Baptism?

[filovirus]

Twenty years ago when I was serving a mission in El Salvador, it seemed like many times we would perform baptisms just to have people baptized. I don't know if it came from the mission president, an area authority, or just hearsay among the missionaries, but the rhetoric went something along the lines of this reasoning: It is better to be baptized and fall away then to not be baptized. We would use this reasoning when baptizing children with no actual family support, often times only the children would be baptized with a parents permission, but the parents showed no interest in the church.

 

Currently I am my ward's mission leader. We have been working with a few families who do not attend regularly. Only one parent is a member in each of the families. When the parent does attend (once or twice a year) it is usually alone. They have children who are of the age to be baptized, but as long as I can remember, the children have never attended any church meetings. I feel the children will get no actual support from home, even though a parent claims membership.

 

The missionaries and I teach the children sporadically (tough to get parents to commit to missionary discussions for time issues, not because of doctrine) and so we are hesitant to have the children baptized. The parent would like them baptized, but it isn't a high priority.

 

So back to my question: Is it better to be baptized while young (probably not a full understanding of the covenants involved) and fall away, or never to have been baptized?

[Senator]

Twenty years ago when I was serving a mission in El Salvador, it seemed like many times we would perform baptisms just to have people baptized. I don't know if it came from the mission president, an area authority, or just hearsay among the missionaries, but the rhetoric went something along the lines of this reasoning: It is better to be baptized and fall away then to not be baptized. We would use this reasoning when baptizing children with no actual family support, often times only the children would be baptized with a parents permission, but the parents showed no interest in the church.

 

Currently I am my ward's mission leader. We have been working with a few families who do not attend regularly. Only one parent is a member in each of the families. When the parent does attend (once or twice a year) it is usually alone. They have children who are of the age to be baptized, but as long as I can remember, the children have never attended any church meetings. I feel the children will get no actual support from home, even though a parent claims membership.

 

The missionaries and I teach the children sporadically (tough to get parents to commit to missionary discussions for time issues, not because of doctrine) and so we are hesitant to have the children baptized. The parent would like them baptized, but it isn't a high priority.

 

So back to my question: Is it better to be baptized while young (probably not a full understanding of the covenants involved) and fall away, or never to have been baptized?

The current thinking and position appears to be:  not baptize.

 

What's the affective difference?

Edited November 12, 2015 by Senator

[Storm Rider]

Twenty years ago when I was serving a mission in El Salvador, it seemed like many times we would perform baptisms just to have people baptized. I don't know if it came from the mission president, an area authority, or just hearsay among the missionaries, but the rhetoric went something along the lines of this reasoning: It is better to be baptized and fall away then to not be baptized. We would use this reasoning when baptizing children with no actual family support, often times only the children would be baptized with a parents permission, but the parents showed no interest in the church.

 

Currently I am my ward's mission leader. We have been working with a few families who do not attend regularly. Only one parent is a member in each of the families. When the parent does attend (once or twice a year) it is usually alone. They have children who are of the age to be baptized, but as long as I can remember, the children have never attended any church meetings. I feel the children will get no actual support from home, even though a parent claims membership.

 

The missionaries and I teach the children sporadically (tough to get parents to commit to missionary discussions for time issues, not because of doctrine) and so we are hesitant to have the children baptized. The parent would like them baptized, but it isn't a high priority.

 

So back to my question: Is it better to be baptized while young (probably not a full understanding of the covenants involved) and fall away, or never to have been baptized?

 

In this situation my advice, such as it is, is to not baptize these children at this time.  Unless an individual can demonstrate a degree of commitment to faith in Christ as evidenced by:  1) desire to be baptized, 2) repent of their past sins, 3) desire to follow Christ, 4) reading scriptures and praying, and 5) consistent church attendance, I think it is not helpful to baptize children or adults prior to a demonstration of an obvious personal desire to enter into a covenant with God. 

[rpn]

I think it is best to be baptized at the point that the child himself is pushing it because they have a desire to live the gospel and they love God, and not a minute before.   I think it a poor plan to be baptized because a parent wants them to be, when the parent is unwilling and unable to help them regularly attend.  But I also know of instances where the attendance of children has helped an non-attending parent return to activity.   Hence, my "it depends" on what the spirit is telling you, and the child's real desires as shown by his or her actually getting to church when picked up by whomever is assinged to give them a ride, and other things.

[Avatar4321]

Follow the Spirit.

[Dgal]

Twenty years ago when I was serving a mission in El Salvador, it seemed like many times we would perform baptisms just to have people baptized. I don't know if it came from the mission president, an area authority, or just hearsay among the missionaries, but the rhetoric went something along the lines of this reasoning: It is better to be baptized and fall away then to not be baptized. We would use this reasoning when baptizing children with no actual family support, often times only the children would be baptized with a parents permission, but the parents showed no interest in the church.

 

Currently I am my ward's mission leader. We have been working with a few families who do not attend regularly. Only one parent is a member in each of the families. When the parent does attend (once or twice a year) it is usually alone. They have children who are of the age to be baptized, but as long as I can remember, the children have never attended any church meetings. I feel the children will get no actual support from home, even though a parent claims membership.

 

The missionaries and I teach the children sporadically (tough to get parents to commit to missionary discussions for time issues, not because of doctrine) and so we are hesitant to have the children baptized. The parent would like them baptized, but it isn't a high priority.

 

So back to my question: Is it better to be baptized while young (probably not a full understanding of the covenants involved) and fall away, or never to have been baptized?

I think it's wiser to baptise and then confer the Holy Ghost. If they are not baptised, they don't have the gift of the HG to help them in the upcoming years.

I think the waiting to baptise is spiritually more dangerous than baptise and have them go inactive. More danerous by a LONG shot.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I was baptized at 8 and I didn't understand the covenants I was making. At that age I was still afraid of dinosaurs being real and attacking after seeing Jurassic Park. All I thought about during my baptism was I hope the waters not too cold and my underwear doesn't show through my jumpsuit after being dunked. I wasn't thinking about that life was different. Life seemed the same to me. I was just 8.

[Dgal]

I was baptized at 8 and I didn't understand the covenants I was making. At that age I was still afraid of dinosaurs being real and attacking after seeing Jurassic Park. All I thought about during my baptism was I hope the waters not too cold and my underwear doesn't show through my jumpsuit after being dunked. I wasn't thinking about that life was different. Life seemed the same to me. I was just 8.

Baptism is more than just about the covenants made. It washes away sin, and by the age of 8, most kids know right from wrong. At the same time, when confirmed, the Holy Ghost is conferred, which the unbaptized person does not have available to them.

If we were to go by the above example, then way bother baptizing any of the children at 8. Why not wait until they are 18? For ALL of them?

[filovirus]

I was baptized at 8 and I didn't understand the covenants I was making. At that age I was still afraid of dinosaurs being real and attacking after seeing Jurassic Park. All I thought about during my baptism was I hope the waters not too cold and my underwear doesn't show through my jumpsuit after being dunked. I wasn't thinking about that life was different. Life seemed the same to me. I was just 8.

I think it's different when a child has a support system and someone who can teach and mentor the importance of covenants. As the baptismal dates approached for my two elder sons, I would spend Sunday evenings in a one on one setting talking about baptism, what we promise, what it represents, etc. Same with the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Some children I know won't have any support. It is not the same. I'm just glad for a ward council to get different perspectives. That's why I ask here too.

[Tsuzuki]

I was baptized at 8 and I didn't understand the covenants I was making. At that age I was still afraid of dinosaurs being real and attacking after seeing Jurassic Park. All I thought about during my baptism was I hope the waters not too cold and my underwear doesn't show through my jumpsuit after being dunked. I wasn't thinking about that life was different. Life seemed the same to me. I was just 8.

I knew exactly what I was doing when I was baptized, shortly after my 8th birthday. I saw it as the first step on a path to occult wisdom and magical power. I also understood instinctively that as I was receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost the next day, it was really Lucifer.

[janderich]

I think it's wiser to baptise and then confer the Holy Ghost. If they are not baptised, they don't have the gift of the HG to help them in the upcoming years.

I think the waiting to baptise is spiritually more dangerous than baptise and have them go inactive. More danerous by a LONG shot.

Baptism and confirmation alone do not confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, nor do they wash away sins. A person might be baptized a thousand times but will never receive the gift of the Holy Ghost without exercising faith, repenting, and committing to follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Only then does one receive the HG and baptism of fire. The outward form without the inward change has no validity.

 

Baptism is more than just about the covenants made. It washes away sin, and by the age of 8, most kids know right from wrong. At the same time, when confirmed, the Holy Ghost is conferred, which the unbaptized person does not have available to them.

If we were to go by the above example, then way bother baptizing any of the children at 8. Why not wait until they are 18? For ALL of them?

The unbaptized person can certainly have the Holy Ghost. The thing they cannot have is the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

 

I see very little benefit to baptize someone who does not have a support system, has not prepared, does not understand the covenant, and will not obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost. However, if a boy or girl is sincere, will attend church regularly with and without parents, and can enter the covenant then I say they will be blessed by baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Calm]

I think it's wiser to baptise and then confer the Holy Ghost. If they are not baptised, they don't have the gift of the HG to help them in the upcoming years.

I think the waiting to baptise is spiritually more dangerous than baptise and have them go inactive. More danerous by a LONG shot.

The Gift of constant companionship is only active if one is living worthy to receive it.  Giving it to someone who most likely won't be and is breaking covenants though lack of attendance (hard to be one with the Saints if you aren't there) when the Spirit is available to nonmembers outside of the Gift isn't very wise imo.

 

Every worthy elder of the Church, when authorized, may give the gift of the Holy Ghost to another person. However, there is no guarantee that the person will receive inspiration and guidance from the Holy Ghost just because the elders have laid their hands on his or her head. Each person must “receive the Holy Ghost.” This means that the Holy Ghost will come to us only when we are faithful and desire help from this heavenly messenger.

To be worthy to have the help of the Holy Ghost, we must seek earnestly to obey the commandments of God. We must keep our thoughts and actions pure.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-21-the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng