Unaccountable People-Who And How Do You Determine Who That Is?

[thesometimesaint]

LoudmouthMormon:

True. But the Stephen Hawking's of the world are few and far between. Down's Syndrome shows up at birth, and Autism most always by about 2-3 years of age.

Edited May 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[rpn]

Autism may show up at 2-3, but is often dxd much later. More importantly in a study of a few years ago, the researcher determined that more than half of the students (these were all nonverbal) were of average intelligence or greater, even though previously thought to be intellectually disabled. Just because someone doesn't look typical or talk or [fill in the blank[ doesn't mean they aren't just as smart as you or me.

[mfbukowski]

And there are many levels of autism. I know of at least two posters here who have some level of autism and regularly kick tail on the anti's. There are autistic savants. Autism has little to do with intelligence.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Yep - autism is a spectrum of disorders, not just a disorder.

My wife was telling me a story about a family with an autistic kid the other day. They were an LDS family, and the kid was a teenager who was struggling with religion and faith in very autistically typical ways. To him, scripture reading and prayer were wastes of time, it didn't really matter to him whether God existed or not, vigorous resistance to wearing sunday clothes and going to church, etc. Then his wise or inspired bishop offered him a calling in maintaining various parts of the building. It became his job to see all the rooms had thermostats set correctly, that the windows were locked and doors closed after church, etc. That fit his brain perfectly, and his behavior and attitude changed overnight. He now gets his family up and ready for church. When someone tinkers with the heat or cooling, they answer to him for what they did to "his church". A minor miracle showed up that nobody saw coming - he just out of the blue demanded to do scripture study one day. He still struggles with things, but those struggles now have a more productive/learning/debating quality, instead of just rough or violent negative reactions.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-autism.html

[katherine the great]

And there are many levels of autism. I know of at least two posters here who have some level of autism and regularly kick tail on the anti's. There are autistic savants. Autism has little to do with intelligence.

I totally agree. Intelligence may not always be the sole indicator of accountability either. I'd hate to be the one who has to make those decisions.

[Zeta-Flux]

Actually, here's the fun bit: it doesn't matter whether the unaccountable are baptised or not - so why not dunk 'em all?

Because you would be mocking God if you tried to baptize someone you believed was unaccountable. It's the same reason we don't baptize little children.

[Log]

Because you would be mocking God if you tried to baptize someone you believed was unaccountable. It's the same reason we don't baptize little children.

I believe God does not share your analysis. I speak as the father of an autistic child who desires baptism even though, in the words of the bishop, "it's not necessary for his salvation," yet baptizing him is, according to the bishop, an appropriate thing to do.

That's the context of my post, which MFB caught correctly.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

I totally agree. Intelligence may not always be the sole indicator of accountability either. I'd hate to be the one who has to make those decisions.

That's the context of my post, which MFB caught correctly.

Yay! I am smart enough to be accountable after all!

But seriously, I cannot imagine that we could be held accountable for baptizing someone unaccountable, in error.

Should we do IQ tests, autism tests, sanity tests and figure out if those we baptize in the temple were accountable or not??

And how are we supposed to do that? Obviously there the rule is "baptize 'em all, and let God sort 'em out"- why would it be different here, where it is often just as hard to judge if someone is or is not accountable?

Edited May 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Because you would be mocking God if you tried to baptize someone you believed was unaccountable. It's the same reason we don't baptize little children.

So it is my "belief" that the person was accountable which mocks God? Exactly how much must I "believe" the person is accountable before we are at the threshold of mocking God?

How many degrees of certainty must I have? What about those who might be and might not be? What if I believe some adult to be baptized in the temple who is now dead, was unaccountable?

[Zeta-Flux]

So it is my "belief" that the person was accountable which mocks God?

No.

Exactly how much must I "believe" the person is accountable before we are at the threshold of mocking God?

How many degrees of certainty must I have? What about those who might be and might not be? What if I believe some adult to be baptized in the temple who is now dead, was unaccountable?

How many grains of sand make a heap?

[Zeta-Flux]

I believe God does not share your analysis. I speak as the father of an autistic child who desires baptism even though, in the words of the bishop, "it's not necessary for his salvation," yet baptizing him is, according to the bishop, an appropriate thing to do.

That's the context of my post, which MFB caught correctly. [emphasis added]

Would God share my analysis if your son was 6 at the time? [emphasis added] Edited May 17, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Log]

Would God share my analysis if your son was 6 at the time? [emphasis added]

If you lack wisdom, ask Him.

[Zeta-Flux]

Oh, believe me, if I was in the stead of your Bishop I would have asked God.

If He had told me to baptize your child even though he/she is not accountable, I would, although I don't think this scenario is likely (but not impossible).

If He had told me that your child was accountable enough, I would authorize it.

If He had told me to say no, I would, while explaining to your child that he/she was saved in the celestial kingdom and didn't need baptism.

Finally, if He had not given me a direct answer, I would have probably erred on the side of accountability, and allowed your child to be baptized.

[in all cases I would have read the relevant sections of the handbook of instruction for guidelines. There I would have seen that in questionable cases I should consult with the Stake President. In some cases the Stake President may correspond with the First Presidency for further guidance.]

But just as I didn't know the context of your post (namely that you were talking about the specific instance of your autistic child, whom I know nothing about and have no authority over), so too you apparently did not know the context of my post (the general rule, which says that baptism is for the accountable, and not for the unaccountable, including little children and the mentally disabled).

There is a reason we have a general policy that we don't baptize little children and the unaccountable. Moroni did ask God. To claim that God does not share my analysis is a little condescending. If you don't agree that my analysis follows what God told Moroni, help me understand where. But as it stands, your fix of "baptize them all" seems to run counter to that revelation. You and your Bishop have a right to a revelation in your specific circumstance, but it appeared (at least to me) you were positing a general rule for the whole church.

Best wishes,

Zeta-Flux

P.S. Just to add: If your child had been 6 I probably would not have asked God. I would have simply said no, because the prophet has given specific directions not too, and I wouldn't have the keys to do it without his say so.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[mfbukowski]

Because you would be mocking God if you tried to baptize someone you believed was unaccountable. It's the same reason we don't baptize little children.

How many grains of sand make a heap?

Don't ask me- you were the one who seemingly was saying that in grey areas- where it is not clear whether one is accountable or not- one should not be baptized. Didn't you say that?

[Zeta-Flux]

Don't ask me- you were the one who seemingly was saying that in grey areas- where it is not clear whether one is accountable or not- one should not be baptized. Didn't you say that?

No.

[Kenngo1969]

LoudmouthMormon:

True. But the Stephen Hawking's of the world are few and far between. Down's Syndrome shows up at birth, and Autism most always by about 2-3 years of age.

Having the intelligence level of a high-level genius while also having a motor impairment and speaking difficulty is a rare thing indeed; conversely, having normal intelligence while having such difficulties is not as rare as you might think.

[mfbukowski]

No.

Sorry I didn't see your more lengthy reply before posting that question.

[Log]

But just as I didn't know the context of your post (namely that you were talking about the specific instance of your autistic child, whom I know nothing about and have no authority over), so too you apparently did not know the context of my post (the general rule, which says that baptism is for the accountable, and not for the unaccountable, including little children and the mentally disabled).

I'm trying to understand why, exactly, you would think I was unaware of the general rule, or why you would think I would disagree with the general rule. I'm coming up zeroes on that question. Care to enlighten?

See, I assumed that any person who had read any of my posts for any length of time on this board would probably have been aware that I was both LDS and aware, on perhaps some precognitive level, of some of the doctrines of the Church. On that reasoning, a response to my post like yours would scream condescension, as of course any LDS would be aware of the canonized requirements for baptism. Strangely, I guess it's not the case that I am known to be LDS.

I'm LDS. If it matters.

You and your Bishop have a right to a revelation in your specific circumstance, but it appeared (at least to me) you were positing a general rule for the whole church.

Do you have any reason to believe it would displease God if one who was of an appropriate age and who expressed a desire for baptism were to be baptized, even if that individual was unaccountable before God for his sins?

Edited May 17, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

It is actually pretty rare. No more than 11% display normal intelligence.

Edited May 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm trying to understand why, exactly, you would think I was unaware of the general rule, or why you would think I would disagree with the general rule. I'm coming up zeroes on that question. Care to enlighten?

As far as I can remember, I never said you were unaware of the general rule, or that you even disagreed with it (per se). But I will try to explain what I did think you were saying.

This thread started out with Duncan asking how and who decides when an investigator the missionaries are teaching is unaccountable. Your response to this question was it doesn't matter if they are baptized, so "why not dunk 'em all?" I was unaware that your statement was in some way limited to situations like your own. The phrases "they" and "'em all" suggested to me you were positing a general rule, and the context (I thought) was Duncan's original context of the people being taught by the missionaries who were possibly not accountable.

I did think you were aware of the general rule, but you seemed to be asking a sincere question: "What is the reason we don't we baptize all people who might be unaccountable?" (That was the way my brain rephrased your question of "why not dunk 'em all?".) You know my response. I tried to express the current policy of the church as I understand it. Namely, the reason we don't baptize all people who might be unaccountable is that it would be mocking God, and it is the same reason we don't baptize children.

You then stated, point blank, that God does not share my analysis. I then reinterpreted your question of "why not dunk 'em all?" to be a suggested policy change. Not that you would be opposed to the rule as it stands today (per se), but that you would like to see a change.. But to make sure that was the case, I asked about whether you thought it would be appropriate for 6 year-old children to be baptized.

Your response (go ask God) seemed to back up my interpretation that you were open to policy change. I tried to then explain why I don't think that is likely, and runs counter to current revelation. I was open to the idea that you had some reason for thinking otherwise.

I hope this helps you understand my responses.

See, I assumed that any person who had read any of my posts for any length of time on this board would probably have been aware that I was both LDS and aware, on perhaps some precognitive level, of some of the doctrines of the Church. On that reasoning, a response to my post like yours would scream condescension, as of course any LDS would be aware of the canonized requirements for baptism. Strangely, I guess it's not the case that I am known to be LDS.

I'm LDS. If it matters.

I was and am aware you are a faithful latter-day saint. Having posted here of some length of time, I was also aware that you are quite knowledgeable about the gospel. So your question ("why not dunk 'em all") took me by surprise. I thought the answer was obvious, but what do I know. So I gave my answer, not to necessarily instruct you, but to clarify to others who might read this thread what the answer was as I saw it.

Do you have any reason to believe it would displease God if one who was of an appropriate age and who expressed a desire for baptism were to be baptized, even if that individual was unaccountable before God for his sins?

Not unless you knew they were completely unaccountable, knew the doctrine that baptism is only for those who can repent, etc..

To be honest, I believe I was accountable much earlier than age 8, and I think the same is true of most children. I'm also of the opinion that if someone can reason enough to express their desires in words then they are accountable on some level. That said, the decision to be baptized is not to be taken lightly, which is (in my opinion) one of the reasons we wait until children are 8. Even then, you hear people say later that they didn't know what they were doing. Perhaps it is true that they didn't know fully what they were doing (although I hope their Bishops explained the significance of it) but we all progress line upon line.

[Log]

So your question ("why not dunk 'em all") took me by surprise. I thought the answer was obvious, but what do I know. So I gave my answer, not to necessarily instruct you, but to clarify to others who might read this thread what the answer was as I saw it.

Ah - you were speaking to the room using my post as a point of departure whereas I, of course, thought you were speaking to me.

Not unless you knew they were completely unaccountable, knew the doctrine that baptism is only for those who can repent, etc..

Ok, I have to correct something: baptism only availeth - is effective in its proper role as the fulfilling of the commandments prior to the remission of sins - to them that can repent and fulfill the commandments. Nobody is putting their trust in dead works on this one, even if it would be a dead work.

As it appears my son is not accountable, I am not desirous that he be baptized because I think Christ's atonement is of none effect for him. I know it is. The bishop says it's appropriate for him, however, and my son wants to be baptized. I believe he wants to be, at least in part, so that there may no longer be a distinction between him and his peers. I would love for that for him too.

Unfortunately, someone other than the bishop or I has veto power in his case.

It is true that I can't see a doctrinal reason why this approach can't be made policy, but I'm not suggesting that it be such - it's not my business. I figure God knows what he wants the Church policies to be. And I figure God can override policies when he wishes.

I mean, look at the Lamanites in Helaman chapter 5 who were baptized by fire and knew it not - they hadn't even been baptized by water at that time!

To be honest, I believe I was accountable much earlier than age 8, and I think the same is true of most children. I'm also of the opinion that if someone can reason enough to express their desires in words then they are accountable on some level. That said, the decision to be baptized is not to be taken lightly, which is (in my opinion) one of the reasons we wait until children are 8. Even then, you hear people say later that they didn't know what they were doing. Perhaps it is true that they didn't know fully what they were doing (although I hope their Bishops explained the significance of it) but we all progress line upon line.

I, too, knew what I was doing. When the bishop (who is now my stake president) interviewed me, and asked if I was worthy of baptism, I said, and truly felt, that I wasn't.

My female parental unit did not like that, so the answer got changed pretty quick.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Log

[Zeta-Flux]

Ok, I have to correct something: baptism only availeth - is effective in its proper role as the fulfilling of the commandments prior to the remission of sins - to them that can repent and fulfill the commandments. Nobody is putting their trust in dead works on this one, even if it would be a dead work.

I agree with the first sentence. The second could be true, depending on the circumstances, but is not true in general.

Does your son agree with you that he is unaccountable?

As it appears my son is not accountable, I am not desirous that he be baptized because I think Christ's atonement is of none effect for him. I know it is. The bishop says it's appropriate for him, however, and my son wants to be baptized. I believe he wants to be, at least in part, so that there may no longer be a distinction between him and his peers. I would love for that for him too.

It seems to me that that consideration is irrelevant. His desire to be like others is besides the point (not to say it is something that is bad, just irrelevant).

It is true that I can't see a doctrinal reason why this approach can't be made policy, but I'm not suggesting that it be such - it's not my business.

Which approach, exactly, is that? Baptize all people regardless of their accountability?

I mean, look at the Lamanites in Helaman chapter 5 who were baptized by fire and knew it not - they hadn't even been baptized by water at that time!

I don't see the connection to accountability here. The Lamanites were accountable. Could you explain what connection you see?

I, too, knew what I was doing. When the bishop (who is now my stake president) interviewed me, and asked if I was worthy of baptism, I said, and truly felt, that I wasn't.

My female parental unit did not like that, so the answer got changed pretty quick.

Ah, the word "worthy". It sounds like, unfortunately, your Bishop did not explain what it means to be "worthy" in that context. (I really hate that word as we use it in the church.) Edited May 17, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Log]

I agree with the first sentence. The second could be true, depending on the circumstances, but is not true in general.

How do you know the second sentence is not true in general? In any event, it is specific to this case - ie, "this one."

Does your son agree with you that he is unaccountable?

I wouldn't know. I haven't asked him.

It seems to me that that consideration is irrelevant.

Nobody said it wasn't.

His desire to be like others is besides the point (not to say it is something that is bad, just irrelevant).

It depends on what your point is.

Which approach, exactly, is that? Baptize all people regardless of their accountability?

What I said was "I see no doctrinal reason that the unaccountable, who are of an appropriate age greater than eight years old, if they express an independent desire for baptism, that they could not be baptized." I thought it was clear from the context.

I don't see the connection to accountability here.

That's because there is no connection to accountability, neither was there a claim that there was a connection to accountability.

Ah, the word "worthy". It sounds like, unfortunately, your Bishop did not explain what it means to be "worthy" in that context. (I really hate that word as we use it in the church.)

I knew what the word "worthy" meant at the time.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Log

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo1969:

It is actually pretty rare. No more than 11% display normal intelligence.

11% of whom? (If your answer is, 11% of those who have motor-control and speech difficulties, I'd have to ask how that figure was arrived at: there are such varying degrees of such difficulties among people who have them that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a representative sample. Taking my own case as an example, yes, there are people of whom it can be said that it is fairly obvious that they have CP; yet I've met one person I didn't know has CP until she told me so, it was that "un-obvious.") And it's not even necessarily easy to measure intelligence in people who don't have motor-control and speech difficulties, let alone those who do.