Baptizing children with non-Mormon parents

[Jane_Doe]

25 minutes ago, Maureen said:

That's not at all what I am saying; you're just being a lazy reader. I'm saying that a 9 year old from a non-LDS family is too young to join the LDS church by themselves, even with their parents' permission, because it can put them in a difficult family position if at some point in their young lives they're caught in the middle of a battle between the church and their family. There, I've practically said it twice. 

Maureen: any parent already have complete power in to learn about the LDS church, and to permit/forbid their child's involvement.  Your agreement is seemingly based on the fact that you don't trust non-LDS parent's to be informed-- as if they need a LDS person to be a chaperon for them.  It's completely disrespectful of parents' ability to parent.  We don't do that: we give them the complete freedom to choose.

As to "well they could change their minds later"- any parent can do that, LDS or not.  This "difficult position" you're so worried about can happen to any kid.  Doesn't mean we should stop teaching.

 

Now: before we discuss this further-- in your church do you forbid all kids participation because for the fear that their parent's might change their minds later?  

Edited July 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Maureen]

55 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

No, the real source of disagreement is LDS doctrine and the church in general.  Maureen doesn't believe LDS doctrine and while usually passive aggressive in her attacks on the LDS church, they are attacks nonetheless.  This has been the pattern for quite some time with her posts.

This thread is not about a disagreement, even though the majority of posters see it as that. I've stated already why I started the thread and obviously the majority of posters that have responded are offended by it. If you don't like the thread, don't respond to it. If no one responds, it will die, like all threads eventually do.

Anyway - how have I attacked the LDS church in this thread? Is having an opinion about a subject that I started attacking? And if this has been a pattern, you should have no problem proving it by showing me these other posts.

M.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Maureen

[Maureen]

45 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 ...Now: before we discuss this further-- in your church do you forbid all kids participation because for the fear that their parent's might change their minds later?  

Participation is different than baptism. When children are baptized, it's usually because the parents are baptized members. I'm not sure if the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada baptizes children without their parents being members.

M.

[my two cents]

5 hours ago, Maureen said:

what happens to that child if at some point in the future, the parents change their mind (like Roo's parents) and are no longer supportive but negative towards the church. Is that fair for the child to be put in the middle of defending their church while still honouring their parents?

M.

If the child is put in the middle, it's because the parents changed their tune - not the Church! So again, why should the Church change their policy just because parents might be flaky and/or feel threatened by their child's high standards?

[zil]

Meanwhile, it occurs to me that Roo's posts herein prove that she was ready for baptism.  And I haven't seen her say she wishes she'd waited, despite her trials.  None of us have any right at all to tell her she shouldn't have been baptized. So the instance that initiated this discussion disproves the "wait" claim.

[estradling75]

 

8 hours ago, Maureen said:

Anyway - how have I attacked the LDS church in this thread? Is having an opinion about a subject that I started attacking? And if this has been a pattern, you should have no problem proving it by showing me these other posts.

M.

Simple really... You've been around long enough to know that the Church is a Top down organization when it comes to change.  (Because we have discussed it with you repeatedly here) 

Now you are entitled to your opinions (as is everyone) that the Church the church is wrong.  But this is our place (our home if you will) our rules make it very clear that we are Pro LDS and its leaders. Therefore you sharing your opinion on how wrong the church is is like taking a big bucket of mud and dumping on your hosts couch, and then complaining about how dirty the couch is.  At a minimum it is rude and inconsiderate, and more then a little arrogant and self serving.  You have repeatedly said that we we have a problem with you mud dumping we should leave.  But you got that backwards you should be the one taking your bucket of mud elsewhere.

Now you might think that "well since you have not kicked me out yet it can really be that offensive."  This is incorrect. Your continued participation in the forum is more due to our long suffering and tolerance and willingness to reach out to everyone and in no way minimizes your inconsideration, your rudeness and your general offensiveness.

Sadly you do not end there... You have several statements that are of the nature  "If the church leaders are inspired (or otherwise lead by revelation) then..."    with your then being followed by your opinion on what God would "really" be doing or an attempt to generate some kind of moral outrage that they should have prevented.  This is a very subtle attack and not everyone sees it right away.  It is right to the heart of the claims of the church to be true and living.   Which is why the bulk of the responses in this thread is showing how the church is responding correctly to such in spite of your "opinion" to the contrary.

Finally there is Roo herself, the one you claim triggered this thread.  By all accounts she is young and tough spot but doing well.  Under the cover of your opinion you attack her parent's parenting skills/intelligence.  And you try to make the case that she should not be baptized.  By so doing you attempt to strip her of her support networks (the only two that we know of).  We see this too.  It is sad that you think the problem of a teenager is perfect fodder for you aims... rather then a flesh and blood person that should be respected and supported

 

[Maureen]

We'll @estradling75, don't beat about the bush say what you really mean. If my presence on the forum has been such an irritation to you and your fellow moderators than why not ban me. If I've broke rules by not being a believing member of your church, then by all means kick me off.

This thread has nothing to do with if I feel your church is inspired or not. In my mind it was about looking at these type of family situations where young children should be able to be young children and not be put in a position where they have to pick sides. You of course see Roo's situation different. She's a member of your church therefore she's on the right path and that's all that matters. How dare I come in here to say maybe that wasn't the best choice for her at such a young age. So what if that's what I think, how does that feeling attack your church?

M.

[estradling75]

21 minutes ago, Maureen said:

We'll @estradling75, don't beat about the bush say what you really mean. If my presence on the forum has been such an irritation to you and your fellow moderators than why not ban me. If I've broke rules by not being a believing member of your church, then by all means kick me off.

 

So called it

21 minutes ago, Maureen said:

This thread has nothing to do with if I feel your church is inspired or not.

Your posts say otherwise.. as I pointed out.

21 minutes ago, Maureen said:

   In my mind it was about looking at these type of family situations where young children should be able to be young children and not be put in a position where they have to pick sides.

I agree...  And the church does not put children in a position where they have to pick sides and they do this by actively requiring parent approval and support before they are baptized.  The parents do that if they later change their mind.    And if the parents change their minds the church can not and will not force the child to attend against the parents wishes because the church respect the parents stewardship.  The only way the child can attend against the parents wishes is if the parent makes no effort whatsoever to enforce said wishes in any manner.

 

21 minutes ago, Maureen said:

How dare I come in here to say maybe that wasn't the best choice for her at such a young age. So what if that's what I think, how does that feeling attack your church?

M.

Yes... how dare you...  Roo's parents have the right and the stewardship over their daughter not you.  Roo's parents have put her in the situation that she is in, by allowing her to be baptized and attend.  The church is doing its best to support Roo and her parents choices.   We should presume that Roo's parents are doing what they think is best, we presume the church members in Roo's ward are trying to support her, and from what we see Roo had a few bumps and problems but she to all appearance seems to be an intelligent, thoughtful, young woman, well on her way to being a successful adult.

And you come along and want tear that all down because it doesn't match what you think it should be...  So yes... how dare you. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by estradling75

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Maureen said:

. If my presence on the forum has been such an irritation to you and your fellow moderators than why not ban me. If I've broke rules by not being a believing member of your church, then by all means kick me off.

"Irritation" is insufficient cause for people to be kicked off the forum.  Otherwise, I'd have been kicked off the forum pretty early on.  No, you know exactly where the line is and you've always placed yourself right at the line in all threads of this tenor.  And you know it.  That's why you're not kicked off yet.

But if you're going to irritate, then freaking own it.  You know you're an irritation.  To deny it is to deny truth.  I wonder who motivates you to do that.  I irritate some people.  I'm not going to deny it.  But I wonder if you do it intentionally, or if it just natural as it is in my case.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

If I've broke rules by not being a believing member of your church, then by all means kick me off.

LOL. Maureen is not-so-secretly (and not-so-honestly) angling for martyrdom.

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

Participation is different than baptism. When children are baptized, it's usually because the parents are baptized members. I'm not sure if the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada baptizes children without their parents being members.

M.

The Lutheran church does.  I don't know Evangelical Lutheran.  

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The Lutheran church does. 

They do? Not challenging/arguing with you, just surprised. Didn't know that! 

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The Lutheran church does.  I don't know Evangelical Lutheran.  

From what I have found the Lutheran churches around the world are many. I do not know if they all follow the same Baptism protocol but I would not be surprised if they did. I did find this information on what is expected of parents who request Baptism for their children:

When you present your child for Baptism, you also make very important promises. You promise to:

• Help your child grow in faith by the devotional and prayer life in your home.
• Help your child grow in faith within the community of faith, the Church, and
• Take every opportunity to show your child God’s steadfast love and mercy given in Baptism.

http://brfelc.org/worship/occasional-services/baptisms/

M.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Maureen said:

From what I have found the Lutheran churches around the world are many. I do not know if they all follow the same Baptism protocol but I would not be surprised if they did. I did find this information on what is expected of parents who request Baptism for their children:

When you present your child for Baptism, you also make very important promises. You promise to:

• Help your child grow in faith by the devotional and prayer life in your home.
• Help your child grow in faith within the community of faith, the Church, and
• Take every opportunity to show your child God’s steadfast love and mercy given in Baptism.

http://brfelc.org/worship/occasional-services/baptisms/

M.

Ah, another aspect of things here (don't know why this didn't occur to me before): you're coming from an infant baptism standpoint- where the parents do all the promising and not the baptizee.  It's the parents' duty to do xyz, not the baptizee.    Hence, your resultant confusion because you're thinking the parent's should be obligated to teach the LDS faith to a child baptized in the LDS faith.  

No, that's no how it works in the LDS faith.  A baptizee makes the promises at baptism, not the parents.  The parents are under no obligation to do anything as the result of their child's baptism.

[Maureen]

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Ah, another aspect of things here (don't know why this didn't occur to me before): you're coming from an infant baptism standpoint- where the parents do all the promising and not the baptizee.  It's the parents' duty to do xyz, not the baptizee.    Hence, your resultant confusion because you're thinking the parent's should be obligated to teach the LDS faith to a child baptized in the LDS faith.  

No, that's no how it works in the LDS faith.  A baptizee makes the promises at baptism, not the parents.  The parents are under no obligation to do anything as the result of their child's baptism.

Sure, in the Lutheran church many parents baptize their infants and of course the baby does not understand what is happening but learns as they grow. Confirmation is the personal event for the older child, when confirming their faith in God. Teenagers take confirmation classes for two years and are confirmed, which makes them ready to take communion.

I understand that the LDS child makes covenants at their baptism but it's the parents (and church) that prepare them and teach them about what it all means. Do LDS children have a say in whether they want to be baptized or do the parents make that decision for them?

M.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

I understand that the LDS child makes covenants at their baptism but it's the parents (and church) that prepare them and teach them about what it all means.

If the parent's aren't LDS?  Nope.  Not at all.  

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

 Do LDS children have a say in whether they want to be baptized or do the parents make that decision for them?

Always the baptizee's decision, no matter the age.  Never the parents.  

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

....Always the baptizee's decision, no matter the age.  Never the parents.  

My husband would disagree with you.  Maybe things have changed.

M.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

My husband would disagree with you.  Maybe things have changed.

M.

If he forced someone to be baptized, he did very wrongly.  

[Maureen]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

If he forced someone to be baptized, he did very wrongly.  

LOL! No, he was the one that didn't have the choice. His parents told him he was getting baptized, he had no say in the matter. But then that was 50 years ago, maybe today's parents are doing things differently.

M.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Maureen said:

LOL! No, he was the one that didn't have the choice. His parents told him he was getting baptized, he had no say in the matter. But then that was 50 years ago, maybe today's parents are doing things differently.

M.

Then his parents did extremely wrong.  That's true 50 yrs ago and today.

[Maureen]

I just polled my nephews and nieces on their baptism experiences (all siblings, my husband's brother's kids). So far 4 out of 7 have answered and they said they were given the choice. I'm assuming since they all had the same parents, the other 3 will say the same thing.

ETA: The only common concern for some was the fear of drowning.

M.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Maureen

[NeuroTypical]

So, my dad was never religious at all.  My mother was a totally inactive jackmormon.  She had me go to church.  When I was around 7 or 8, she stopped taking me and I rode my bike or walked.  Baptism was just sort of something that happened - they said "you gonna?", and I nodded my head.  Ordination to the various priesthoods, membership in Boy Scouts, I just sort of went with the flow.  

Eventually when I started to think for myself, I realized I didn't even know if I believed in God, much less the BoM, so I quit going.  Dad didn't care, mom wrung her hands a bit because her parents had a problem with it, church folks tried a little then quit.   Years later after soul searching and gaining a testimony, I came back, and here I am.

Growing up is full of getting tugged this way and that, following some paths, breaking away from others.  For a year I was paying tithing, and my dad had a big problem with it.  If everyone had been LDS, my parents would have had a big problem with my going inactive.    This happens when kids morph into adults, switch political sides, change or drop religions, pursue careers other than their parents had planned.  

I don't get Maureen's problem.

[Maureen]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't get Maureen's problem.

It appears no one does.

M.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

It appears no one does.

M.

Respectfully, much of your issue here seems to be your Lutheran beliefs leaking over.  LDS aren't Lutheran and don't hold to ideas like a child's baptism obligates the parent to do anything.  

Edited July 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Just_A_Guy]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:28 AM, 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.

C'mon, Maureen.  Really?

Look, I agree with you in general terms that we need to be very, very careful about overtly alienating a child from his or her parents.  If you can point to *specific examples* of that going on vis a vis RootheMormon or any other forum member, please use the "report" function.

But insofar as we're talking about church policy:  I believe the policy re children of gay couples has has been repeatedly explained to you as a scenario where baptism and continued fellowship of such children would entail teaching them that their parents must obtain a divorce in order to avoid hellfire.  I don't need Todd Christofferson or any other Mormon mucky-muck to tell me what a toxically destructive dynamic that represents.  It's curious that critics of Mormonism often dismiss us as mere parrots of what our leadership says; but then when we offer a common-sense explanation for a church policy that goes beyond what certain leaders may have publicly articulated--those same critics try to cram us back into that box of servile groupthink from which they seem to think we sprang.

As far as RootheMormom's specific case went:  from what I gather she was baptized with parental consent and, apparently, with a broad network of active-LDS cousins, aunts/uncles, and grandparents.  What happened thereafter is indeed unfortunate, but frankly, I think it'd be a cold day in Hades before you suggested that gay Mormon youth should be turned away from groups like Affirmation or Mama Dragons or the Utah Pride Festival before they have reached the age of sixteen years.  So, let's stop with the concern trolling here.

Being a nonbeliever won't get anyone booted from these forums, as you well know.  But a lengthy pattern of sniping, disingenuousness, and being deliberately obtuse--well, that does tend to create some issues.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy