Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay... than how are the parents preventing their child from being baptized?

By acting in clear and open apostasy against the teaching of the church despite knowing that this action will prevent their children from being baptized. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You know the answer to that.

You said my answer is incorrect.  You said that the children are not being denied baptism because of the sin of their parents.  So, how are the parents preventing their child from being baptized?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

By acting in clear and open apostasy against the teaching of the church despite knowing that this action will prevent their children from being baptized. 

Okay.  So the children are being denied baptism because of the sin of their parents (the sin being apostasy). 

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So the children are being denied baptism because of the sin of their parents (the sin being apostasy). 

I don't see it that way. I see that the parents are denying their children baptism.  Not really any different than a parent withholding consent.

Edited November 16, 2018 by kllindley

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So the children are being denied baptism because of the sin of their parents (the sin being apostasy). 

Behavior carries consequences that sometimes negatively impact innocent persons. Crimes that victimize others are an obvious example. Accidents in which one’s negligence victimizes another are also an example. 

Children are often denied baptism because a parent won’t consent to it. That’s another example. 

And yes, engaging in behavior that precludes one’s children from being baptized until they reach the age of majority is yet another example. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't see it that way. I see that the parents are denying their children baptism.  Not really any different than a parent withholding consent.

 

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Behavior carries consequences that sometimes negatively impact innocent persons. Crimes that victimize others are an obvious example. Accidents in which one’s negligence victimizes another are also an example. 

Children are often denied baptism because a parent won’t consent to it. That’s another example. 

And yes, engaging in behavior that precludes one’s children from being baptized until they reach the age of majority is yet another example. 

 

Lack of parental consent was already covered in the handbook.  This policy applies to parents who are consenting to their child being baptized. Therefore, the denial of baptism isn’t based on the parents not being willing, it is based on the parents’ sin.  Both of you, along with @rodheadlee seem to be confirming this with your comments to the effect that the denial of baptism is a result of the parents’ apostasy and behavior. 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Remember that the policy applies specifically to cases where the gay married parents and the child all consent to the baptism.  It’s being denied based on the sin of the parents no matter how softly we’d like to phrase it. 

O Remember, remember… 😊 the policy has nothing to do with the unanimous consent of the parents and the child, and everything to do with the terms for ordinances and missionary service, some of which are denied (naming and blessing) or delayed (baptism, confirmation, ordination) due to the parents’ apostasy on marriage and family, and not their sin(s) on any number of points which are not considered apostasy. Apostasy runs much deeper than sin, and covenant runs much deeper than sexual behavior.

Addressing your suggestion of consent, the Church cannot rightly consent to granting ordinances to apostates, nor by extension to those innocents who fall under their parental control and for whom the apostates attest and speak on religious and faith community matters.

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Lack of parental consent was already covered in the handbook.  This policy applies to parents who are consenting to their child being baptized. Therefore, the denial of baptism isn’t based on the parents not being willing, it is based on the parents’ sin.  Both of you, along with @rodheadlee seem to be confirming this with your comments to the effect that the denial of baptism is a result of the parents’ apostasy and behavior. 

See above.

Edited November 16, 2018 by CV75

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

O Remember, remember… 😊 the policy has nothing to do with the unanimous consent of the parents and the child, and everything to do with the terms for ordinances and missionary service, some of which are denied (naming and blessing) or delayed (baptism, confirmation, ordination) due to the parents’ apostasy on marriage and family, and not their sin(s) on any number of points which are not considered apostasy. Apostasy runs much deeper than sin, and covenant runs much deeper than sexual behavior.

Addressing your suggestion of consent, the Church cannot rightly consent to granting ordinances to apostates, nor by extension to those innocents who fall under their parental control and for whom the apostates attest and speak on religious and faith community matters.

See above.

Okay. So the children are being denied baptism due to the apostasy of their parents.  

Sure seems like a violation of the childrens’ agency to me. 

[kllindley]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

  This policy applies to parents who are consenting to their child being baptized. 

I'm not convinced. From my perspective it seems disingenuous to claim consent while simultaneously rejecting the foundations of the Restored Gospel.

 

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Therefore, the denial of baptism isn’t based on the parents not being willing, it is based on the parents’ sin.  

Except they aren't being willing to live in such a way that would allow their children to be baptized. 

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Both of you, along with @rodheadlee seem to be confirming this with your comments to the effect that the denial of baptism is a result of the parents’ apostasy and behavior. 

In the same way that a child may be denied baptism as the result of a parent's behavior of refusing to consent to baptism or refusing to let the child be taught the discussions. 

There are many real world situations where children are denied opportunities because their parents refuse to meet the conditions of that opportunity, despite their "consent." I may sign a permission and  consent form for my child to play on a sports team, but if I don't also pay the dues and follow the rules of the league, my child will not be allowed to play. Is the league violating my child's agency or are my actions creating a negative effect on my child?

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Sure seems like a violation of the childrens’ agency to me. 

You and I obviously understand the word agency very, very differently if you actually believe this comment. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay. So the children are being denied baptism due to the apostasy of their parents.  

Sure seems like a violation of the childrens’ agency to me. 

No, children's agency falls under the guiding stewardship of their parents until they are of age.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm not convinced. From my perspective it seems disingenuous to claim consent while simultaneously rejecting the foundations of the Restored Gospel.

 

Except they aren't being willing to live in such a way that would allow their children to be baptized. 

In the same way that a child may be denied baptism as the result of a parent's behavior of refusing to consent to baptism or refusing to let the child be taught the discussions. 

There are many real world situations where children are denied opportunities because their parents refuse to meet the conditions of that opportunity, despite their "consent." I may sign a permission and  consent form for my child to play on a sports team, but if I don't also pay the dues and follow the rules of the league, my child will not be allowed to play. Is the league violating my child's agency or are my actions creating a negative effect on my child?

You and I obviously understand the word agency very, very differently if you actually believe this comment. 

Yes, a parent not giving consent is definitely impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  But it is the parent, not the church. 

In the case of this policy, it is the church making the determination that because of the behavior of the parents (who may not even be members or have made any covenants) the child is to be denied baptism.  That is the church impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  

To put it another way, what has the child of gay parents done differently than the child of straight parents to become disqualified for baptism?

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, children's agency falls under the guiding stewardship of their parents until they are of age.

Isn’t 8 the age of accountability for baptism?  And if married gay parents (who are not members) consent, bring their child to church, etc, on what grounds is the baptism being denied?

[kllindley]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, a parent not giving consent is definitely impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  But it is the parent, not the church. 

In the case of this policy, it is the church making the determination that because of the behavior of the parents (who may not even be members or have made any covenants) the child is to be denied baptism.  That is the church impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  

To put it another way, what has the child of gay parents done differently than the child of straight parents to become disqualified for baptism?

Again, you have a very different view of agency, which makes it extremely difficulty to have a productive discussion.  I acknowledge that your interpretation is valid for you and I'm sure you have reasons for holding the view you do.  

[rodheadlee]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, a parent not giving consent is definitely impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  But it is the parent, not the church. 

In the case of this policy, it is the church making the determination that because of the behavior of the parents (who may not even be members or have made any covenants) the child is to be denied baptism.  That is the church impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  

To put it another way, what has the child of gay parents done differently than the child of straight parents to become disqualified for baptism?

They're not disqualified they are delayed.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

They're not disqualified they are delayed.

Delayed until adulthood.   So what has the child done differently than the child of straight parents to have their baptism delayed until they are 18?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

They're not disqualified they are delayed.

I hope you’ll answer my question in the post above but I do want to say that I find this idea that “nothing is lost” (Elder Christofferson) through the implementation of this policy to be an odd statement.

My entire calling as ward YM President is to serve with them in the years of 12-18.  I work tirelessly to teach them, to help them feel the Spirit, to assist them in getting ordained to the priesthood and understand the priesthood, to convert them, to prepare them to become Elders, missionaries, fathers, and husbands. Then Elder Christofferson, to defend this policy, says that nothing is lost if none of the above happens.  Why do I even bother if we could do nothing and then just called up these young men on their 18th birthday and say:  alright, ready to be baptized, ordained, and head out on a mission?

To say nothing is lost is to say that there is nothing productive accomplished through the work of primary, young women, and young men. 

[HappyJackWagon]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, a parent not giving consent is definitely impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  But it is the parent, not the church. 

In the case of this policy, it is the church making the determination that because of the behavior of the parents (who may not even be members or have made any covenants) the child is to be denied baptism.  That is the church impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  

To put it another way, what has the child of gay parents done differently than the child of straight parents to become disqualified for baptism?

You've nailed it.

Despite the contortions of well-meaning members trying to explain this in a way that doesn't make the church look like a bully, the church's policy denies baptism to children based upon the sin of their parents. Baptism may be received once the child reaches the age of 18 but the child IS denied baptism through no fault of his own. Both the child and the parent consent to the child's baptism. It is the church that does not consent to the child's baptism.

The church has the right to refuse baptism to anyone it chooses. But it's very sad when it is an innocent child who is refused. This policy is as bad today as it was 3 years ago. I look forward to the day it is quietly rescinded and the church no longer denies baptism to children.

 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Isn’t 8 the age of accountability for baptism?  And if married gay parents (who are not members) consent, bring their child to church, etc, on what grounds is the baptism being denied?

Let's remember in all of this, the consent of the Church as expressed through her presiding quorums and their instruments is also required in administering ordinance. But putting that aside for the moment...

The age of accountability is not the age of consent. The Church uses the age of majority ("legal age" in the policy) as the age of consent.

I would say the policy applies to non-member parents and their children because the spiritual circumstances (including the consent of the Church, not putting that aside for the moment :) )are the same as that of apostasy on this subject. This is not to say that every request for baptism is unconditionally denied or delayed, whether for apostates or non-members.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You've nailed it.

Despite the contortions of well-meaning members trying to explain this in a way that doesn't make the church look like a bully, the church's policy denies baptism to children based upon the sin of their parents. Baptism may be received once the child reaches the age of 18 but the child IS denied baptism through no fault of his own. Both the child and the parent consent to the child's baptism. It is the church that does not consent to the child's baptism.

The church has the right to refuse baptism to anyone it chooses. But it's very sad when it is an innocent child who is refused. This policy is as bad today as it was 3 years ago. I look forward to the day it is quietly rescinded and the church no longer denies baptism to children.

 

Not nailed; this is a contortion.

The Church cannot rightly consent to granting ordinances to apostates, nor by extension to those innocents who fall under their parental control and for whom the apostates attest and speak on religious and faith community matters. The children's agency falls under the guiding stewardship of their parents until they are of age.

The innocent child consents only to the degree a child can (both legally and developmentally-dependently), and so remains under the consent of her parents.

The delay in baptism is due to the parents’ apostasy on marriage and family, and not their sin(s) on any number of points which are not considered apostasy. Apostasy runs much deeper than sin, and covenant runs much deeper than sexual behavior.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not nailed; this is a contortion.

The Church cannot rightly consent to granting ordinances to apostates, nor by extension to those innocents who fall under their parental control and for whom the apostates attest and speak on religious and faith community matters. The children's agency falls under the guiding stewardship of their parents until they are of age.

 

The innocent child consents only to the degree a child can (both legally and developmentally-dependently), and so remains under the consent of her parents.

 

The delay in baptism is due to the parents’ apostasy on marriage and family, and not their sin(s) on any number of points which are not considered apostasy. Apostasy runs much deeper than sin, and covenant runs much deeper than sexual behavior.

 

So you are confirming that children may be punished for their parent's transgressions/sins/apostasy.

Flower it up all you want, but you can't change the fact that children are denied baptism by the church. You can justify it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the church is refusing to baptize children because of their parent's sins.

One day you'll see it and you'll get it. Once you do, you won't be able to unsee it.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Let's remember in all of this, the consent of the Church as expressed through her presiding quorums and their instruments is also required in administering ordinance. But putting that aside for the moment...

The age of accountability is not the age of consent. The Church uses the age of majority ("legal age" in the policy) as the age of consent.

I would say the policy applies to non-member parents and their children because the spiritual circumstances (including the consent of the Church, not putting that aside for the moment )are the same as that of apostasy on this subject. This is not to say that every request for baptism is unconditionally denied or delayed, whether for apostates or non-members.

You can’t answer the question, can you?

The problem is that an honest answer to my question reveals the flaw in your logic:  the child has done nothing different than the child of straight parents.  So no matter how you try to describe it, the child is being denied baptism due to actions of their parents. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by rockpond

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you are confirming that children may be punished for their parent's transgressions/sins/apostasy.

Flower it up all you want, but you can't change the fact that children are denied baptism by the church. You can justify it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the church is refusing to baptize children because of their parent's sins.

One day you'll see it and you'll get it. Once you do, you won't be able to unsee it.

Exactly.

And, this policy applies the same to the children of non-member parents who cannot, by definition, be apostates but the children are still denied baptism due to the actions (same sex marriage) of their parents.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Lack of parental consent was already covered in the handbook.  

But the result is the same: baptism of a child is delayed/denied because of the parent(s).

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

This policy applies to parents who are consenting to their child being baptized. Therefore, the denial of baptism isn’t based on the parents not being willing, it is based on the parents’ sin.  

I'm not sure I would put it that way.  To be honest, I think this is a characterization intended to provoke anger and resentment against the Church, and not intended to accurately state the Church's position.

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Both of you, along with @rodheadlee seem to be confirming this with your comments to the effect that the denial of baptism is a result of the parents’ apostasy and behavior. 

Baptism is delayed (or perhaps "temporarily denied") because of the conduct of the parents.

Yes, that happens.  There can be outside influences that may affect an individual's ability to be baptized.  For example, my son is a Church Service Missionary, and has spent most of his mission manning the "Chat with a Missionary" feature on the Church's websites.  He has had several instances where he has received text chats from people in countries where the Church is not allowed to proselytize, so the CSMs are instructed to not refer people from those countries to the missionaries, to not arrange for sending them a Book of Mormon or a Bible, etc.  Basically, the CSMs do not proselytize them in any way that puts them on a path toward baptism.

There are a number of reasons for this.  The Church does not have a presence in some of these countries, such that baptism wouldn't really make sense (since the person could not participate in Church meetings, hold callings, etc.).  In some of these countries, the Church is not allowed to proselytize, and so the Church obeys the laws of the land.  In some of these countries, joining the Church is risky (such as in the 16 Muslim-majority countries where leaving Islam is a criminal offense).

My parents are currently serving as missionaries in Zimbabwe.  Polygamy is technically legal there (around 10% of women in Zimbabwe are in polygamous marriages).  That creates some substantial impediments to missionary work for people in such circumstances.

A person convicted of and imprisoned for a serious crime may not be baptized and confirmed until they complete their terms of imprisonment.  Persons convicted of a felony or "crimes of immoral character" cannot be baptized until after they complete their parole or probation resulting from conviction (though exceptions from the First Presidency are allowed).

And so on.  Baptism is a serious commitment, and the Church treats is seriously.  

It sure would be nice to dispense with the emotionalisms.  This "sins of the parents" stuff is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  There are all sorts of circumstances in which baptism may be appropriately delayed (or denied).  The Lord will sort out such things in the end.  See D&C 137:8 ("Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom.").

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay. So the children are being denied baptism due to the apostasy of their parents.  

Sure seems like a violation of the childrens’ agency to me. 

What about people who live in a country where joining the Church is illegal?  Is it a "violation" of their agency to not baptize them?

What are your thoughts about D&C 137:8?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes, a parent not giving consent is definitely impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.  But it is the parent, not the church. 

So do you think the Church should disregard the wishes of the non-consenting parents and baptize their chilren anyway?

What are you saying here?

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In the case of this policy, it is the church making the determination that because of the behavior of the parents (who may not even be members or have made any covenants) the child is to be denied baptism.  That is the church impeding the child’s exercise of their agency.

This seems very facile to me.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

To put it another way, what has the child of gay parents done differently than the child of straight parents to become disqualified for baptism?

Nothing.  But then, a child living in Saudi Arabia is also "disqualified" for baptism, through no fault of their own.

Again, yours is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.  It is an argument that ignores the circumstances that the Church is taking into account.  And it seems like an argument designed to foment ill will against the Church.  To make the Church look bad.

Thanks,

-Smac