Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[changed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, I think you meant "exclude" (instead of "explude").  

Second, what are your thoughts about the delay of baptism of a child from a polygamist family?

Yes.  I would tell the child that, for reasons not within his control, he will need to wait until 18 before he can be baptized.

I would also tell them that there are several situations in which baptism may need to be delayed, none of which are the fault of the child.  A child whose parents do not consent cannot be baptized.  A child of polygamous parents cannot be baptized.  

I would also explain that he is welcome to participate in all Church meetings and activities.  

I would also explain, depending on the age of the child, the reasoning that the general authorities have provided for the policy.  I would also explain that the policy was the result of revelation.

I would also encourage them to do all they can to stay close to God, and to continue to prepare for baptism.

No.  Nobody is obligated to participate in church interviews.

I would give them help and time.  I would get them counseling.

At some point yes, the mandate to forgive would need to be addressed.  But it needn't be rushed.  And it can addressed with decorum and respect and patience and love.  

But at the end of the day, the mandate to forgive comes from God.  I'm not sure if you fully appreciate that.

I agree.

I agree.

Sounds good.

But here's the thing: The pre-conditions for baptism are not your call.  Nor mine.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think any child should be allowed to be baptized if their legal guardians do not oppose it.  Forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of God...

"I agree"'s are good to see.  Everyone agrees with one another for the most part I think - we are all trying to protect children and do what is best.

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[changed]

Recent fb post by John D...

Quote

On September 9, 2018 (Russell M Nelson's birthday...how ironic/fitting!) the Mormon church will hold a disciplinary council to allegedly put Sam Young on trial for his efforts to Protect LDS Children from sexual abuse.

But in reality, Sam Young is not on trial. The Mormon church is on trial to see if it really...

1) Is willing to follow Jesus Christ's admonition to protect children.

2) Believes that the protection of abuse victims is more important than the protection of sexual predators (Note: Joseph Bishop, a confirmed rapist, along with tens of thousands of other abusers and rapists, has/have not yet been excommunicated for their deeds, but Sam Young is going to be excommunicated?)

3) Has leaders who are led by God and Christ.

YOU are on trial on September 9, 2018, Mormon church. Not Sam Young. And the world is watching.

And happy birthday Mormon President Russell M Nelson!!!!! I hope it is a pleasant one for you and your family

 

“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.”

~Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life, ‘A Final Testimony’ Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900030038/heres-why-a-former-mormon-bishop-faces-discipline-from-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.html

The news articles keep rolling in....

The amount of backlash and attention reflect the magnitude of the problem.

..."more than 3,000 stories of abuse and sexually explicit interviews into 15 bound books . They were hand delivered to church headquarters with nearly 1,000 marchers...."

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, changed said:

I think any child should be allowed to be baptized if their legal guardians do not oppose it. 

I understand.  But you concede that there are circumstances under which a baptism can (or must) be postponed, even if the child wants it (lack of parental consent)?  If so, then the moral imperative to baptize no matter what isn't really a moral imperative after all.

Again, what are your thoughts about children being raised in polygamous families?  Why do you think the Church has had this policy in place since the 1920s?

Quote

Forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of God...

But that reasoning cannot be unfettered from reality.  You concede that baptism can be delayed for a child for lack of parental consent.  "Forbid them not" isn't really meant to override parental rights, wouldn't you agree?  And if so, why cannot there be other situations which may also result in baptism being delayed for other reasons?  

We are supposed to preach the gospel to all the world, but we don't preach it in the Middle East or China.  We are supposed to invite all to baptism and yet do not allow baptism in some (very limited) circumstances.

Quote

"I agree"'s are good to see.  Everyone agrees with one another for the most part I think - we are all trying to protect children and do what is best.

And yet not all of us are taking a my-way-or-the-highway approach to these things.

Sam Young is.

I have six children.  I love them all dearly.  I have every interest in keeping them safe.  And yet I am strongly opposed to what Sam Young is saying and doing.  Why do you think that is?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97

[changed]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand.  But you concede that there are circumstances under which a baptism can (or must) be postponed, even if the child wants it (lack of parental consent)?  If so, then the moral imperative to baptize no matter what isn't really a moral imperative after all.

Again, what are your thoughts about children being raised in polygamous families?  Why do you think the Church has had this policy in place since the 1920s?

But that reasoning cannot be unfettered from reality.  You concede that baptism can be delayed for a child for lack of parental consent.  "Forbid them not" isn't really meant to override parental rights, wouldn't you agree?  And if so, why cannot there be other situations which may also result in baptism being delayed for other reasons?  

We are supposed to preach the gospel to all the world, but we don't preach it in the Middle East or China.  We are supposed to invite all to baptism and yet do not allow baptism in some (very limited) circumstances.

And yet not all of us are taking a my-way-or-the-highway approach to these things.

Sam Young is.

I have six children.  I love them all dearly.  I have every interest in keeping them safe.  And yet I am strongly opposed to what Sam Young is saying and doing.  Why do you think that is?

Thanks,

-Smac

The church is the author of polygamous families - out of any kids the church should be trying to help, those kids should be one of the #1 concerns.  The point of the church is supposed to help those who need help - and those kids need help because of early church teachings.  I do not think baptism should be delayed for anyone if legal guardians are not opposed to it.

My parents did not attend my baptism... I only had one cousin there to support me... 

I actually work with quite a few from the middle east and China, they are good hard working people.

I am a parent too, and I support Sam because my kids have been hurt by just the things Sam is fighting for.  I am grateful to Sam for helping change church policies, and hope he will not be ex'd in his council.  Sam is not the enemy here - pedophiles, adulterers, sex addicts, abusers - that is who everyone needs to be worried about. 

Does your stake do background checks on all the adults who are called to work with children?  Do those working with children go through youth protection training sessions before they start their callings?  These are the things that everyone should be talking about.

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, changed said:

 

I think any child should be allowed to be baptized if their legal guardians do not oppose it.  Forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of God...

 

Why are you privileging "their legal guardians"? If it's wrong to "forbid them," doesn't that apply across the board?

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Recent fb post by John D...

Quote

On September 9, 2018 (Russell M Nelson's birthday...how ironic/fitting!) the Mormon church will hold a disciplinary council to allegedly put Sam Young on trial for his efforts to Protect LDS Children from sexual abuse.

But in reality, Sam Young is not on trial. The Mormon church is on trial to see if it really...

1) Is willing to follow Jesus Christ's admonition to protect children.

I don't take John Dehlin's harrumphing very seriously.  And his invocation of Jesus Christ is . . . interesting.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

2) Believes that the protection of abuse victims is more important than the protection of sexual predators

It is stuff like this that makes me not take John Dehlin seriously.  

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

(Note: Joseph Bishop, a confirmed rapist,

No, he's not.

Yet another example of I don't take John Dehlin seriously.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

along with tens of thousands of other abusers and rapists, has/have not yet been excommunicated for their deeds, but Sam Young is going to be excommunicated?)

Total non sequitur.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

3) Has leaders who are led by God and Christ.

YOU are on trial on September 9, 2018, Mormon church. Not Sam Young. And the world is watching.

Again, not taking him seriously.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.”

~Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life, ‘A Final Testimony’ Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Yes, I like this.  But I reject the Sam Young's approach to "dissent."  

8 minutes ago, changed said:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900030038/heres-why-a-former-mormon-bishop-faces-discipline-from-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.html

The news articles keep rolling in....

The amount of backlash and attention reflect the magnitude of the problem.

..."more than 3,000 stories of abuse and sexually explicit interviews into 15 bound books . They were hand delivered to church headquarters with nearly 1,000 marchers...."

"3,000 stories of abuse and sexually explicit interviews?" 

How many of these stories were about "abuse" by bishops?  How many of these stories were about "sexually explicit interviews?"

Sounds like Sam Young is padding his claims by adding into allegations of abuse (virtually all of which, I suspect, are anecdotal and unvetted).

In any event, I dislike this sort of moral panic alarmism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, changed said:

The church is the author of polygamous families

No, it's not.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

 - out of any kids the church should be trying to help, those kids should be one of the #1 concerns. 

The Church can and does help these kids.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

The point of the church is supposed to help those who need help - and those kids need help because of early church teachings. 

Those kids might need help, and only because their parents have disregarded the Church's teachings for the last 130 years.

With respect, I hope you can set aside the the-Church-is-always-the-bad-guy lens through which you look at these issues.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

I do not think baptism should be delayed for anyone if legal guardians are not opposed to it.

But baptism should be delayed if legal guardians do oppose it, right?

So "forbid them not" does not apply in that circumstance, right?

I think your approach to this issue is too rigid and unyielding.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

My parents did not attend my baptism... I only had one cousin there to support me... 

I actually work with quite a few from the middle east and China, they are good hard working people.

Many of whom cannot get baptized, for a myriad of reasons.  So "forbid them not" often does not apply there, either.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

I am a parent too, and I support Sam because my kids have been hurt by just the things Sam is fighting for.  I am grateful to Sam for helping change church policies, and hope he will not be ex'd in his council.  Sam is not the enemy here - pedophiles, adulterers, sex addicts, abusers - that is who everyone needs to be worried about. 

And yet Sam is targeting and vilifying . . . bishops.  And the general authorities.

Strange, that.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

Does your stake do background checks on all the adults who are called to work with children?  Do those working with children go through youth protection training sessions before they start their callings?  These are the things that everyone should be talking about.

Sam Young's petition says nothing about background checks or youth protection training.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

2 hours ago, changed said:

Recent fb post by John D...

“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.”

~Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life, ‘A Final Testimony’ Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900030038/heres-why-a-former-mormon-bishop-faces-discipline-from-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.html

The news articles keep rolling in....

The amount of backlash and attention reflect the magnitude of the problem.

..."more than 3,000 stories of abuse and sexually explicit interviews into 15 bound books . They were hand delivered to church headquarters with nearly 1,000 marchers...."

 

Does it matter to you that in this discussion, it has been shown that Sam Young's own conduct - which has been quoted in this thread today - shows that the 2 issues of the council have a based on his conduct? 

Edited September 1, 2018 by provoman

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, ttribe said:

Or, because assigning evil motives just makes marginalizing him so much easier. 

I don't support marginalizing anyone, but, oftentimes, people marginalize themselves and then blame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members.  Mr. Young has made more than enough public statements for reasonable people reasonably to surmise his motives.  As much as he might want people who disagree with him to keep their opinions to themselves, that's not the way public discourse works.  Expecting members of the Church of Jesus Christ to remain silent while he maligns the Church and its members simply is not realistic.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't support marginalizing anyone, but, oftentimes, people marginalize themselves and then blame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members.  Mr. Young has made more than enough public statements for reasonable people reasonably to surmise his motives.  As much as he might want people who disagree with him to keep their opinions to themselves, that's not the way public discourse works.  Expecting members of the Church of Jesus Christ to remain silent while he maligns the Church and its members simply is not realistic.

And that justifies ascribing evil motives? Interesting.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

And that justifies ascribing evil motives? Interesting.

As I said, Mr. Young has made more than enough public statements for people to surmise his motives.  Perhaps you do not have the full picture on that score.

[rongo]

On 8/30/2018 at 8:26 PM, jkwilliams said:

Some information:

Then, in 1996, a member of the [Bremen] ward encountered a couple of disturbing articles about the early history of the church from the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, a conservative Protestant organization with an anti-Mormon mission. Attempting to come to terms with these, he asked friends in the ward for help and, in so doing, unintentionally started a wave of apostasy. Another brother translated parts of these articles into German and distributed them to members. In the fall discussion circles formed and letters were written to local and regional church authorities, questioning the official version of church history. The issues at stake were, first, the different versions of the First Vision as evidence of a developing concept of God rather than an initially clear and complete picture through revelation; second, differences between the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants as evidence of changed (or possibly forged) revelations; and, finally, controversy over whether the Book of Mormon was a fiction or a genuinely ancient record. The members were especially upset because these papers had been written twenty years earlier (when most of them had just begun their membership in the church), but evidently no church response or explanation had ever been made available.  In February 1997 the mission president tried to solve the problem in one stroke by inviting everyone to a question-and-answer evening. During that meeting tension became acute between the group questioning the church's truthfulness regarding its history and members affirming their testimonies and high esteem for the Book of Mormon and the First Vision. The mission president did not answer the questions specifically, but called for a spiritual approach when hard historical facts were placed in question. When he defined truth as "whatever the prophet says, if he is not mistaken," some members decided to leave the ward. Two former bishops and a former branch president were among those who left. All together thirty people left, most of them long active in responsible church positions such as branch and district presidencies, district and stake high councils. The wards, of course, were left in an uproar and are still trying to regain composure. The Delmonhorst Branch was subsequently dissolved. The remaining dwarfunits continue to struggle. ("One Hundred Eighteen Years of Attitude: The History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen," by Jorg Dittberner, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36, no. 1, Spring 2003, p. 68)

The above is heavily-skewed as to the "tension bec[oming] acute betwee the group questioning the church's truthfulness . . . and members affirming their testimonies and high esteem for the Book of Mormon and the First Vision" in the conference call with Daniel Peterson and others from FARMS, and in its representation of how the mission president handled it. It was written by one of the shakers and movers of the Bremen apostasy, and Joerg Dittberner himself had been selling pamphlets and brochures in the chapel foyers. At the time, those present said that they had no further questions when asked, and they left the meeting admitting that they had learned some things. The tension came days later when there was a change in tone and additional questions not brought up in the call. One of the men, a bishopric counselor, returned to the Church and reported that the conference call could not have gone better for him. Dittberner, who wrote the above, left the Church. 

My father and I knew one of the main figures, Dietrich Behl, very well (he was a young bishop in the late 1960s when my father knew him). He was the high counselor over Oldenburg (my city), Wilhelmshaven, and Bremerhaven during my mission in the mid 1990s, and he helped me discern an answer to prayer I needed as the zone leader over the Bremen Zone during what turned out to be part of his Bremen apostasy time. He was a good man, and it was definitely a lot more complicated than "they were a bunch of reprobate apostates." I think it really hinged on the help and responses to concerns at the time being inadequate. The good help didn't come until the mission president who followed both of mine, and by then, it was too late. Even when questions and concerns were answered to their satisfaction, they couldn't get over the the feelings of betrayal and deception from the too-long wait time for adequate responses. The damage had been done.

Some, like Dittberner and Marcus von Wellnitz, were never really open to the answers and had an agnostic/atheistic bent from the get-go. My first contact with this was when I was in Bremen working with one of my greenies (now a district leader), and he expressed concerns about von Wellnitz's comments in church. He had a huge ego and was constantly stirring the pot and wanted to be seen as a brilliant intellectual. He was the least impressed with the conference call and discussion, and announced that he didn't really believe in God. I believe that he ended up going to the University of Maryland (he had been a research assistant for Hugh Nibley and taught some classes at BYU).

The crazy thing for me, as mentioned, was, not knowing the scope of the problems there at the time, when I observed roughly a third of the ward voting no on every calling brought up --- routine ones, like primary teachers. The concerns of the Bremen apostasy people had spilled over into rabble rousing in general, even things that they ostensibly didn't have issues with. Which is, to me, not unlike the "Opposed!" approach by Sam Young and others. It reminds me of that a lot. 

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As I said, Mr. Young has made more than enough public statements for people to surmise his motives.  Perhaps you do not have the full picture on that score.

Or, maybe I just find motive assumptions in these circumstances to be problematic, at best. 

[Rising_Darkness]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not.

The Church can and does help these kids.

Those kids might need help, and only because their parents have disregarded the Church's teachings for the last 130 years.

With respect, I hope you can set aside the the-Church-is-always-the-bad-guy lens through which you look at these issues.

But baptism should be delayed if legal guardians do oppose it, right?

So "forbid them not" does not apply in that circumstance, right?

I think your approach to this issue is too rigid and unyielding.

Many of whom cannot get baptized, for a myriad of reasons.  So "forbid them not" often does not apply there, either.

And yet Sam is targeting and vilifying . . . bishops.  And the general authorities.

Strange, that.

Sam Young's petition says nothing about background checks or youth protection training.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'll have to remember some of your responses to "forbid them not" argument.  I have heard that argument so much on F.B. a year or so back when the "gay hating" (as my FB friends called it) policy was blown-out of proportion.

It was so puzzling to have SO many disenfranchised members explain how much they love to hate the The Church, and how GOOD is feels to leave The Church (yet, as we know, they really can't "leave it alone")... but their hypocritical retorts wanting kids from consenting same-sex parents to have their kids be baptized, was very fascinating just in logic alone.  "DON'T join the church..." vs. "but little kids HAVE TO GET baptized from same-sex parents otherwise they are damned" to reconcile their "I don't believe in God anymore". Ahh...so confusing!  It's like saying 1 + 1 = 5 and persuading everyone that your logic is indeed correct.

How do you hate the church, yet, encourage kids from same-sex parents who want to get baptized to JOIN the church, of this church you supposedly hate?? huh?  And most of arguments I saw on FB were all citing ONE incident of same-sex parents of some young kid who wanted to be baptized but due to the new and "hateful" policy, they were "denied" by the church (and ergo "denied by God") baptism into the church.

 

...It was (and still is!) a very confusing time for former-members I'll bet, as they try to reconcile their hypocrisy and where they draw that line in the sand...

[provoman]

editeded

Edited September 1, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Or, maybe I just find motive assumptions in these circumstances to be problematic, at best. 

Not assumptions. Conclusions.

[Avatar4321]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not assumptions. Conclusions.

I find it strange that some want us to just shut off our brains and never draw any conclusions from what we see

[Jeanne]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you privileging "their legal guardians"? If it's wrong to "forbid them," doesn't that apply across the board?

 

This is a good question Scott.  Do you have an answer? 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is a good question Scott.  Do you have an answer? 

Just pointing out that asking someone to provide an answer to a question they don't see as valid (Scott doesn't see it as wrong to forbid/delay child baptisms...neither do I) is probably counterproductive.  

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you privileging "their legal guardians"? If it's wrong to "forbid them," doesn't that apply across the board?

 

 

38 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is a good question Scott.  Do you have an answer? 

 

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just pointing out that asking someone to provide an answer to a question they don't see as valid (Scott doesn't see it as wrong to forbid/delay child baptisms...neither do I) is probably counterproductive.  

What Calm said.

 

[changed]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

"3,000 stories of abuse and sexually explicit interviews?" 

How many of these stories were about "abuse" by bishops?  How many of these stories were about "sexually explicit interviews?"

Sounds like Sam Young is padding his claims by adding into allegations of abuse (virtually all of which, I suspect, are anecdotal and unvetted).

In any event, I dislike this sort of moral panic alarmism.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You can read the stories for yourself here: http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

It started because Sam's own children had very inappropriate interviews.  

[changed]

19 hours ago, provoman said:

Does it matter to you that in this discussion, it has been shown that Sam Young's own conduct - which has been quoted in this thread today - shows that the 2 issues of the council have a based on his conduct? 

 

I think anyone who is a caring and loving human being is reacting - internally or externally - as Sam is - after reading all the stories.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Rising_Darkness said:

 

I'll have to remember some of your responses to "forbid them not" argument.  I have heard that argument so much on F.B. a year or so back when the "gay hating" (as my FB friends called it) policy was blown-out of proportion.

It was so puzzling to have SO many disenfranchised members explain how much they love to hate the The Church, and how GOOD is feels to leave The Church (yet, as we know, they really can't "leave it alone")... but their hypocritical retorts wanting kids from consenting same-sex parents to have their kids be baptized, was very fascinating just in logic alone.  "DON'T join the church..." vs. "but little kids HAVE TO GET baptized from same-sex parents otherwise they are damned" to reconcile their "I don't believe in God anymore". Ahh...so confusing!  It's like saying 1 + 1 = 5 and persuading everyone that your logic is indeed correct.

How do you hate the church, yet, encourage kids from same-sex parents who want to get baptized to JOIN the church, of this church you supposedly hate?? huh?  And most of arguments I saw on FB were all citing ONE incident of same-sex parents of some young kid who wanted to be baptized but due to the new and "hateful" policy, they were "denied" by the church (and ergo "denied by God") baptism into the church.

 

...It was (and still is!) a very confusing time for former-members I'll bet, as they try to reconcile their hypocrisy and where they draw that line in the sand...

Well said.

On the matter of "forbid them not," it is not axiomatic that delaying baptism for children in certain circumstances amounts to forbidding little children to come unto Christ. Theoretically, children affected by the 2015 policy, are welcomed, even encouraged and supported, to participate in the Church and its programs even as they wait for their household circumstances to change and baptism becomes permissible for them. That is not forbidding them to come unto Christ.

Furthermore, no child under any circumstances may be baptized prior to age 8. That is part of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. Does that amount to forbidding them to come unto Christ?

And this question has already been raised here, but does conforming to the wishes of a parent or guardian who does not what his/her child to be baptized amount to forbidding the child to come unto Christ?

Edited September 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[changed]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you privileging "their legal guardians"? If it's wrong to "forbid them," doesn't that apply across the board?

 

 

I was actually snuck away and "sprinkled" in a Catholic church by a grandmother without parental consent when I was little.  Everyone laughs about it now...  I do respect the rights of legal guardians to decide which organizations to support and allow their children to support.  It is wrong for any organization to target youth with any agendas - youth need someone older and wiser with the youth's best interests in mind to direct and guide.  

[changed]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well said.

On the matter of "forbid them not," it is not axiomatic that delaying childhood baptisms amounts to forbidding little children to come unto Christ. Theoretically, children affected by the 2015 policy, even encouraged and supported, to participate in the Church and its programs even as they wait for their household circumstances to change and baptism becomes permissible for them. That is not forbidding them to come unto Christ.

Furthermore, no child under any circumstances may be baptized prior to age 8. That is part of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. Does that amount to forbidding them to come unto Christ?

 

You are correct - anyone who wants to come to Christ can - no official baptism needed for anyone.  

Kids who are not baptized cannot participate in quite a few of the youth activities though - cannot attend temple trips, every lesson on baptism could feel like being stabbed in the heart - every sacrament meeting where they are not really "renewing their covenants" - the church is soooo centered on baptism that it would be very hard to feel like you were part of a group, to feel accepted, and not excluded for anyone who was not baptized.