Baptizing children with non-Mormon parents

[Maureen]

@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.

[person0]

58 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?

I haven't read much of this thread but:

Quote

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

(Matt 10:34-36)

Not sure this always applies, but it was what came to mind when I read your post.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

but for the sake of the child

Good old Maureen, always thinking of the children.

[Maureen]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

...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...

Yes in a way; like considering the child's age and their family situation. If a basic rule like, no child between the age of 8 to 13 can be considered a potential member unless at least one person of their immediate or extended family is also a member, then I think that protects the child.

M.

[estradling75]

Just now, 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.

I like the thread just fine... what I do not like your attempts criticize the church at every chance and how far you are willing to twist things in your attacks.

 

Simple fact is that when the church declared that they were unilaterally deciding that children of gays could not be baptize you raised your voice loud and clear about how horrible it was and how unchrist-like and anti-family the church was to take that choice away.  But now you are saying how unchrist-like and anti family the church because it is not making a unilateral call for young kids.

Your hypocritical stance is on clear display.  If you don't like being called on it... then stop doing it.

 

[Maureen]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Good old Maureen, always thinking of the children.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing. What's wrong with being concerned for children?

M.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

If a basic rule like, no child between the age of 8 to 13 can be considered a potential member unless at least one person of their immediate or extended family is also a member, then I think that protects the child.

This has gone way past the point of far enough. I intend not to make any more comments on this thread, public or private, but FWIW, there is my assessment.

[Maureen]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

I like the thread just fine... what I do not like your attempts criticize the church at every chance and how far you are willing to twist things in your attacks....

How have I attacked the LDS church? You don't like my opinion so you think it's an attack?

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Simple fact is that when the church declared that they were unilaterally deciding that children of gays could not be baptize you raised your voice loud and clear about how horrible it was and how unchrist-like and anti-family the church was to take that choice away.  But now you are saying how unchrist-like and anti family the church because it is not making a unilateral call for young kids.

Part of that is true, I thought the policy went against the idea of "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." But if part of the LDS church's reason for creating this policy is to “...protect children in their innocence and in their minority years...." then why can't that apply to young children in non-LDS families too. And I have not said anything about Roo's situation being unChrist-like.

M.

[zil]

15 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Yes in a way; like considering the child's age and their family situation. If a basic rule like, no child between the age of 8 to 13 can be considered a potential member unless at least one person of their immediate or extended family is also a member, then I think that protects the child.

M.

We got that from your initial post.  You should have expected the responses:

1) that faithful members see no reason not to baptize a child when all parties are in agreement and the child's family life is not inherently contrary to the child living the gospel and being a member of the church

2) that the reason the policy is different for children of homosexual couples is because their family life is inherently contrary to living the gospel and being a member of the church

2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

why can't that apply to young children in non-LDS families too

This question has been answered and re-answered.  So what else is there to discuss?  Seems like we ought to now agree to disagree.

Further, how is it that you don't know that the discussion is pretty much pointless - we're a top-down Church.  The policy will not change no matter how many rank and file members may agree with you.  So if you manage to convince any members, all you've done is made some members unhappy with their leadership.  What good can come from that?  None, absolutely none, not for you, not for them, not for children with non-member families who want to get baptized.  So, you've got the answers to why.  @Vort is right - that's enough, any more is beating a dead horse.

[estradling75]

Just now, Maureen said:

 

Part of that is true, I thought the policy went against the idea of "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." But if part of the LDS church's reason for creating this policy is to “...protect children in their innocence and in their minority years...." then why can't that apply to young children in non-LDS families too. And I have not said anything about Roo's situation being unChrist-like.

M.

They do.  The church looks for clear and present issues and stops the whole thing if it finds them.  If it does not find them then the church knows that Parents are(should be) the first line of defense for things it might not see for any child therefore the church seeks them out for permission and is willing to work with whatever the parent is willing to do.  The church trust the parents to be parents.

If the parents change their minds after the fact.  That is on them... but the church does honor the right of the parents.  It can't make the kids attend or take part or pray or read scriptures or any of that stuff.  If the parent wants it stopped they can very much do so. But if they do not do so... If the parents allow their kids attend and take part well the church has never stopped someone from attending not even the kids of gay parents 

[Maureen]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Further, how is it that you don't know that the discussion is pretty much pointless - we're a top-down Church.  The policy will not change no matter how many rank and file members may agree with you.  So if you manage to convince any members, all you've done is made some members unhappy with their leadership.  What good can come from that?  None, absolutely none, not for you, not for them, not for children with non-member families who want to get baptized.  So, you've got the answers to why.  @Vort is right - that's enough, any more is beating a dead horse.

My thought in starting the thread was because of how I thought Roo's family situation must be hard for her and I was surprised that the church and her parents allowed her to join the LDS church at such a young age. It brought to mind one of the reasons why the LDS church decided to not baptize children from gay families. So I just put the two together. There's always a chance that a thread will not be well accepted or even interesting, but I took that chance. This is after all, a message board, where threads are started and talked about.

M.

[Maureen]

12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

They do.  The church looks for clear and present issues and stops the whole thing if it finds them.  If it does not find them then the church knows that Parents are(should be) the first line of defense for things it might not see for any child therefore the church seeks them out for permission and is willing to work with whatever the parent is willing to do.  The church trust the parents to be parents.

If the parents change their minds after the fact.  That is on them... but the church does honor the right of the parents.  It can't make the kids attend or take part or pray or read scriptures or any of that stuff.  If the parent wants it stopped they can very much do so. But if they do not do so... If the parents allow their kids attend and take part well the church has never stopped someone from attending not even the kids of gay parents 

Wow @estradling75, a reasonable and considerate reply. Thanks.

M.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Wow @estradling75, a reasonable and considerate reply. Thanks.

M.

All my responses are reasonable...and you get the consideration that you give.  Thanks

 

[Guest]

5 hours 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?

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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?

4 hours ago, Maureen said:

Are you projecting your own thoughts onto me?

1) You accused the family of not knowing enough.  

• Note that the primary concern from the parents was that we are apparently a church of homo-phobes.  I guess we didn't do a good enough job of telling people this.
• Their next concern was that it would mean she would be going to church on Sundays.  I guess we didn't do a good enough job of telling people this.
• Without any proof of what they did or did not know it's automatically the Church's fault that there was any conflict.

2) Denying any responsibility on the part of the parents says that either

• We lied to them.
• They were simply too ignorant or stupid to know better.

Excuse me if I choose to not believe either one of these options.

1. No, parents have the ultimate responsibility.  They should shoulder the responsibility of their decision to grant permission.
2. The policy of the Church has always been that we're here to HELP families, not replace them.  We can never be the complete family that Roo needs.  Her parents can.  If they choose not to it speaks badly of them, not us.
3. Throughout the process, the Church did not change.  But the parents did.  The Church was consistent.  The parents weren't.   Based on that alone, which one is more likely to have been dishonest or irresponsible?

You've automatically assumed that they were too simple or too lazy to really understand what they were committing to.  How do you know that?  I've had experiences on my mission that say otherwise.  What do you have?  You're own prejudices against the Church.  Nothing more.

If you think the Church has done something wrong, why don't you spell out exactly what the missionaries should have done?  If you start getting into the details you'l find that either they DID do those things, or the practical manner in which they could do more would be too cumbersome to expect in such a situation or just a ridiculous practice that would end up insulting their intelligence.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Guest

[Maureen]

6 hours ago, Maureen said:

Why would her parents give their permission unless maybe they deemed her joining not very important or serious.

I think you are the one doing the assuming @Carborendum. My only speculation of Roo's parents' thoughts is shown in the quote above.

M.

[Jane_Doe]

11 hours 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.

Maereen: would you church tell a child who's parent's are not members of that church to get lost?  I don't think so.  Neither do LDS.

[Jane_Doe]

8 hours ago, 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.

According to LDS scripture, age 8 is the age of accountability.  It is likewise in many other Christian traditions (such as Catholicism).  Hence, that is the age a person is allowed to join, given parental permission and person's understanding.  That is us going with scripture.

The source of disagreement here seems that you view accountability until age 16/17.  That's your choice.  Any other parent can choose to have a minor child wait until past age 8 for baptism. 

8 hours ago, Maureen said:

My thought in starting the thread was because of how I thought Roo's family situation must be hard for her and I was surprised that the church and her parents allowed her to join the LDS church at such a young age. 

Because she was of accountable age, according to scripture.  

Edited July 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Maureen]

27 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Maereen: would you church tell a child who's parent's are not members of that church to get lost?  I don't think so.  Neither do LDS.

I'm really not sure how a 9 year old approaches the LDS church to be baptized. In Roo's case it sounds like her LDS friends may have suggested she take the discussions. If a "policy" were to be set for such young investigators; I think it would be easy enough for a missionary or ward member to let the minor investigator and/or their parents know what the rules are. And I'm sure it could be done without being rude.

M.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I'm really not sure how a 9 year old approaches the LDS church to be baptized. 

The same way every other person does.  

6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

 If a "policy" were to be set for such young investigators; I think it would be easy enough for a missionary or ward member to let the minor investigator and/or their parents know what the rules are. And I'm sure it could be done without being rude.

Parent's have every right to ask every question they would like already, and to put a halt to anything they would like.  No new special policy needed.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Maureen]

30 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

According to LDS scripture, age 8 is the age of accountability.  It is likewise in many other Christian traditions (such as Catholicism).  Hence, that is the age a person is allowed to join, given parental permission and person's understanding.  That is us going with scripture.

The source of disagreement here seems that you view accountability until age 16/17.  That's your choice.  Any other parent can choose to have a minor child wait until past age 8 for baptism. 

Because she was of accountable age, according to scripture.  

I understand the LDS church's belief about the age of accountability. I know LDS parents typically baptize their children when the child turns 8. But is this a hard and fast rule? The parents if they so choose, can wait and have their child baptized at an older age.

My concern is that a young child not brought up in the LDS church is not taught about baptism and membership like an LDS child is taught. Are they old enough to really understand what they are agreeing to when they decide they want to join the church? And do their non-LDS parents also understand? I can see if the child might have an extended family member who is LDS that can provide advice and support when needed but 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.

[Maureen]

12 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The same way every other person does....  

Really, there's only one way? A child can go about investigating the same as an adult?

M.

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I understand the LDS church's belief about the age of accountability. I know LDS parents typically baptize their children when the child turns 8. But is this a hard and fast rule? The parents if they so choose, can wait and have their child baptized at an older age.

Age 8 is the age of accountability.  Hence any age 8 or old can be baptized (pending adult permission is a minor still).  

9 minutes ago, Maureen said:

 Are they old enough to really understand what they are agreeing to when they decide they want to join the church? 

Yes, it is the scriptural age of accountability.

9 minutes ago, Maureen said:

My concern is that a young child not brought up in the LDS church is not taught about baptism and membership like an LDS child is taught. Are they old enough to really understand what they are agreeing to when they decide they want to join the church? And do their non-LDS parents also understand? I can see if the child might have an extended family member who is LDS that can provide advice and support when needed but 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.

.... so you're essentially saying that you think we should babysit parents and tell them how to parent?  

Edited July 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

@Maureen, any parent as the right to learn anything about the LDS church/faith -- nothing is hidden.  Learning more is not just offered once, but repeatedly, and greatly encouraged. over and over again  We would love nothing more than to have parent's get involved: attend church, study scripture, participate in prayer, ask questions during lessons, etc.  If a parent wishes anything to stop at any point, that is also their right.  

A parent has complete power to learn anything they want, permit/forbid what they want.  We can't give then any more. 

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 ...Yes, it is the scriptural age of accountability....  

You think that because a child reaches the "age of accountability" that that automatically means they understand the baptism covenants they are agreeing to make. I doubt even LDS children understand exactly what it all means at the age of 8, and they've probably been taught about it for years. Did you understand everything about your baptism and the covenants you were making when you were 8 (assuming that's when you were baptized)?

20 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

.... so you're essentially saying that we should babysit parents and tell them how to parent?

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. 

M.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

The source of disagreement here seems that you view accountability until age 16/17.  

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.