointed out that she sees her parents as "heathens" and she mentions that her family's conversations are about "despising mormons for certain things". Roo was baptized at a very young age. I'm often shocked when non-Mormon parents give their permission for a very young child to be baptized into this religion not really knowing how that might affect the relationship between them and their child. The LDS church was concerned with children of gay couples and how the church's influence and parent's influence might be odds for the child. I'm wondering now if the LDS church should have a policy where children of non-Mormon parents should not be allowed to join until they reached the age of 16 (with the parent's permission of course).

M. 

I see your concern, but we have to remember that the Holy Ghost is a real being with real power and it is a great blessing to have one in your life and can often lead to great converting power later in life

In many cases, the child grows up and become less active (at least in my mission)...

...

You know, the more I try to explain this, the more confused I get about the subject.

A couple factors to consider:

- Homosexuality has become a deep "this is how I am" and isn't just a lifestyle choice (according to the secular world).

- Agency is still a MAJOR roll in our lives and according to revelation, 8 years old is when we are accountable for our own decisions.

- It is still a major problem in the church for some fully active families to say things like "im not ganna baptize my son at 8, I'm going to wait for him to be able to make his own decisions". Which is completely wrong and condemnation will fall upon the patent's heads. I feel like extending the policy to all children that do not have LDS parents would be a step in the direction of accepting that corrupt mind set.

- for lack of a better term, indoctrinating a child as early as you can in the ways of the Lord is very important. The sooner you teach correct principles, the sooner they can govern themselves correctly.

[Jane_Doe]

Baptizing just only child in a family is something that is undertaken carefully.  We want the young person to have a good understanding of things, good exposure, solid support system in the church, and fairly supportive system at home.  A least we require parent's give permission for baptism, going to church, and this to not be causing direct major conflict.   Preferably there's more support and even direct participation, but everyone has their own choice.  

Kids of gay parents is a different ball game.  There is automatically a direct conflict: we believe that the child's parents are in an unrepairable sinful relationship- that the best thing they could do would be to split up and repent.  Major direct conflict with God's commandment.  On the other hand, cases like Roo's where disagreements are over tank tops are minor issues. 

[Maureen]

34 minutes ago, Fether said:

...- It is still a major problem in the church for some fully active families to say things like "im not ganna baptize my son at 8, I'm going to wait for him to be able to make his own decisions". Which is completely wrong and condemnation will fall upon the patent's heads. I feel like extending the policy to all children that do not have LDS parents would be a step in the direction of accepting that corrupt mind set.

- for lack of a better term, indoctrinating a child as early as you can in the ways of the Lord is very important. The sooner you teach correct principles, the sooner they can govern themselves correctly.

Do you accept Elder Christofferson's explanation for why children of gay married couples are not allowed to be baptized? Do you see condemnation falling on the LDS church's head for preventing these children from having membership in the church? If the concern is to not put children in a difficult situation between the parents and the church; then why can't that apply to children from non-Mormon families too?

M.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Maureen
Changed wording slightly

[Maureen]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

...On the other hand, cases like Roo's where disagreements are over tank tops are minor issues. 

Have you read her posts? She sees her parents as "heathens" and her family does not seem to see Mormons in general in a positive way. That must cause some friction for Roo and her family. How can that kind of atmosphere be beneficial for Roo, her parents and the church?

M.

[Jane_Doe]

43 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Have you read her posts? She sees her parents as "heathens" and her family does not seem to see Mormons in general in a positive way. That must cause some friction for Roo and her family. How can that kind of atmosphere be beneficial for Roo, her parents and the church?

M.

She also speaks of loving them, honoring them, and respecting their decisions, even as as they are.  

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

It is truly wonderful that this is not your decision, and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Thus, you are free to let it go, seeing as how it's none of your business anyway, and go on merrily with your life, worrying about things that actually pertain to you.

This went through my head too when I first read Maureen's post; it's not my (or Maureen's) business to tell the Church how (for example) endowments should be performed, or whether celestial rooms should be equipped with juke boxes. But since this relates to the crossover between the Mormon and non-Mormon worlds, perhaps it is some of her beeswax.

(I speak as someone who spends a lot of time worrying about things that don't pertain to him.)

Edited July 14, 2017 by Jamie123

[Fether]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

Do you accept Elder Christofferson's explanation for why children of gay married couples are not allowed to be baptized? Do you see condemnation falling on the LDS church's head for preventing these children from having membership in the church? If the concern is to not put children in a difficult situation between the parents and the church; then why can't that apply to children from non-Mormon families too?

M.

Those questions do cross my mind... but I'm not going to jump to "this is wrong". There is an explanation. Not sure where yet. But I don't think a forum consisting of misc. members around the world can criticize decisions of not only prophets and apostles, but leaders that have far more experience than any and all of us.

He says they do the same with families that practice polygamy and so it seems to be a matter dealing with the nature of family and not sin or rejection of the gospel in general.

Also, this is a policy change, not a revelation of new doctrine. This isn't a "Thou shalt not", but rather a stance that the prophets and apostles feel they needed to take.

[my two cents]

It seems to me that Roo's parents were ok with the baptism since permission was needed but have since developed issues. Should the Church really be expected to change it's policy when it's the relatives that change their tune because they possibly feel threatened by a child's high standards??

please pardon any assumptions made - just illustrating a point

Edited July 14, 2017 by my two cents

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

When the policy came out not allowing children of married gay couples to be blessed or baptized Elder Christofferson explained why

...

Since RooTheMormon has joined this forum it made me wonder if this type of policy should be extended to very young children of non-Mormon parents.  ...

The policy on children of gay parents is different from Roo's

1) The policy is directed at children of gay couples who are LDS.  Although the policy seems to also apply to non-LDS couples, it is not the primary target.
2) Roo's parents are NOT LDS AT ALL.  As such, they can clearly give their consent to allow their child to be baptized in whatever faith they see fit.  It's up to them to determine if they can live with that.  At first, they seemed ok with that.  Later, they changed their minds.  This would be no different than if an LDS family baptized one of their children and later apostatized.
3) Gay couples CANNOT be members of the faith or obey the faith by definition of apostasy.  One can "not believe" and still allow their children to be raised in the faith.  One cannot be apostate and allow their children to be raised in the faith.

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

...2) Roo's parents are NOT LDS AT ALL.  As such, they can clearly give their consent to allow their child to be baptized in whatever faith they see fit.  It's up to them to determine if they can live with that.  At first, they seemed ok with that.  Later, they changed their minds.  This would be no different than if an LDS family baptized one of their children and later apostatized....

When I read one of Roo's post I initially thought that her parents had been LDS and then left the church but her later thread cleared it up that her parents are non-LDS. My thinking on the matter is, what is too young to make a decision to join a church different than your upbringing? Roo was 9 years old when she joined without her parents or any other family members. Why would her parents give their permission unless maybe they deemed her joining not very important or serious. I'm just wondering if Mission Presidents should counsel non-LDS parents about the seriousness of LDS membership when the baptized child is so young.

M.

[Guest]

Just now, Maureen said:

When I read one of Roo's post I initially thought that her parents had been LDS and then left the church but her later thread cleared it up that her parents are non-LDS. My thinking on the matter is, what is too young to make a decision to join a church different than your upbringing? Roo was 9 years old when she joined without her parents or any other family members. Why would her parents give their permission unless maybe they deemed her joining not very important or serious. I'm just wondering if Mission Presidents should counsel non-LDS parents about the seriousness of LDS membership when the baptized child is so young.

M.

It's not the mission president's job to do that.  In fact, the mission president isn't even involved in the day-to-day decisions by those involved.  The district leader or zone leader in question is to make sure they satisfy all legal requirements and Church policies. 

In Roo's situation, it means that they make certain that the parents are supportive and give their approval.  Then they do an interview with the applicant to determine if they understand what they are doing and that the missionaries have at least taught them the basics of our beliefs and what is expected of them.

Roo's parents originally thought highly of the Church.  But it was their position on gay marriage and the like that change their minds.  Since the Church hasn't changed the position on the subject, it can only mean that her parents changed their minds.

You seem to be stuck on the notion that it is the Church's "fault" or "responsibility".  It isn't.  Get past those assumptions and you'll see a whole lot more clearly.  Her parents knew what we were about.  They knew what commitments Roo was making.  But you can't get it into your head that being LDS is something a lot of non-Mormons think is a great thing.  Later, they simply changed their minds.  How is that the Church's fault?

[Maureen]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

...You seem to be stuck on the notion that it is the Church's "fault" or "responsibility".  It isn't.  Get past those assumptions and you'll see a whole lot more clearly.  Her parents knew what we were about.  They knew what commitments Roo was making.  But you can't get it into your head that being LDS is something a lot of non-Mormons think is a great thing.  Later, they simply changed their minds.  How is that the Church's fault?

Yes I definitely think the LDS church should take some responsibilty when baptizing a child so young whose parents aren't members. How do you know what Roo's parents knew or thought? If the LDS church is concerned about disrupting the family dynamics in a gay household, why not be just as concerned in a non-LDS household?

M.

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Yes I definitely think the LDS church should take some responsibilty when baptizing a child so young whose parents aren't members. How do you know what Roo's parents knew or thought? If the LDS church is concerned about disrupting the family dynamics in a gay household, why not be just as concerned in a non-LDS household?

M.

It is not that hard.. you are just looking for a axe to grind.

When Roo was getting baptized her family dynamic was acceptable (aka the parents were supportive)... Later the family changed their dynamics... That is not the fault of the church.

Same case if a kid was baptized and then the parents divorced and entered into Homosexual relationships...  The church does not retroactively revoke the baptism of the kid just because the parents went AWOL.

It is the status at the time of baptism that matters... Not some vague fear of what might happen.

 

So lets break it down...

If at the time of baptism the family dynamics is supportive and not Homosexual or polygamist in nature (and all other requirements met) then the child can be baptized.  If they are not then the child can not until that dynamic changes or they become and adult. 

If however after the child is baptized the family dynamic changes the church wasn't the one that changed it, they are established in the family by this point.  Someone in the family changed the dynamic making everyone else (including the church) adjust to them.

 

[Maureen]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It is not that hard.. you are just looking for a axe to grind....

How is this subject considered an axe to grind? After reading a few of Roo's post it occurred to me that she's put in the middle of a difficult situation. She's only 13, on one hand she's a member of the LDS church who teaches about forever families and sealings and on the other hand she's a member of her non-LDS family that at the moment doesn't think very highly of the LDS church. I really hope she can navigate her life where she can be happy with her church and family, and the two don't have to be at odds with each other.

M.

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

How is this subject considered an axe to grind? After reading a few of Roo's post it occurred to me that she's put in the middle of a difficult situation. She's only 13, on one hand she's a member of the LDS church who teaches about forever families and sealings and on the other hand she's a member of her non-LDS family that at the moment doesn't think very highly of the LDS church. I really hope she can navigate her life where she can be happy with her church and family, and the two don't have to be at odds with each other.

M.

They don't have to be at odds...  However her parents have made the choice for them to be at odds at this point in time...  And the only people to blame for the current situation is her parents...  the fact that you are trying to make it the churches fault and saying the church needs to change and is some how at fault in this situation is precisely the axe you are grinding and always try to grind.  Stop blaming the victim because in this case the church just behind Roo in being the victim of her parents mind change

 

 

Edited July 14, 2017 by estradling75

[Maureen]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

They don't have to be at odds...  However her parents have made the choice for them to be at odds at this point in time...  And the only people to blame for the current situation is her parents...  the fact that you are trying to make it the churches fault and saying the church needs to change and is some how at fault in this situation is precisely the axe you are grinding and always try to grind.  Stop blaming the victim because in this case the church just behind Roo in being the victim of her parents mind change.

I don't blame the LDS church for how Roo's parents feel. But I do believe there should have been some inspiration in realizing how family dynamics can change with a very young member and her non-LDS family. If the LDS church is inspired to see possible problems occurring in gay families, it's really not that hard to know it can happen in non-LDS families too.

M.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I don't blame the LDS church for how Roo's parents feel. But I do believe there should have been some inspiration in realizing how family dynamics can change with a very young member and her non-LDS family. If the LDS church is inspired to see possible problems occurring in gay families, it's really not that hard to know it can happen in non-LDS families too.

M.

They are...  But if the church refused to baptize anyone who "might" change their mind or "might" fall away or "might" have family conflicts they would never baptize everyone.

And in the case of gay (or polygamist) family the conflict is already revealed and in the open.  Just like it is in the case of a parent that says no.  But when the parent says yes... the church chooses to honor what they say... knowing they might change their mind later...  Just like they do for all other baptismal candidates. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Yes I definitely think the LDS church should take some responsibilty when baptizing a child so young whose parents aren't members. How do you know what Roo's parents knew or thought? If the LDS church is concerned about disrupting the family dynamics in a gay household, why not be just as concerned in a non-LDS household?

M.

How do you know or not know what they thought?  You're the one assuming they didn't know.  Why are you assuming they are idiots and the Church was taking advantage of them?  Do you have proof to that effect?  Why would we deny their request when they are supposedly the responsible adults?  We're supposed to automatically assume their idiots who need to be coddled?  Oh, I can just hear the criticisms of that policy.  And you'd be at the forefront of that one.

No, we believe in personal responsibility.  We also believe in keeping commitments without unilaterally deciding to change the terms of the agreement.  We expect people to be intelligent thinking human beings with only a reasonable amount of due diligence.  We have the interviews we do with the candidates and the parents.  You've got an after the fact suspicion based on your prejudices.  Who's making a more rational and measured judgment?

[zil]

21 minutes ago, Maureen said:

If the LDS church is inspired to see possible problems occurring in gay families, it's really not that hard to know it can happen in non-LDS families too.

There aren't "possible problems" with a gay family - there are 100% guaranteed, inherent problems in a gay family which can only be resolved by breaking the family apart.

In a heterosexual family who, at the time of baptism express support for the baptism, problems are only "possible", not guaranteed, and I expect that if everyone expresses support, the policy is to not hinder or delay the young person's progress.  If we hindered or delayed progress because of possible problems, we'd have to delay everyone permanently.

[Maureen]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

...Why are you assuming they are idiots and the Church was taking advantage of them?...

Are you projecting your own thoughts onto me?

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why would we deny their request when they are supposedly the responsible adults?

Typically the parents of a minor investigator do not do the requesting, it is the church that requests permission from the parents.

M.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Maureen

[Maureen]

Am I getting the correct impression from these posts; that baptizing someone, no matter what age (unless they come from a gay family) is more important than that person's relationship with their family members. If a person looses their family due to joining the LDS church, so be it. Baptism is more important than family harmony?

M.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Maureen

[estradling75]

13 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Am I getting the correct impression from these posts; that baptizing someone, no matter what age (unless they come from a gay family) is more important than that person's relationship with their family members. If a person looses their family due to joining the LDS church, so be it. Baptism is more important than family harmony?

M.

What a deceitful and twisted way to wrest what we have been telling you.  Are you paying any attention at all to what we are saying or can you not hear us over the sound your axe grinding?

 

[zil]

42 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Am I getting the correct impression from these posts; that baptizing someone, no matter what age (unless they come from a gay family) is more important than that person's relationship with their family members. If a person looses their family due to joining the LDS church, so be it. Baptism is more important than family harmony?

M.

You should be getting the impression that if everyone is in agreement with a minor being baptized, and the nature of the minor's family is not inherently contrary to supporting their membership and progress in the church, then "potential problems"¹ are not considered a valid reason to delay or deny baptism.

¹ Given that there is no scenario in which there would not be "potential problems", no matter how ideal the scenario may or may not seem.

You may disagree with that policy (you've made that clear), but that doesn't make the policy wrong.  You seem to think there should be some kind of risk-assessment formula which overrides everyone being in agreement and there not being any inherent conflict.  The Church doesn't presently see a need for such.  Keeping in mind that policy is implemented by different humans, and all those involved in the decision are humans, sometimes this will work out well, sometimes not as well, sometimes it may fail horribly.  Welcome to mortality.  Should the pendulum of experience in this area swing too far toward "fail horribly", I imagine the policy will change.  Until then, probably not.