Eternal Covenants/Baptism at 8 years old

[Raingirl]

30 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If in any way you’re trying to avoid him being resentful later in life- THERE IS NO ESCAPING IT 😂😭

I thought it was only moms that are to blame for everything wrong in a child’s life. At least, that’s what my daughter tells me. 🤷‍♀️

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

he issue isn't that your son isn't old enough to be baptized or to decide to be, but that you are afraid on at least four fronts, each with up to eight decision points -- too many permutations!

I completely disagree.   All my kid cares about is which church is the funnest.  He doesn't have a good grasp as to what they all believe or don't believe, or why any of that matters or how it might affect his life and future.  My fears aside, my kid isn't competent enough to get a credit card, yet he can make eternally binding contracts at 8?  Is he really competent to understand the social, cultural, and spiritual consequences that his choice will have on him and our family?  Is he competent to decide between a church that looks to an infallible Bible as the sole authority, but has a really cool band and plays fun kid games; or a church that believes in a great apostasy with a restored priesthood and prophet and claims to be the only true church on earth, but gives him boring coloring projects every Sunday?   I know my kid would choose the one with the cool band and fun games any day of the week!  That is the level of maturity he is at right now.  Most 8 year olds would do the same if they were given equal exposure to different churches with no social pressure or biased encouragement from their parents.  Do you really think he is old enough to choose a church/religion to covenant to belong to for the rest of his life and associate with and enter eternally binding covenants based on that level of maturity and understanding?   Honestly, I don't get it.  I don't get how anyone could argue that these kids are competent at all.  It all just boils down to social conditioning at this age.  Then we hold it against them if they ever choose a different path later. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Your fear affects your actions and provides a kind of direction for your son.

I prefer to think that it is my love that gives direction to my son.  I have concerns about the consequences of his choices that he is not mature enough to understand or foresee.  I want to protect him from those consequences by not making immature decisions. 

If I were to put all of my fears aside, and give my child full discretion on which church to join, it would either be the Community of Christ or the SMCC.   If my fears came into play, I would either steer him towards the LDS church or encourage him to wait.  Are you really suggesting I should just lay my fears and concerns based on a mature understanding of the doctrines and spiritual practices of these different churches and of how the different social dynamics of culture and tribes may affect him and his family based on his decision?   Should I not take any of that into consideration and just trust that he is old enough? 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

He must pick up on your anxiety, not just on the point of his baptism but what you've been going through personally.

I would be very surprised honestly.  We are very careful and respectful to all religions in how we discuss things and our internal concerns are not outwardly expressed. 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Maybe you can tell him that church participation, including anyone's baptism, is a family activity, and you and your wife are still working on what you want to do. If he pushes back (in which case he may be ready after all!), we can discuss Plan B.

That is a good option, but should baptism be a family thing or a personal thing?  Should it be about me and my wife and what we want?   If he is old and competent enough on his own, shouldn't it only be what he wants?

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is up to you as to whether a professional approach is warranted to get at the root of resolving your fears, depending on how severe they are to you.

I definitely could benefit from professional help.  I am not suffering severely, but man things get complicated when one tries to be more nuanced!  The organization of the church simply is not built for people like me.  

Edited January 15, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I see myself as having a deep faith and trust in the Church, but also being realistic about the limitations of the Church. It is not God, but one of his tools to help us progress.  I don’t see it likely if for some reason I saw the Church as too off course to help me anymore seek God that I would see myself as also rejecting God. 

I can respect that and I admire it.   I never would have imagined that I would feel the way I do right now, I honestly probably would have told myself the same thing that you just said, but I am genuinely surprised at how deeply rooted my psychology is in the church.  I probably shouldn't be though, it kind of makes sense.  All of my spiritual experiences are associated with the church.  It is really hard to dissect.  Growing up in the church in the 80's gave me some screwed up views.  I still am terrified about what church leadership thinks about me. 

Edited January 15, 2024 by pogi

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

still am terrified about what church leadership thinks about me. 

I see there was some significant benefits to not having that interested of youth leaders (young mothers exhausted from kids, just returned missionaries more interested in getting their adulting going, elderly women clueless how to interest anyone over 5 years age…all sweet and trying to do the right thing, so no hard feelings, just sheer boredom as a teen and no bonding with authority).

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If in any way you’re trying to avoid him being resentful later in life- THERE IS NO ESCAPING IT 😂😭

Ain't this the truth!

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

Sure, I'll try to explain.  A person in faith crisis is not necessarily full-on disbeliever, they may still believe deeply in God but their faith in the institution may struggling.  A person who is transitioning doesn't go from 100% full belief to 100% disbelief overnight.  When a person is raised in the church, God is inseparably and intrinsically connected with the institution of the church.  Our very understanding of the concept of God, who he is, what he is, is entirely derived from the church.  Trying to maintain faith in God while stepping away from the church requires a seemingly impossible dissection of the two.  It is like starting from scratch.  There is a deep rooted belief that leaving the church is the same as turning your back on God.   This deeply engrained psychology is not easy task to overcome.  Even if one cognitively struggles with faith in the institution, there is still the psychological imprinting that ties God to the church that doesn't go away over night.  It is actually a very common experience with people who try to leave cults.   I am not saying our church is a cult (although some definitions of "cult" can include just about any institution), but honestly, trying to separate oneself from it feels psychologically like leaving a cult.  The tentacles run deep.

I would guess that those who come from a strong and deep faith/trust in the church have a much harder time in the transition.  

Thanks for explaining.  I've never had a faith crisis so I can't relate to that (but that doesn't mean it's not true for others of course). 

And I didn't join the church until I was 9 (still a kid, but there were 9 years of my life without the church so God and the church have never been connected like that for me I guess).  When I decided to get baptized I had a profound experience that is still sacred to me today, so that's probably another reason that I don't view children getting baptized as making covenants blindly.

Quote

I don't understand your point.  Just because we don't scare them by explaining all of the consequences of breaking their covenant doesn't make them any more competent - in fact, it makes them less.

What I was saying was that it doesn't matter if the covenants were made in childhood if the person continued in them--fully believing with a testimony--into adulthood.  It's the adult breaking covenants they confirmed as an adult at that point.

Quote

Big "if".  And for the others?  No take-backs.  The psychological trap of eternally binding covenants they made when they were incompetent may have already sunk deep within.  Now what?  How is that right?

I don't see how it's any more of an "if" than anything else that the gospel espouse though; it's as much a part of our doctrine as the baptismal covenants are.  Why be worried that the  covenants are binding but then view other doctrines connected to those covenants are big "ifs"? 

The covenants and doctrines all come from the same place.

And the doctrine is that the consequences for breaking commandments (and therefore covenants) has always been tied to the competence of the person making them.  So much so that our religion teaches that if someone is incapable of understanding something is wrong (if they aren't taught it's wrong and have never learned that it is), they aren't even accountable for that sin. 

It's not that we don't explain all the consequences of breaking their covenants to children, it's that the consequences are on a sliding scale based on testimony and conversion (this is why hardly anyone can become a son of perdition--most people don't have the knowledge required to be that accountable). 

A child does not have the same consequences as an adult.  An unconverted adult does not have the same consequences as a converted adult.  An endowed adult does not have the same consequences as an unendowed adult.  Someone who has perfect knowledge of who Christ is does not the same consequences as someone who proceeds on faith. 

This is a part of the gospel of Christ as we teach it.   

Quote

I interpret him to be talking about breaking baptismal covenants specifically, but any covenants with God generally.

That is not how I interpret him.  I especially don't interpret him as speaking about children's consequences for breaking their covenants.  He's definitely talking to adults about adult consequences.

Edited January 15, 2024 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for explaining.  I've never had a faith crisis so I can't relate to that (but that doesn't mean it's not true for others of course). 

And I didn't join the church until I was 9 (still a kid, but there were 9 years of my life without the church so God and the church have never been connected like that for me I guess).  When I decided to get baptized I had a profound experience that is still sacred to me today, so that's probably another reason that I don't view children getting baptized as making covenants blindly.

What I was saying was that it doesn't matter if the covenants were made in childhood if the person continued in them--fully believing with a testimony--into adulthood.  It's the adult breaking covenants they confirmed as an adult at that point.

I don't see how it's any more of an "if" than anything else that the gospel espouse though; it's as much a part of our doctrine as the baptismal covenants are.  Why be worried that the  covenants are binding but then view other doctrines connected to those covenants are big "ifs"? 

The covenants and doctrines all come from the same place.

And the doctrine is that the consequences for breaking commandments (and therefore covenants) has always been tied to the competence of the person making them.  So much so that our religion teaches that if someone is incapable of understanding something is wrong (if they aren't taught it's wrong and have never learned that it is), they aren't even accountable for that sin. 

It's not that we don't explain all the consequences of breaking their covenants to children, it's that the consequences are on a sliding scale based on testimony and conversion (this is why hardly anyone can become a son of perdition--most people don't have the knowledge required to be that accountable). 

A child does not have the same consequences as an adult.  An unconverted adult does not have the same consequences as a converted adult.  An endowed adult does not have the same consequences as an unendowed adult.  Someone who has perfect knowledge of who Christ is does not the same consequences as someone who proceeds on faith. 

This is a part of the gospel of Christ as we teach it.   

That is not how I interpret him.  I especially don't interpret him as speaking about children's consequences for breaking their covenants.  He's definitely talking to adults about adult consequences.

bluebell, I know you're not addressing these things to me, but it kind of hurt me to read about endowed members breaking a covenant made in the temple. But I wasn't given prior knowledge of the covenant I made when I had my endowment for the first time. Isn't that wrong in a way, or a big way? That the church doesn't give us what we will be covenanted to before we go in and thereby allowing someone to decide? Just like legal papers before someone signs they know what they're getting into?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I completely disagree.   All my kid cares about is which church is the funnest.  He doesn't have a good grasp as to what they all believe or don't believe, or why any of that matters or how it might affect his life and future.  My fears aside, my kid isn't competent enough to get a credit card, yet he can make eternally binding contracts at 8?  Is he really competent to understand the social, cultural, and spiritual consequences that his choice will have on him and our family?  Is he competent to decide between a church that looks to an infallible Bible as the sole authority, but has a really cool band and plays fun kid games; or a church that believes in a great apostasy with a restored priesthood and prophet and claims to be the only true church on earth, but gives him boring coloring projects every Sunday?   I know my kid would choose the one with the cool band and fun games any day of the week!  That is the level of maturity he is at right now.  Most 8 year olds would do the same if they were given equal exposure to different churches with no social pressure or biased encouragement from their parents.  Do you really think he is old enough to choose a church/religion to covenant to belong to for the rest of his life and associate with and enter eternally binding covenants based on that level of maturity and understanding?   Honestly, I don't get it.  I don't get how anyone could argue that these kids are competent at all.  It all just boils down to social conditioning at this age.  Then we hold it against them if they ever choose a different path later. 

I prefer to think that it is my love that gives direction to my son.  I have concerns about the consequences of his choices that he is not mature enough to understand or foresee.  I want to protect him from those consequences by not making immature decisions. 

If I were to put all of my fears aside, and give my child full discretion on which church to join, it would either be the Community of Christ or the SMCC.   If my fears came into play, I would either steer him towards the LDS church or encourage him to wait.  Are you really suggesting I should just lay my fears and concerns based on a mature understanding of the doctrines and spiritual practices of these different churches and of how the different social dynamics of culture and tribes may affect him and his family based on his decision?   Should I not take any of that into consideration and just trust that he is old enough? 

I would be very surprised honestly.  We are very careful and respectful to all religions in how we discuss things and our internal concerns are not outwardly expressed. 

That is a good option, but should baptism be a family thing or a personal thing?  Should it be about me and my wife and what we want?   If he is old and competent enough on his own, shouldn't it only be what he wants?

I definitely could benefit from professional help.  I am not suffering severely, but man things get complicated when one tries to be more nuanced!  The organization of the church simply is not built for people like me.  

I hope that by disagreeing with any contribution to the pool of ideas you've solicited, you might discover some wisdom and insight.

I take most of the questions in this post to be rhetorical, since they were asked before. I see them as a useful tool as you consider my and others’ earlier replies to them.

My first priority if I were in your shoes would be to address and resolve my own fears, not lay them aside; this is my suggestion for you. I think, in general, a child’s baptism can be considered both an individual and family thing; depends on what aspect you want to focus on. The specifics you’ve outlined and emphasized indicate that this specific baptism represents a problem for the parents, and by extension, the family. But whichever way you see it, I would first resolve your personal fears.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

bluebell, I know you're not addressing these things to me, but it kind of hurt me to read about endowed members breaking a covenant made in the temple. But I wasn't given prior knowledge of the covenant I made when I had my endowment for the first time. Isn't that wrong in a way, or a big way? That the church doesn't give us what we will be covenanted to before we go in and thereby allowing someone to decide? Just like legal papers before someone signs they know what they're getting into?

The church has changed that now and the covenants are more explicitly known beforehand, both in church publications as well as right before the endowment, which I think is a good thing.  For too long I think the church assumed that people were being better prepared to go through the temple than they were often being prepared.  

The five covenants that members make when they are endowed are:

• Live the law of obedience and strive to keep Heavenly Father’s commandments.
• Obey the law of sacrifice, which means sacrificing to support the Lord’s work and repenting with a broken heart and contrite spirit.
• Obey the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the higher law that He taught while He was on the earth.
• Keep the law of chastity, which means that a member has sexual relations only with the person to whom he or she is legally and lawfully wedded according to God’s law.
• Keep the law of consecration, which means that members dedicate their time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed them to building up Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth.

To address your specific question though, I don't know if it's wrong or not.  I think it might have depended on the situation.  Hopefully, most people are at a place in their relationship with God (and with the church) when they decide to be endowed that being asked to make the five covenants listed above does not constitute anything surprising.  Under ideal circumstances covenanting to do those five things above should be an obvious extension of what they are already doing in their lives, to the extent that they aren't being asked to do anything different than what they've been doing already for a while.

And if that's the case then not knowing exactly what will be promised probably isn't anything bad.  But if that wasn't the case, then it could be wrong for the person to be in that position (but probably wrong for a few different reasons and not just because they don't know the specific covenants).

Speaking pragmatically though (I'm a pragmatist at heart), if the church was wrong in having people agree to covenant before making sure they knew exactly what the covenants were (they could of course decide not to make them after knowing what they were, but that would be difficult for almost everyone), do you think God wouldn't take that into account? I guess what I'm asking is--since we are talking about eternal consequences that only God can bestow--what eternal consequences do you believe God would apply to someone who made covenants they shouldn't have made, but through no fault of their own?

If you had known the covenants beforehand, would you have decided not to be endowed?  What difference would have knowing the exact covenants beforehand have made in your life personally?  (rhetorical questions, just something to consider from a pragmatic angle) 

Edited January 15, 2024 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church has changed that now and the covenants are more explicitly known beforehand, both in church publications as well as right before the endowment, which I think is a good thing.  For too long I think the church assumed that people were being better prepared to go through the temple than they were often being prepared.  

The five covenants that members make when they are endowed are:

• Live the law of obedience and strive to keep Heavenly Father’s commandments.
• Obey the law of sacrifice, which means sacrificing to support the Lord’s work and repenting with a broken heart and contrite spirit.
• Obey the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the higher law that He taught while He was on the earth.
• Keep the law of chastity, which means that a member has sexual relations only with the person to whom he or she is legally and lawfully wedded according to God’s law.
• Keep the law of consecration, which means that members dedicate their time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed them to building up Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth.

To address your specific question though, I don't know if it's wrong or not.  I think it might have depended on the situation.  Hopefully, most people are at a place in their relationship with God (and with the church) when they decide to be endowed that being asked to make the five covenants listed above does not constitute anything surprising.  Under ideal circumstances covenanting to do those five things above should be an obvious extension of what they are already doing in their lives, to the extent that they aren't being asked to do anything different than what they've been doing already for a while.

And if that's the case then not knowing exactly what will be promised probably isn't anything bad.  But if that wasn't the case, then it could be wrong for the person to be in that position (but probably wrong for a few different reasons and not just because they don't know the specific covenants).

Speaking pragmatically though (I'm a pragmatist at heart), if the church was wrong in having people agree to covenant before making sure they knew exactly what the covenants were (they could of course decide not to make them after knowing what they were, but that would be difficult for almost everyone), do you think God wouldn't take that into account? I guess what I'm asking is--since we are talking about eternal consequences that only God can bestow--what eternal consequences do you believe God would apply to someone who made covenants they shouldn't have made, but through no fault of their own?

If you had known the covenants beforehand, would you have decided not to be endowed?  What difference would have knowing the exact covenants beforehand have made in your life personally?  (rhetorical questions, just something to consider from a pragmatic angle) 

If I had known? Oh boy I better not go too far on this, probably yes to the question of knowing the covenants before. I wouldn't want to do it. But I was married before the whole thing changed dramatically. And changed again and again after, and before I was endowed even had major changes. I was married in '84 so that will explain it since the big change came in '90 and why I might not have loved going through. But what's happened happened. I do think I will be okay and won't go to outer darkness because I didn't meet the Saviour while getting my endowments done, so it's not like I'm denying Christ. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I do think I will be okay and won't go to outer darkness because I didn't meet the Saviour while getting my endowments done, so it's not like I'm denying Christ. 

I agree, I believe you will be very very blessed.

[Rain]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church has changed that now and the covenants are more explicitly known beforehand, both in church publications as well as right before the endowment, which I think is a good thing.  For too long I think the church assumed that people were being better prepared to go through the temple than they were often being prepared.  

The five covenants that members make when they are endowed are:

• Live the law of obedience and strive to keep Heavenly Father’s commandments.
• Obey the law of sacrifice, which means sacrificing to support the Lord’s work and repenting with a broken heart and contrite spirit.
• Obey the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the higher law that He taught while He was on the earth.
• Keep the law of chastity, which means that a member has sexual relations only with the person to whom he or she is legally and lawfully wedded according to God’s law.
• Keep the law of consecration, which means that members dedicate their time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed them to building up Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth.

Does it actually say "Jesus Christ’s Church"? I haven't been in a few years, but my memory is that it says the full name of the church. I know for most church members that will not make a difference, but for others it will.

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To address your specific question though, I don't know if it's wrong or not.  I think it might have depended on the situation.  Hopefully, most people are at a place in their relationship with God (and with the church) when they decide to be endowed that being asked to make the five covenants listed above does not constitute anything surprising.  Under ideal circumstances covenanting to do those five things above should be an obvious extension of what they are already doing in their lives, to the extent that they aren't being asked to do anything different than what they've been doing already for a while.

And if that's the case then not knowing exactly what will be promised probably isn't anything bad.  But if that wasn't the case, then it could be wrong for the person to be in that position (but probably wrong for a few different reasons and not just because they don't know the specific covenants).

Speaking pragmatically though (I'm a pragmatist at heart), if the church was wrong in having people agree to covenant before making sure they knew exactly what the covenants were (they could of course decide not to make them after knowing what they were, but that would be difficult for almost everyone), do you think God wouldn't take that into account? I guess what I'm asking is--since we are talking about eternal consequences that only God can bestow--what eternal consequences do you believe God would apply to someone who made covenants they shouldn't have made, but through no fault of their own?

If you had known the covenants beforehand, would you have decided not to be endowed?  What difference would have knowing the exact covenants beforehand have made in your life personally?  (rhetorical questions, just something to consider from a pragmatic angle) 

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Does it actually say "Jesus Christ’s Church"? I haven't been in a few years, but my memory is that it says the full name of the church. I know for most church members that will not make a difference, but for others it will.

 

It says the full name of the church.  I agree that for most it's just a different way to say the same thing, but not for all members.

If you don't believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's church (if you don't believe that Christ is the head of the church), then you wouldn't be able to receive a temple recommend, would you?  As I interpret them, that's implied in those questions.  

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, I believe you will be very very blessed.

Thank you bluebell. 😍

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Why be worried that the  covenants are binding but then view other doctrines connected to those covenants are big "ifs"? 

The covenants and doctrines all come from the same place.

Yes, and they are paradigms "sensed" through "the Spirit" which are confirmed as "true" through OUR personal experiences.

That leaves a lot of room for ambiguity in these very fine points.

My opinion:

Big picture? "Absolutely" true. God is real, we have the best overall Christian paradigm, etc etc

Baptism, yes.

Details of choice:

Age 7, 8, 9, 12? Based on readiness!

It's like tithing gross or net?  Up to the individual.

A lifelong promise made by an 8 year old?  Unrealistic, and I think a misunderstanding of what God really wants.

He wants, I believe, an indication of "joining", an attempt to be a good little boy, and we know how successful that might be.  Been there, done that.  That is what repentance is for!

Perpetual continued trying!!

It becomes a case of, Agency, Adam & Eve in the garden!

" DO NOT break my commandments, yet it is given to you ".

Breaking the commandment is actually a test, providing us with possible ultimate progression. 

Learning by "proving contradictories"

Edited January 15, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It says the full name of the church.  I agree that for most it's just a different way to say the same thing, but not for all members.

If you don't believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's church (if you don't believe that Christ is the head of the church), then you wouldn't be able to receive a temple recommend, would you?  As I interpret them, that's implied in those questions.  

"Implied."  I find that word tricky because a lot of people think things are implied, but they are usually inferring what they understand.  I don't know what is implied.  I do think that most people assume it and there is a hefty chance that is what the leaders mean.   

The reason it even comes up for me is that for decades I always understood that question as building up God's kingdom not specifically to the church.  It wasn't till I saw so many other churches doing what I considered His work (charity) that I noticed it was specifically to the church.  If the church is actually the only one led by Him does it matter?  Maybe. Maybe not.  

Edited January 15, 2024 by Rain

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, and they are paradigms "sensed" through "the Spirit" which are confirmed as "true" through OUR personal experiences.

That leaves a lot of room for ambiguity in these very fine points.

My opinion:

Big picture? "Absolutely" true. God is real, we have the best overall Christian paradigm, etc etc

Baptism, yes.

Details of choice:

Age 7, 8, 9, 12? Based on readiness!

It's like tithing gross or net?  Up to the individual.

A lifelong promise made by an 8 year old?  Unrealistic, and I think a misunderstanding of what God really wants.

He wants, I believe, an indication of "joining", an attempt to be a good little boy, and we know how successful that might be.  Been there, done that.  That is what repentance is for!

Perpetual continued trying!!

It becomes a case of, Agency, Adam & Eve in the garden!

" DO NOT break my commandments, yet it is given to you ".

Breaking the commandment is actually a test, providing us with possible ultimate progression. 

Learning by "proving contradictories"

I think you might have accidentally quoted a post from bluebell, not me.

 

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

What I was saying was that it doesn't matter if the covenants were made in childhood if the person continued in them--fully believing with a testimony--into adulthood.  It's the adult breaking covenants they confirmed as an adult at that point.

Quote

Big "if".  And for the others?  No take-backs.  The psychological trap of eternally binding covenants they made when they were incompetent may have already sunk deep within.  Now what?  How is that right?

I don't see how it's any more of an "if" than anything else that the gospel espouse though; it's as much a part of our doctrine as the baptismal covenants are.  Why be worried that the  covenants are binding but then view other doctrines connected to those covenants are big "ifs"? 

The covenants and doctrines all come from the same place.

@mfbukowski

[pogi]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

What I was saying was that it doesn't matter if the covenants were made in childhood if the person continued in them--fully believing with a testimony--into adulthood.  It's the adult breaking covenants they confirmed as an adult at that point.

I don't see how it's any more of an "if" than anything else that the gospel espouse though; it's as much a part of our doctrine as the baptismal covenants are.  Why be worried that the  covenants are binding but then view other doctrines connected to those covenants are big "ifs"? 

The covenants and doctrines all come from the same place.

This does bring up an interesting question.  Are you suggesting that breaking a covenant is no worse than breaking the commandment that it is associated with?

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

And the doctrine is that the consequences for breaking commandments (and therefore covenants) has always been tied to the competence of the person making them.  So much so that our religion teaches that if someone is incapable of understanding something is wrong (if they aren't taught it's wrong and have never learned that it is), they aren't even accountable for that sin. 

Then why not just wait to make the covenants when they are competent and accountable?  At some point they are going to understand their covenants, but by then it will be too late.  They can't take it back.  Now that they understand it, they are bound to it.  The opportunity to choose if they want to enter the covenant based on a mature understanding was stolen from them because they entered before they even understood what they were promising.  I am having a hard time understanding why that doesn't seem to matter to some. 

This is demonstrated in this talk by Elder Ballard:

Quote

 

 When you entered the waters of baptism, you made a promise to the Lord that you would “humble [yourselves] before God, … and witness before the church that [you] have truly repented of all [your] sins, and are willing to take upon [yourselves] the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by [your] works that [you] have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of [your] sins.” (D&C 20:37.) You were therefore bound by covenant to “a godly walk and conversation, … walking in holiness before the Lord.” (D&C 20:69.)

Many of you were baptized when you were eight years old, and you may not realize that this is the promise you made to your Heavenly Father when you were baptized. Always remember that you are under this covenant.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/keeping-covenants?lang=eng

 

It seems to be saying that you may not have realized what you were promising at the time, but now that you know, "always remember that you are under this covenant".   Somehow it doesn't seem right that incompetent children are being encouraged to enter eternal contracts that they don't understand - sliding scale or not - because once they do understand, there are no renegotiations.  Sorry, too late.  Wouldn't it be better to just wait until they are competent?  No such contract would be considered ethical in any other institution or format.   

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's not that we don't explain all the consequences of breaking their covenants to children, it's that the consequences are on a sliding scale based on testimony and conversion (this is why hardly anyone can become a son of perdition--most people don't have the knowledge required to be that accountable). 

A child does not have the same consequences as an adult.  An unconverted adult does not have the same consequences as a converted adult.  An endowed adult does not have the same consequences as an unendowed adult.  Someone who has perfect knowledge of who Christ is does not the same consequences as someone who proceeds on faith. 

This is a part of the gospel of Christ as we teach it.   

That is not how I interpret him.  I especially don't interpret him as speaking about children's consequences for breaking their covenants.  He's definitely talking to adults about adult consequences.

Lets say a child is born at 8 and decides to leave the church at 16 (my good friend has a son in this very position).  Is this child going to suffer greater consequences than if he was never baptized in the first place, or is there no difference?  

Edited January 15, 2024 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think you might have accidentally quoted a post from bluebell, not me.

@bluebell

Sorry to both of you, I have a lot less time for this board, working on several other projects, and getting a little careless I am afraid.

Sometimes I just grab what was said, and answer that instead of addressing the correct individual.

I am very oriented towards seeing the structure of a position, rather than real communication with a real person.

I just have to limit my posting here I guess- sorry for the error, and please do let me know when ( not if!) I do it again.

🥰

[BlueDreams]

On 1/14/2024 at 6:16 PM, pogi said:

You haven't over stepped.  I came on here asking for wisdom and insight as to how to approach this.  I am open to any suggestions.  

There is still the issue of which church to join.

If we compare it to buying a consumer product, most people aren't going to buy the first thing someone tries to sell them, especially if it is an expensive or consequential item in some other way.  They are going to read reviews about the product and want to compare it against other products and their prices, return polices, warranties, etc.    I feel like it is important to let our kids have the same opportunity when it comes to religion, especially when we are talking about eternally binding covenants, but not giving them any options.  That just doesn't feel right.   I don't even think kids are capable of making these kinds of decisions at 8.  The religion one joins is perhaps one of the biggest decisions they will make in their life, far more important than any consumer product, yet how many kids are even given an opportunity to weigh their options?  

I personally would like to give my child the opportunity to mature and decide when he is older and competent to make such decisions after spiritually weighing the different options, but then there is going to be the social consequences and pressure he will feel whenever he attends church and he is the only one not baptized.  He will start to feel like an 'other'.   The church is not built to deal with this kind of thing.  It expects people to be all in or all out, and my kid will feel the incredible pressure at too early of an age if he wants to wait to decide.  It just sucks.  It's not right.  Jesus was an adult before getting baptized for crying out loud.  Why do we put so much expectations on families and children?

If I left it 100% entirely up to my child without encouraging him one way or the other, I can guarantee you that he wouldn't choose to be baptized in the LDS church.  He would choose one of the others he likes attending MUCH better.  I don't know how I feel about that.  I don't want him to join some other church, but I don't want him to join our church because of social pressure, either. 

The choice really is the parents choice at this age - what we allow them or strongly encourage them to do.  8 simply is too young to be competent to weigh different options and make a spiritually mature decision on their own based on doctrinal and spiritual understanding. 

 I've known multiple families that waited for their kids to be baptized for one reason or another. One was when I was a YW. She was in YW with me and I was honestly surprised when I found out she was getting baptized since I had no idea. Another was my friend. To be fair, that was a very short wait. Her son's a very thoughtful kid and didn't feel ready immediately, they didn't push and a few months later he decided he wanted to. The last is several of my siblings on my dad's side. My dad is not a member of the church though he's lived in UT for decades. He wanted at first to make sure it was their decision and after that didn't want them to be baptized until they were adults. 2 of the 3 have been. The last one probably will, but he's got to get a few things in order in his life before he could. None of them were treated as an other. All of them were comfortable in their church experiences for the most part. The biggest drama came when my younger siblings wanted to get baptized before 18 and couldn't get permission from him...and even that wasn't super big. It was more a frustration for my step-mom who is a member. 

If you don't want him to get baptized in our church yet, feel that if it were his choice right now he wouldn't, then don't. It seems fairly simple to me since that option has happened in my circle multiple times. It's not the end of the world. There's some benefits and in some ways I haven't seen much of a difference in end results. They either became more cemented in their faith or distanced themselves in terms of participation in one way or another. Just like everyone else. And in the meantime, most people don't really pay it much attention unless there's a temple trip or when handing out priesthood assignments for sacrament. TBH, to me at least it feels like your paralyzed in this decision by potential problems in the unknowable future. There's no way to completely avoid some negative experiences or difficulty arising from faith and life experiences. It doesn't work anyways even if you could. People who do have a soft start often fall flat on they backsides when other difficulties arise later in life. 

If you don't want him joining another church right now, then don't let him. My dad did as much and the kids are fine. Personally I would want to make sure there's a deeper commitment than just "this church is fun or cool!" when deciding which one to join, especially when the rest of the family are not consistent participants in it. There should be a deeper sense of congruence than enjoyment for such an important decision.

 

As for why there's  so much expectations on families...probably because there's an emphasis on wanting to help children and families grow in the gospel and preparing them for other covenants later. I don't think the church is wrong in this. I want my daughter to understand and be exposed to other forms of worship and beliefs. But I also want her to be grounded in the tradition I know best and with the specific beliefs we as her parents value more. I think (hope?) there's a healthy balance in that. If/when she's older and has more of a grasp of religious differences beyond overt behavioral ones and has the willingness to follow through on living those on her own, then that will be hers to decide. I personally like the idea I heard the other day of having a faith or belief tradition to be grounded in while then exploring other beliefs as one grows. Kids are not adults, I don't think they can fully weigh the wide variety of faiths at a super young age. But I do believe that they can start experiencing goodness and spiritual answers (since I did) at a fairly young age. I want her to have a vocabulary or language in faith to start off with and then she can learn about the other ways people speak to, see, and engage with God. 

If you feel like baptism in our faith would be harmful to him at his age, then don't let him. Again, I don't have these same concerns, I think they can be mostly circumvented with appropriate teaching and parenting, but he's also your child. So accept there may be some social pushback at first, stick with what you feel is right, and do that. You may change your mind as you continue to reorient post faith-crisis. You may not. But if the only reason you're not doing this is for fear of social consequence that doesn't seem really solid either. Heck it may help you with your own sense of maturation within your faith experiences by increasing a sense of differentiation and comfort in doing things differently while still engaging with your local church community. 

 

But that's just my opinion. Take it as you will  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 16, 2024 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

@bluebell

Sorry to both of you, I have a lot less time for this board, working on several other projects, and getting a little careless I am afraid.

Sometimes I just grab what was said, and answer that instead of addressing the correct individual.

I am very oriented towards seeing the structure of a position, rather than real communication with a real person.

I just have to limit my posting here I guess- sorry for the error, and please do let me know when ( not if!) I do it again.

🥰

I just didn't want to take credit for bluebell's comment. She's much better at posting.  You are fine though, and ya better stick around! 

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just didn't want to take credit for bluebell's comment. She's much better at posting.  You are fine though, and ya better stick around! 

Aaaahw, thanks.  Here I yam. 🤗

Both of you guys are great!

 

 

[bluebell]

On 1/15/2024 at 4:14 PM, pogi said:

This does bring up an interesting question.  Are you suggesting that breaking a covenant is no worse than breaking the commandment that it is associated with?

I don't know how it would be quantified.  We all break covenants all the time obviously, since we all need repentance.  Is it worse to not mourn with those that mourn or to not keep the sabbath day holy or to not honor your mother and father or to take the sacrament unworthily?  I have no idea.

Quote

Then why not just wait to make the covenants when they are competent and accountable?

If covenants were only obligations without blessings then that would make sense.  But they come with some impressive blessings that most parents want their kids to have access to long before they are adults.  

I think that's why most people don't wait even though it's always an option.

Quote

At some point they are going to understand their covenants, but by then it will be too late.  They can't take it back.  Now that they understand it, they are bound to it.  The opportunity to choose if they want to enter the covenant based on a mature understanding was stolen from them because they entered before they even understood what they were promising.  I am having a hard time understanding why that doesn't seem to matter to some. 

Until they understand it, they aren't bound in the same way as those that do.  We are only ever bound by what we understand.

Quote

 

This is demonstrated in this talk by Elder Ballard:

It seems to be saying that you may not have realized what you were promising at the time, but now that you know, "always remember that you are under this covenant".   Somehow it doesn't seem right that incompetent children are being encouraged to enter eternal contracts that they don't understand - sliding scale or not - because once they do understand, there are no renegotiations.  Sorry, too late.  Wouldn't it be better to just wait until they are competent?  No such contract would be considered ethical in any other institution or format.   

 

I don't believe that God holds people to promises they didn't know they were making.  I don't believe that Elder Ballard believes that either.  But what matters is whether or not you believe that God holds people to promises they didn't know they were making.  

Quote

Lets say a child is born at 8 and decides to leave the church at 16 (my good friend has a son in this very position).  Is this child going to suffer greater consequences than if he was never baptized in the first place, or is there no difference?  

I think it would completely depend on his level of belief/knowledge about the gospel before he decided to leave.  

[Calm]

On 1/15/2024 at 4:14 PM, pogi said:

Is this child going to suffer greater consequences than if he was never baptized in the first place, or is there no difference?  

Isn’t that up to God to decide?  He is allowed to forgive when he wants, be merciful as he sees fits as well as justly punishing.

Edited January 18, 2024 by Calm