Baptizing children with non-Mormon parents

[prisonchaplain]

I read the OP and a smattering of posts throughout. If I understand correctly, church authority has forbidden the baptism of children who's parents are engaging in homosexual acts (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that those who struggle with same-sex attraction, but choose abstinence, would not be restricted). This makes sense to me. It's similar to Catholic authority asking those who are living in on-going sexual sin not to partake in the Eucharist.

@Maureen wondered if similar restrictions should be placed on the children of non-LDS parents, even if they agree to the baptism. My thought is that the situations are quite different. Non-LDS are simply unconverted. They have not agreed to covenants (or standards of scriptural morality), and then broken them. So, a couple has a child join church-sponsored activities, likes the positivity, and then agrees to let that child be baptized when s/he asks for it.  Taken to its extreme, @Maureen's suggestion would mean that churches would not even try to minister to young people, through Sunday School and Children's church, unless the parents came too.  That would have kept me out.  I'm am so grateful and humbled by the sincere and tireless work of the van drivers and captains, the Sunday School workers and teachers, the youth leaders, the speakers at our conventions, and the adults who gave us "bus kids" the time of day.

Consider too that LDS theology does not deny the children of active homosexuals an eternal glory. It honors the family unit, and encourages them to make decisions about the higher realms when they are mature enough to do so independently of the God-appointed stewards.  God knows every family and every circumstances. I may not be LDS, but I think the church showed wisdom in both of these challenging issues.

Edited July 16, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Maureen]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...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....

The only part of the church's policy regarding children of gay families that I see relevant to this thread were these words that I quoted in the OP:

“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.”

I found these words relevant because they were putting the concerns of the child first. Anything else to do with this "gay" policy is not relevant to this OP. You can defend the policy till you're blue in the face and I will not object, because this OP is not about that policy.

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

That is not my understanding. In one of her threads she says:

All of my LDS friends were raised LDS. LDS parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. They were born in the church, raised in the church, and will one day (most of them) will start a family in the church. Their parents are always helping them to complete personal progress and going to church with them. They get to do family home evening, and they say prayers together before dinner. But not me. I was and am raised in a non-LDS home. A great one, but a home of heathens. I love my family to death, and I would never change anything about them ever. But my family arent just heathens, they also disagree with mormon values.

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...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.

I am somewhat familiar with Mama Dragons. They are mothers of gay youth who love their children and have accepted that they are gay. They defend LGBT youth and provide support for those who do not have support from their own families. I don't see a connection to baptism. Maybe you can enlighten me.

M.

[Maureen]

41 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Taken to its extreme, @Maureen's suggestion would mean that churches would not even try to minister to young people, through Sunday School and Children's church, unless the parents came too.  That would have kept me out.  I'm am so grateful and humbled by the sincere and tireless work of the van drivers and captains, the Sunday School workers and teachers, the youth leaders, the speakers at our conventions, and the adults who gave us "bus kids" the time of day.

I would say, yes that is the extreme. I am not suggesting that a child cannot participate with a church family. But baptism with the LDS church means making covenants and becoming a member. Is a child as young as 8 or 9 raised in a non-LDS household ready for such a commitment, without same minded parents for support? @prisonchaplain, you converted at 10 but didn't get baptized till you were 16, do you regret that? I know your religious upbringing was not LDS but in hindsight was waiting till you were 16 a mistake?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

39 minutes ago, Maureen said:

The only part of the church's policy regarding children of gay families that I see relevant to this thread were these words that I quoted in the OP:

“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.”

I found these words relevant because they were putting the concerns of the child first. Anything else to do with this "gay" policy is not relevant to this OP. You can defend the policy till you're blue in the face and I will not object, because this OP is not about that policy.

Except that the thrust of your OP was that Christofferson's quote should be binding in this scenario (with RootheMormon), because her situation and the one Christofferson was addressing are analogous.  

They are not analogous.  I think you have been party to enough discussions about the Nov 2015 policy that, had you cared to, you could have explained with reasonable accuracy why any reasonably informed Mormon would have considered such an analogy to be a non-starter.  But instead, it rather looks like you tried to get cute by taking Christofferson's quote out of context, bludgeoning us with it in a factually distinct scenario, and then blithely asserting that the context is irrelevant.

These are the sorts of tactics that grate on Mormons who instinctively know their position is being misrepresented by someone who should know better.  And frankly, they do raise the eyebrows of the moderators.

Quote

That is not my understanding. In one of her threads she says:

All of my LDS friends were raised LDS. LDS parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. They were born in the church, raised in the church, and will one day (most of them) will start a family in the church. Their parents are always helping them to complete personal progress and going to church with them. They get to do family home evening, and they say prayers together before dinner. But not me. I was and am raised in a non-LDS home. A great one, but a home of heathens. I love my family to death, and I would never change anything about them ever. But my family arent just heathens, they also disagree with mormon values.

(HTML went wonky; sorry for poor formatting)

-----

I appreciate the correction.  Be that as it may, Church policy requires that some supportive network be in place prior to baptism of a juvenile.  We know Roo's parents were initially on board; and we know she found her network (whatever it was) to be quite satisfactory until her parents cut her off from it.

 

Quote

I am somewhat familiar with Mama Dragons. They are mothers of gay youth who love their children and have accepted that they are gay. They defend LGBT youth and provide support for those who do not have support from their own families. I don't see a connection to baptism. Maybe you can enlighten me.

M.

----------

Find me a sourced post where MamaDragons officially endorses and encourages a gay Mormon youth who commits to lifelong obedience to the Law of Chastity as taught by Mormonism, and I'll be happy to take it back.

But I don't think you will. 

And at any rate, your point is a red herring.  Should unorthodox Mormon groups decline to "serve" children of orthodox Mormon parents, or is it just the LDS Church you seek to muzzle?

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

@Maureen: The reason I waited is that I assumed my parents would be insulted at my being "re-baptized." I do not consider it that way, but thought my parents would. As it turned out, my father must have realized I was "all-in" on my faith, and he initiated the conversation, saying he would be proud to go to my water baptism.  Had I been told this at age 10 I would have been just as happy. Who knows how it might have nudged my family towards God earlier? That's all second-guessing, of course. However, the bottom-line is that if my parents had approved, it would have been very fine with me to be baptized at an earlier age.

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Maureen]

@Just_A_Guy, you can be a conspiracy theorist all you want. If you don't believe me, that's fine.

M.

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think you have been party to enough discussions about the Nov 2015 policy...

I couldn't remember the last time I had partaken in a discussion regarding this policy so I decided to check (it was March) and something serendipitous happened. I came upon a post from @Just_A_Guy that fits this thread perfectly.

He was actually responding to something I said erroneously in ignorance, I said:

Quote

Children have always been welcomed into the LDS Church, . . .

And he responded with:

Quote

With all due respect, this just isn't true.  At least, not in the policy sense that you suggest.

Missionaries over the past couple of decades at least have traditionally been instructed not to baptize willing children--even with parental consent--unless it was clear that there would be a supportive home environment and an adult willing to oversee that child's spiritual progress.  On my mission, we declined to baptize several very desirous tweens and early teens for precisely this reason.  Without a doubt, those were some of the hardest conversations I had to have.

Excellent information and exactly what I was looking for. In other words there are situations where the LDS church will step in and decline to baptize a young child, even if the parents approve.

M. 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Maureen

[mirkwood]

@Maureen

 

Quote

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.

I have no need (or interest) in going back through several years worth of your posts when you know just as well as all the other regulars on this forum that this is your pattern.  I am pretty sure you have read all of @Just_A_Guy's responses on the same topic so I will save you the repeat postings.

You have an axe to grind with the LDS church and do it often.  If you were sincere, you would have followed my previous suggestion to take some lessons on how to disagree with the LDS church from @prisonchaplain. 

 

[Sunday21]

Does anyone find it interesting that the lds church was critised for not allowing the children of gay couples to be baptized? Oh how restrictive! Now in contrast we are being criticized for allowing children to be baptized. Oh how loose, how lax! We really can't win! 

[estradling75]

7 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Does anyone find it interesting that the lds church was critised for not allowing the children of gay couples to be baptized? Oh how restrictive! Now in contrast we are being criticized for allowing children to be baptized. Oh how loose, how lax! We really can't win! 

Indeed.  When it was the subject of gay families it was how un-christ-like we were for not suffering the little child...  Family dynamics issues be hanged.  Now it all "if you put family members against each other" is being un-christ-like and suffering the little child be hanged.  The hypocrisy of their actions show they are too busy axe grinding to have really the best interest of the children at heart.

Of course they claim otherwise... but you know the old saying actions speak louder then words.

[RooTheMormon]

On 07/14/2017 at 7:27 PM, Maureen said:

@estradling75, if you don't like this thread, no one is making you respond to it.

I have no problem with an older child, age 16/17 make that decision to join the LDS church, with their parent's permission. My concern is when the child is young, like 8 to 13 and they have no other LDS members in their family for support. It's great that the ward is there for the new young member, but that child is still so young that I wonder do they even know what they are agreeing to when they join the LDS church and how that might affect their family life. In these cases no one has a crystal ball, but for the sake of the child, I would think it would be best to have them be older when joining the church.

M.

*cough cough*

I was baptized when I was 9 and I have non-lds parents.

For some reason, I get the feeling that people take us faithful children who have heathens for parents as nt as faithful as those raised in the church.

If you love the church and Heavenly Father, and if you truly do believe with all your heart, you will get through it.

I think its ridiculiousridiculous for anyone to thibk otherwise.

Heavenly Father never gives you a challenge you cant overcome.

And no one could understand the struggle of this unless theyve been through it themselves, but its a test of faith.

Go read my post "How Being The Only Mormon Has Affected Me"

Im sorry, but this really irritated me. Who are you to say what people can and cant overcome?

Edited July 17, 2017 by RooTheMormon

[mirkwood]

@RooTheMormon, my mom and I were the only members all through my childhood.  Not quite the same as you, but I never felt like anyone felt I was less faithful than any of the other kids in the ward.  I think the handful of members who think that way are a very small group.

 

 

[Maureen]

4 hours ago, RooTheMormon said:

*cough cough*

I was baptized when I was 9 and I have non-lds parents.

For some reason, I get the feeling that people take us faithful children who have heathens for parents as nt as faithful as those raised in the church.

If you love the church and Heavenly Father, and if you truly do believe with all your heart, you will get through it.

I think its ridiculiousridiculous for anyone to thibk otherwise.

Heavenly Father never gives you a challenge you cant overcome.

And no one could understand the struggle of this unless theyve been through it themselves, but its a test of faith.

Go read my post "How Being The Only Mormon Has Affected Me"

Im sorry, but this really irritated me. Who are you to say what people can and cant overcome?

@RooTheMormon, people can overcome anything. If the LDS church is a good fit for you and gives you what you need then that's wonderful; and I hope your life as a teenager can be spent happy with your family and your church. I'm curious, why do you call your parents heathens? It just seems to me to be very disrespectful. I hope your parents made the right choice when you were 9 by allowing you to be baptized. I hope as the years go by that both you and your parents can learn to respect each others choices.

M.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Maureen

[RooTheMormon]

@Maureen I just went through and actually read almost everything. I had no idea this was all bout me. I also dont know why I didnt find it sooner.

I think that (to say this in the rudest way possible) you should just stop.

Why is it any of your busniess? Honestly you want the church to make it so that people with non mormon families should not be allowed to join the church? Wow. Just wow.

If anything Im glad I was baptized young because if not, I probably would not have the same standards i have through the church that I have grown to follow.

Also I think that children who make that decision should feel proud, not scared. My circumstances are very different than most cases and you only know the details of what i have shared. And my parents are not idiots. Also they do what they think is best for me, they dont know whats going on with how i feel about it because I havent shared it with them. I dare you to blame it on my parents when you have little knowledge of my situation.

You have no place to make that kind of judgement.

Thats all and I bid you good day.

[RooTheMormon]

@Maureen

Isnt it great that you were raised in the church.

Might as well leave out others though, because no child is mature enough to make the right decision for themself. 

And also these children have very little faith and will probably leave the church eventually.

Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it.

Sorry but this really got under my skin.

And I call my parents heathens because that is the correct definition for those who dont believe in a God.

If anything, calling my parents heathens is harmless in terms of disrespect compared to all your nasty comments on here.

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, RooTheMormon said:

Honestly you want the church to make it so that people with non mormon families should not be allowed to join the church?

I think any church should be very considerate and careful when allowing children to join their church without their parents.

2 hours ago, RooTheMormon said:

And my parents are not idiots.

I have never said your parents are idiots or even insinuated that. But I am always surprised when parents give their permission for their very young children to become members of a church that they are not members of.

2 hours ago, RooTheMormon said:

Also they do what they think is best for me, they dont know whats going on with how i feel about it because I havent shared it with them.

Maybe you should share with them how you are feeling. They don't really know unless you communicate with them.

2 hours ago, RooTheMormon said:

Isnt it great that you were raised in the church.

I am non-LDS, I was not raised in the LDS church nor I have ever been a member. I did take the discussions when I was 17 years old (many years ago) and I did agree to be baptized, but my parents would NOT give their permission. During that part of my life, my relationship with my parents was tense. But over time it improved. I was not allowed as a teenager to join the LDS church, but I can imagine that if I had been able to join without my parents' permission, that our relationship would have been very difficult. In hindsight I am very glad my parents did not give their permission. @RooTheMormon, you joined at 9 and you're only 13 now. You are still a child and your parents are there to guide you. Do not take their wisdom for granted.

2 hours ago, RooTheMormon said:

And I call my parents heathens because that is the correct definition for those who dont believe in a God.

You could call them atheists, that is also a correct term; heathens sounds so derogatory.

I apologize for making you the subject of my thread. I do hope that you can have a great relationship with both your parents and your church.

M. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Maureen

[AnthonyB2]

Whilst I agree heathen (whilst maybe technically true) sounds harsh, they may be agnostic or just non lds theists.

Unbelievers sounds less harsh but how about having some optimism and call them prebelievers.

[RooTheMormon]

My parents call themselves heathens, so I know I am not insulting them.

Also I think that your standpoint on this is very one-sided, therefore you do not make a valid argument @Maureen

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

I have never said your parents are idiots or even insinuated that. But I am always surprised when parents give their permission for their very young children to become members of a church that they are not members of.

And here, my friends, is why she is the queen of self-contradiction.  She didn't insinuate they are idiots.  She was just shocked that they did such an idiotic thing as letting someone join the Mormon Church.

10 hours ago, Maureen said:

I think any church should be very considerate and careful when allowing children to join their church without their parents.

You can't have it both ways.  You complained about the Church excluding children with gay parents from membership.  Now you want the Church to forbid baptism to children because they simply have non-member parents.

From the Church's position, there is forbidding children of apostates (who by definition cannot be neutral on the matter) vs allowing children of parents with a different religion (who can be neutral on the matter).

You would prefer to allow children of people who are going to be negative while forbidding those who "may" be negative.  Doesn't really fly.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

My totally nonreligious father got a huge kick out of calling himself a heathen.  He adopted the demeaning title the same way mormons adopted the demeaning title "mormon", and he wore it proudly all his days.   I remember growing up in his house, whenever mormons were visiting and talking, he would pepper the word throughout his talking.

"That's an odd way to load a pickup truck.  Of course you can't take the word of a heathen..."

"We heathenfolk think you're ok too, brother Theodore."

I think the line between lighthearted and lightminded, is one is just a friendly description of a general category someone finds themself in.  The other is an unrighteous judgment against a person's value.

[Guest]

Of about 50 people in an office in Orem, UT, two were of another faith, two were less active Mormons, one was an atheist.

The atheist was married to a Mormon girl.  He also called himself a "heathen" especially when discussing his intra-family relationships (his in-laws didn't like the fact their daughter married an atheist).  It wasn't a badge of pride, really.  To him, it was what he was.  And he had no problem with being a heathen or being called a heathen.  That's just what he was.  So, why not call him a heathen?

Edited July 17, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Of about 50 people in an office in Orem, UT, two were of another faith, two were less active Mormons, one was an atheist.

The atheist was married to a Mormon girl.  He also called himself a "heathen."  It wasn't a badge of pride, really.  To him, it was what he was.  And he had no problem with being a heathen or being called a heathen.  That's just what he was.  So, why not call him a heathen?

This is almost enough to make me declare myself atheist so I can be a sheathen.  As an added benefit, I'll get a sword (and a sheath, of course), and declare wearing it a part of my sheathenism beliefs.

Edited July 17, 2017 by zil

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

This is almost enough to make me declare myself atheist so I can be a sheathen.  As an added benefit, I'll get a sword (and a sheath, of course), and declare wearing it a part of by sheathenism beliefs.

Once I read that word "sheathen" that's exactly what I was thinking of.  Swords for all sheathens!!!  We will cut the sacramental bread with our swords, then sheathen them in our scabbards.

[NeuroTypical]

I prefer the slightly archaic She-heathen.  But the modern form is ok too.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Swords for all sheathens

But only for the sheathens, not for the heathens.  So you're out of luck.  No swords for you!  You can have a battle axe, though, if you want one.  Or a bow.