Baptism Questions

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

This is one of the reasons it's hard to have a discussion here. While everyone is trying to pretend that they are only concerned about the children, they are really trying destroy worthiness as a concept. Trying to destroy accountability.  Trying to destroy the idea of priesthood. The idea of sin.

Concern for children is just a pretext.

 

Please stop hyperventilating  Everything is going to be OK.

Discussion is exactly what this is. A person shares a thought and then someone else rebuts or builds upon it. The entire issue of this thread is about what is and isn't appropriate for a man to ask a child behind closed doors. It raises questions so we consider possible solutions. "Worthiness" in the way it is conceptualized in the church today is a problem. You're welcome to disagree because it's a discussion.

If Joseph Smith were to have a temple recommend interview with a modern bishop/SP he wouldn't qualify. He would be deemed "unworthy". So let's not pretend that the way "worthiness" is defined an unchanging principle or doctrine. It is continually shifting. I just happen to feel that it's time for another shift.

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Gray]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

 

Or, is the overhaul basically the full elimination of actual worthiness interviews?

I would advocate for that. I don't see any positives to it. 

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

I haven't been to tithing settlement in several years but pay it and they say nothing to me about it-I have a recommend. 

He's probably declaring "full" on your behalf. Do the guy a favor this year, and go in and declare yourself "full." It will take all of five minutes . . .  

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

I know that no one is required to attend tithing settlement. But the nerve of holding it at all and expecting/wanting people to come!  

I like to go just to check on the figures, as well as get a chance to talk to the bishop -- whom I do not often see on a private one-to-one basis.  Just to quickly pass the time of day.  I take tithing settlement as a courtesy, not an obligation.  I think most people  feel that way.  What used to get some people really annoyed were the assessments for building funds back in the good old days when wards had to find money to build a new chapel.  Bishops were pretty hard line, and one of my friends would speak to the bishop familiarly by first name and rake him over the coals for wanting his personal financial info on which to base his assessment.  Thankfully, that is no longer a problem.

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

Listened to first 27 minutes

 

1:10 - Bishop already tries to put father on defensive.

 

6:00 - This interview is supposed to be about baptismal stuff, the bishop is not supposed to be a policeman sent to interrogate members to find perps or potential perps. This is what this bishop saying the church is doing because of problems with molestation. I almost want to give it a pass because it sounds like a worthy cause, however, it is a lie that this has to be done for baptismal reasons.

 

13:30 - He acts as if children are all the same and become accountable at eight in a solid, structured manner. I know that is in scripture, but isn't it true that adults at 18 can be "off the mature mark" regardless if they are 18? This is Pharisaical nonsense.

 

14:00 - Pretty much saying the church teaches better than the parents and should override/replace their judgement. NO! They don't hold those "keys"

 

19:35 - Have you ever M*********D in your life? EVER? That’s a missionary question? Talking about setting people up for a guilt trip. How many say never? Maybe I am wrong…anyone got a story of any guy who never did?

 

 

I'll listen to the rest later.

 

Man, I know the church means well, but why does it have such a military-like approach to everything? It just simply lacks the spirit to me.

 

 

 

 

 

The church does mean well and does not have a millitary-like approach (except maybe in the MTC); the problem is this one particular Bishop who is overstepping the bounderies of what is appropriate for interviewing young children. See my previous post.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68197-baptism-questions/?do=findComment&comment=1209667656

 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I disagree of course.  There is something to not being under someone else or a go between but instead be beholden only to God. I believe it's conditioning that might hinder someone's spiritual growth. Conditioning that tries to make someone follow a certain path, and certain interviews that make one feel unworthy. It's not follow the PH is it?

I read a comment by someone who was told not to take the Sacrament as a youth because he masturbated and confessed. It apparently scarred him for life. To have others wonder what he had done wrong. So these questions aren't bulletproof. 

I don't think you really disagree with me.  

Your concern is not for the children.

Your concern is with the idea of authority and priesthood.  The idea that someone has been given authority to act in gods name. 

If you were really concerned with the children, you would take time to understand everyone's experiences with confession, not just some commentator on a websites.

You seem to be constantly searching and seeking for the horror story, the one off experience, often as in this case, a contrived experience, something to be shocked about.

All the while turning a blind eye to the millions of people who are blessed from the experience of confession and worthiness interviews.  

Your example you give in the last paragraph.  Apparently the kid was extremely obsessed with what others thought of him, much more than is healthy.  He missed the entire point of not taking the sacrament, which what scarred him.  

In every sacrament meeting there are people, who for whatever reason, don't take the sacrament and guess what?

NOBODY CARES!

it is between them and God, as it should be.

 

 

 

 

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 "Worthiness" in the way it is conceptualized in the church today is a problem.

I see it as a blessing, not a problem.

Most people I interact with in the church see it as a blessing, not a problem.

The idea of return and report is a fundamental part of the gospel.

The idea of priesthood, that God delegates authority and power to men on earth, is a fundamental part of the gospel.

To take away the concept of accountability, to eliminate the idea of worthiness, would do far more damage than anything asserted here to be a problem.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If Joseph Smith were to have a temple recommend interview with a modern bishop/SP he wouldn't qualify. He would be deemed "unworthy". So let's not pretend that the way "worthiness" is defined an unchanging principle or doctrine. It is continually shifting. I just happen to feel that it's time for another shift.

 

And it will continue shifting.  That is the whole benefit of having priesthood and living prophets.

Joseph's conditions were different than our conditions.   He will be judged according to his light and knowledge, and how he acted in his circumstances.

Inspired change is a feature, not a bug. 

If you remove the priesthood and the prophets, you remove the feature.

 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

And it will continue shifting.  That is the whole benefit of having priesthood and living prophets.

Joseph's conditions were different than our conditions.   He will be judged according to his light and knowledge, and how he acted in his circumstances.

Inspired change is a feature, not a bug. 

If you remove the priesthood and the prophets, you remove the feature.

 

Heaven forbid people take their concerns directly to God. 

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The church does mean well and does not have a millitary-like approach (except maybe in the MTC); the problem is this one particular Bishop who is overstepping the bounderies of what is appropriate for interviewing young children. See my previous post.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68197-baptism-questions/?do=findComment&comment=1209667656

 

The problem is judging another bishop, when you do not know the circumstances.

The problem is advocating for a one sized fits all approach.

 

 

 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Heaven forbid people take their concerns directly to God. 

heaven forbid when people who take things to god and ignore the answers he gives through his servants.

The Joke about the guy who was drowning in the flood and ignored the boat and helicopter while waiting for God to help him comes to mind.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I see it as a blessing, not a problem.

Most people I interact with in the church see it as a blessing, not a problem.

The idea of return and report is a fundamental part of the gospel.

The idea of priesthood, that God delegates authority and power to men on earth, is a fundamental part of the gospel.

To take away the concept of accountability, to eliminate the idea of worthiness, would do far more damage than anything asserted here to be a problem.

I don't have a problem with accountability to God. We'll all be accountable to God. I'm merely suggesting cutting out the fallible middle man.

[rongo]

I haven't watched the video. I don't like these hidden camera exposes.

Can someone tell me if the father, after secretly recording this, then posted it on the internet? Even if all is as it appears to be in this (based on comments), going about it in this way is completely inappropriate. This shows first and foremost attention and making the Church look bad as the primary motive, not "it's for the children." Even if one is upset at how his leader has worked with his children, this is not an appropriate way to go about addressing the issue. 

Unless one's goal is embarrassing the Church. 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

heaven forbid when people who take things to god and ignore the answers he gives through his servants.

The Joke about the guy who was drowning in the flood and ignored the boat and helicopter while waiting for God to help him comes to mind.

 

When it comes to this kind of thing, the arm of flesh tends to be untrustworthy. Especially given that bishops receive no relevant training to be of much use in this area. If you happen to have a bishop who is also a therapist, you've hit the jackpot. But otherwise, it may be a very leaky boat waiting to rescue you. 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Sounds like the new ward manager model . . . .  

And tithing settlement? None of the bishop's business. Tithing is between the member and the Lord.  

I agree but the church as you know uses those statistics collected from the tithing report to determine if the stake can afford new buildings, or even continue as a stake etc,  which makes sense to me. Without this information the church could not exist as a temporal entity

So what do we do about that?

Edited October 7, 2016 by mfbukowski

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't have a problem with accountability to God. We'll all be accountable to God. I'm merely suggesting cutting out the fallible middle man.

We would need to expunge these words, spoken by the Savior to Peter, from the New Testement

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

This revelation given to Alma would have to go

"Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also." (Alma 26:29)

And of course the verses in D&C 102 that reveal the manner in which disciplinary councils are to be held would need to be formally disavowed.

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't have a problem with accountability to God. We'll all be accountable to God. I'm merely suggesting cutting out the fallible middle man.

And therefore, no more church.

One of the beauties of the church is that it allows participation by fallible middle men like us.

Its a feature, not a bug.

[Danzo]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

When it comes to this kind of thing, the arm of flesh tends to be untrustworthy. Especially given that bishops receive no relevant training to be of much use in this area. If you happen to have a bishop who is also a therapist, you've hit the jackpot. But otherwise, it may be a very leaky boat waiting to rescue you. 

yet, you would turn the leaky boat away and drown.

You may feel the arm of to be untrustworthy, but I have found, when combined with the strength of God, to be quite powerful.

If you are going to the bishop expecting therapy, you are doing it wrong.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We would need to expunge these words, spoken by the Savior to Peter, from the New Testement

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

This revelation given to Alma would have to go

"Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also." (Alma 26:29)

And of course the verses in D&C 102 that reveal the manner in which disciplinary councils are to be held would need to be formally disavowed.

that's the point, to disavow it all.

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

I haven't watched the video. I don't like these hidden camera exposes.

Can someone tell me if the father, after secretly recording this, then posted it on the internet? Even if all is as it appears to be in this (based on comments), going about it in this way is completely inappropriate. This shows first and foremost attention and making the Church look bad as the primary motive, not "it's for the children." Even if one is upset at how his leader has worked with his children, this is not an appropriate way to go about addressing the issue. 

Unless one's goal is embarrassing the Church. 

that was precisely the goal. 

You don't make a recording unless there is an audience.

When you make a recording, knowing there will be an audience, you tend to play to the audience.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree but the church as you know uses those statistics collected from the tithing report to determine if the stake can afford new buildings, or even continue as a stake etc,  which makes sense to me. Without this information the church could not exist as a temporal entity

So what do we do about that?

I was being tongue-in-cheek (hence the wink emoticons). 

I have no problem declaring for people who won't come (which becomes a best guess when some tithing has been paid), but it should be the people themselves.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

that's the point, to disavow it all.

I'm kind of getting tired of the word "disavow" lately . . .  

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

yet, you would turn the leaky boat away and drown.

You may feel the arm of to be untrustworthy, but I have found, when combined with the strength of God, to be quite powerful.

If you are going to the bishop expecting therapy, you are doing it wrong.

To perhaps stretch the metaphor past its breaking point, you could be leaving the safety of the roof for a boat that will ultimately sink. 

I've attended bishop's trainings. Great if you want to learn how to manage tithing. Not so helpful for teaching bishops know how to deal with delicate personal problems. Funny how we think they need regular training when it comes to managing money, but we expect them to just wing it when it comes to these delicate personal issues. If God can step in and tell these bishops how to respond appropriately to victims of abuse, why can't God step in and tell them how to manage tithing funds? The fact is that revelation is not a substitute for study and training. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Gray

[JAHS]

45 minutes ago, Danzo said:

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The church does mean well and does not have a millitary-like approach (except maybe in the MTC); the problem is this one particular Bishop who is overstepping the bounderies of what is appropriate for interviewing young children. See my previous post.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68197-baptism-questions/?do=findComment&comment=1209667656

 

The problem is judging another bishop, when you do not know the circumstances.

The problem is advocating for a one sized fits all approach.

I agree. Now that I think about it, actually the real poblem was recording what was supposed to be a private confidential conversation, and making it available for the whole world to criticize. But then there I go judging the father who did that...  Sigh.

 

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

I agree. Now that I think about it, actually the real poblem was recording what was supposed to be a private confidential conversation, and making it available for the whole world to criticize. But then there I go judging the father who did that...  Sigh.

 

we need to suspend our judgement and just listen to it for its true purpose . . .

Entertainment