Recording A Barely 9 Year-Old Baptism In Mls As A C.O.R

[rongo]

calmoriah:

It's a pity it's not in our stake, it's known for tailoring to individual needs.

Yeah, ours was, too, until this brouhaha over stake baptism day. One thing that has arisen out of this is the counselors’ view that the handbooks of instructions are akin to being “god-breathed,” and that any deviation at all is unthinkable. I pointed out that they certainly don’t even come close to covering all scenarios and situations in our members’ messy and complicated lives, and that much more important than guidelines in handbooks is inspiration through proper priesthood channels. While the handbooks are important and should be adhered to as closely as possible, exceptions can be granted by ranking key-holders to just about anything in there. I cited, as examples, several things that CHI 1 insists cannot be done for which the First Presidency grants exceptions (men being sealed to more than one living woman, living women being sealed to more than one man, etc.). That didn’t go over very well, but it’s the truth, and they were aware of the specific examples I cited from our ward where we had applied for and received exceptions from the First Presidency.

calmoriah:

I would say so too...except it sounds like the fallout not only for rongo, but maybe the family would be worse. Does the SP have to sign off on baptisms? Could he declare a baptism null and void if he hadn't?

I believe he could, the same way a bishop could nullify a father who went and baptized his child without having the child interviewed by the bishop and without having the bishop authorize it. Same with priesthood ordinations that happen without bishop or stake president authorization ----- they are not valid, no matter what priesthood the person who does them holds.

mfbukowski:

I used to be fairly liberal in allowing members near the borders of the ward, but technically outside the ward, to attend. But then it was pointed out to me that in the Lord's church, strictly speaking, we didn't have the keys to serve those folks who lived outside the ward. Order is essential in his church.

It got me thinking.

I have *never* had a boundary exception turn out well. *Ever.* Regardless of the circumstances, and how much better everything looks on paper and logically. We can all come up with the very best of reasons, but my experience is that it is always better to encourage and help people attend their geographical unit. Of course, inspiration through key-holders can trump this observation and experience of mine, but I’m a strong supporter of the not-easily-overridden default setting being staying in one’s actual ward.

[Calm]

Rongo, if you do feel the least uncomfortable about the information in this thread being in public view, you could request the mods to delete it now your questions have been addressed.

And I am happy that things have turned out so well...and have learn some in the process myself.

[ERayR]

This is *very* interesting, in light of things that have happened to me over the last several months. I agree with you, and this was a sticking point between me and the counselors in the stake presidency. Our stake has a monthly stake baptism day, which we have followed in almost all cases over the last four years. When it came to their attention that I had authorized a few (four) child of record baptisms at times other than stake baptism day (without conflicting with anything else, of course), they went ballistic. It rankled even more that in each case, the stake president had personally authorized them for us, one-on-one, while asking us to do what we can to not broadcast the fact. One of these involved the stake center font (which our stake only uses for convert baptisms, never children of record). A family was going on an extended two month trip beginning on their child of record’s 8^th birthday, and we didn’t want her to be baptized two months later. There was a full-building, all day schedule conflict for the building used for C.o.R. baptisms, so I asked the building scheduler for the stake center if we could use it for that. He told us that the counselors had told him in no uncertain terms that the stake center font could never be used for C.o.R. baptisms, worlds without end. He told me he agreed with our situation, but don’t shoot the messenger, etc. I got approval from the stake president to do this, and he and his wife about fainted, so adamant had the counselors been.

In the ensuing extended discussion about this, concessions were made in the formal stake policy that aligned closely with what I had interpreted it to be all along (almost always stake baptism day, except in rare exceptions authorized by the stake president). An interesting discussion ensued where I asked if bishops have any real keys, actually, or if they only act in everything by delegation of the stake president’s keys (glorified high priest group leaders compared to elders quorum presidents, etc.). No, no, of course they have real keys ----- to which I asked, how, specifically? Not to say that of course bishops act under the direction and keys of the stake president, but the counselors rejected the notion that bishops, as presidents of the Aaronic priesthood in their wards, preside over C.o.R baptisms and can do them when they need to, while trying to accommodate stake policy. When I asked if a bishop needed permission to authorize a C.o.R. baptism in a lake or ditch (i.e., a David B. Haight or Spencer W. Kimball “horse trough” baptism), their initial answer was “no,” and that it had to be on stake baptism day, anyway, but that changed with the updated formal policy.

Senator:

I’ve had my fill of adventure and fireworks in wrestling with the stake presidency counselors over this. Adventure and fireworks are overrated . . . J

Freedom:

It was specifically items like this, as I pondered and prayed about this, that I found to be very helpful. I began to have grave concerns from a key standpoint about doing this without mission president authorization, which led me to seek for this.

It sounds like the Stake President has a couple of counselors who have control issues.

[busybee]

We may salute her for one thing while recognizing that she is doing a good thing at the cost of doing a better thing.

She is denying others the privilege of helping her. We, as Saints, made covenants, at baptism and later, to help each other. See Alma's "baptism talk" in Mosiah, and a dozen other places in scripture, not to mention in holier places still.

Pride precedes all sins, and, while sloth and greed are as prevalent among the poor and the needy as frequently as among the rich and comfortable, it is not the wealthy whose pride stands in the way of others' fulfilling their covenants. The proud poor are no less to be blamed than the proud rich, and, in cases like this one, where those who depend on them are denied opportunities (the son, e.g., who cannot receiver baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost), perhaps the more so.

It would take, beyond any doubt, a compassionate teacher to make this point, and do it in a way that will not weaken her faith. But I believe it should be done.

Now, one wonders what the father, whose permission for his son to be baptized at all, as a Child of Record or as a Convert, is necessary, will say when asked about it. The OP does not give us any indication that he would be willing to allow it, or, on the other hand, that he would not. This may all be moot.

Lehi

Post deleted.

Edited November 11, 2011 by busybee

[LeSellers]

Sorry, but I don't haven't read anywhere that she has refused help!!!

I read one or two where her bishop (the OP) said she would be unenthusiastic. Here., for instance:

She's amazing. She has *never* come to the church for any help, although she merits it more than those who do. There's a real danger of hurting her feelings if I was to offer something like that (it would make it obvious that others are mindful of her situation). My wife and I have thought about buying her some dresses and things for Christmas, but worry that that would also hurt her pride in a bad way (she only owns two very old dresses).

She is a paragon of self-reliance in working with what she has. She taught a bread-making lesson for a Relief Society Meeting, and she has a real knack for that. Her pumpernickel is wonderful, and she developed a recipe that substitutes cocoa for coffee in it.

And here:

I think this sister’s psyche and emotional make-up definitely are such that anonymously helping or insisting on her accepting fast offering assistance would be spiritually damaging and embarrassing to her, along the lines of the following counsel from President Packer. Doing this would make it painfully clear and obvious to her that she is not a good enough provider for her family, in the eyes of outside observers who obviously have been focusing quite a bit on her situation.

No one is stopping others from fulfilling their baptismal covenant to help to help those in need. One doesn't have to wait for those in need to ask for help before doing something to lighten their burden.

See above.

While I agree (and have done so by action as well as word) that we can help without going through the bishop or the Church, we have those mechanisms in place for a good reason. The Bishop has keys and insights we may not be privy to. His position gives him a higher view and one that encompasses more of the poor and needy than the rest of us do, and that's just the way it is.

I thinks it's prideful to have the attitude that you don't need to help until asked. Your uncompassionate attitude has got me really steamed about this!! You don't even know this sister or what is in her heart.

Nor do you.

Uncompassionate?! How so?

You don't know me, either, apparently, yet we have your contribution to this topic filled with vitriol.

Lehi

[rpn]

Why don't you simply talk with the mission president and get his permission for the baptism. That way you've covered all bases. Andy why can't he skip his primary class for three weeks in favor of meeting with the missionaries and receiving the lessons. Better yet, assign the missionaries to teach his primary class using preach my gospel for three weeks.

[Calm]

Why don't you simply talk with the mission president and get his permission for the baptism. That way you've covered all bases. Andy why can't he skip his primary class for three weeks in favor of meeting with the missionaries and receiving the lessons. Better yet, assign the missionaries to teach his primary class using preach my gospel for three weeks.

Looks like you missed the update:

[mfbukowski]

A bishop most certainly can NOT "do whatever he wants" in ecclesiastical or administrative matters.

[Calm]

Relief Society Preses on the other hand........

[Freedom]

A bishop most certainly can NOT "do whatever he wants" in ecclesiastical or administrative matters.

Clearly you have never been a bishop. The bishop has authority over child of record baptisms and is the final say. Likewise, a Bishop has the final say on who has a calling in the ward. The stake president cannot come in and tell him who has what calling. There is a complete separation of authority.

[mfbukowski]

Clearly you have never been a bishop.

Edited November 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[blackstrap]

There can be an interesting moment when the Stake Pres. "requests" a person for a stake calling.

[mfbukowski]

. Regardless, the Bishop can do what ever he wants....

Once a Child is nine years of age, however, the Bishop loses all control over the baptism and it becomes the responsibility of the mission so you have no authority to make a decision on this matter. The Bishop cannot sign off on a baptism for a person who is nine years or older.

It appears we have a contradiction here.

[mfbukowski]

There can be an interesting moment when the Stake Pres. "requests" a person for a stake calling.

That's not possible. The bishop is always in charge of everything.

Bishops always meet with the high council and tell them who to approve for all the important callings- didn't you guys know that?

They also tell the stake president which activities they want their ward to participate in, when to do stake service projects, which programs to stress in their meetings, or what instructions from salt lake his ward will do and which they will not do.

This is because the bishop can do whatever he wants.

Edited November 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

All the strict constructionism of regulations seems so unnecessary in this case. Get together with your ward clerk and have him send a message to MLS, requesting the attention of a supervisor. Or speak directly with MLS personnel on their 800 number. There should be room for a bishop's discretion. If not, at least you'll know for certain what has to be done.

Back when I was the ward clerk we had a situation where a sister who (she thought) had had her name removed from the records of the church, and after a year of faithful attendance at church with her new husband, our bishop went ahead and re-baptized her. When we sent the paperwork in, it turned out that she had actually been excommunicated (at about the time she sent the letter resigning her membership) and the process for re-admission into the church was completely different. But the good folks at SLC said, "Oh, well, that's alright then, just let it stand."

The boy has a COR membership record. Modify his birthdate to make him still within the 8-to-9 years old bracket. Baptize him. Then when that is recorded in MLS, correct his DOB to the correct one.

Simple.

[mfbukowski]

The boy has a COR membership record. Modify his birthdate to make him still within the 8-to-9 years old bracket. Baptize him. Then when that is recorded in MLS, correct his DOB to the correct one.

Would you PLEASE move into my ward??

[Freedom]

It appears we have a contradiction here.

Or rather, you might be taking my comments out of context. Where the Bishop has stewardship he has the final say, where he does not have stewardship he does not have the final say. If a child of record baptism is to be scheduled, he can do it whenever he wants, he does not have to follow the direction of the stake. A Bishop does not have stewardship over convert baptisms so he has no control over them other than assisting with the service. Naturally, his decisions are restricted with his authority. He cannot change an ordinance, for example, or hold horse races instead of Sunday school. The stake president cannot override the decisions of a bishop such as when to hold a baptism, who to call as relief society president, or where the sacrament will be served. Not even the president of the church can change procedures on his own, but he has the final say his area of responsibility. If the Bishop decides to disregard the manual it is his choice. For example, if he decides not to hold ward council or to allow 13 year old youth to attend the 14/15 year old Sunday school that is his prerogative. It is his ward to run.

[Freedom]

That's not possible. The bishop is always in charge of everything.

Bishops always meet with the high council and tell them who to approve for all the important callings- didn't you guys know that?

They also tell the stake president which activities they want their ward to participate in, when to do stake service projects, which programs to stress in their meetings, or what instructions from salt lake his ward will do and which they will not do.

This is because the bishop can do whatever he wants.

you are an absolute type of person aren't you. A bishop either has all power or he has none. You should take more time to read the context of the discussions.