[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Levin

I don't know what you mean that "baptism is a continual process." It's an ordinance with a fixed point in time that has spiritual effect at that point in time. It starts you on a path, yes, but what we've been discussing is whether 8 year olds are able to apprehend the moral implications of being baptized at that point in time. As to the essentials of baptism, I say yes. That it takes a liftime of endurance, and a weekly renewal of promises, to follow Christ is beside the point.

Again, I disagree with your emphasis on the Church as defining the liminal event. For me, baptism is not about moving from non-membership to membership, but about moving from a non-follower of Christ to a follower of Christ. So the heart of what we've been discussing is whether we think 8 year olds have the moral maturation to choose to follow Christ -- to want to be a follower of Christ. Baptism is the ritual by which you signify your willingness. That the Church provides the authority for that ritual, and acts as an authority for the child thereafter, I agree with that. But Church membership doesn't make baptism a crossover event; being a follower of Christ does.

The preceding paragraph is why I think we need to respect the baptisms of other Christian denominations. The "authority" may not be there, but the spiritual essentials are. It bugs me that we focus on the lack of authority rather than on the decision to follow Christ, albeit as members of a different denomination.

As to the spiritual effects for the individual, the cleansing that they feel and the devotion to which they set their heart, I see little difference between baptism into the LDS Church versus baptism into the Catholic church so long as the person does it for Christ's sake, and not for the Church's.

I sound like a broken record--but you don't understand. I'll try and lay this out in bullet points:

• I am suggesting that baptism is more accurately and usefully looked at as a process and not simply as a ritual event (or object). I hope you'll consider this idea, instead of just dismissing it because it is different from what you have put forward.
• I am suggesting that while the ritual event of baptism (that is, the ritual event that belongs to the larger process of baptism I am conceptualizing) is necessary and may have or coincide with a spiritual effect, the more important spiritual effect is for the person to continue to mature in Christ. I see this as part and parcel of eternal progression.
• I am suggesting that there is a better question than the one being discussed. People growing in their understandings of the moral implications of baptism are more important. Your whole paradigm for thinking of baptism as a discrete event is beside "the point," as it were, as it is useless.
• I have asserted that the ritual of baptism can have moral value for an eight-year-old that an infant baptism cannot, but that this is only a step in the direction of being able to comprehend baptism in a way that will help one mature in Christ.
• I have asserted that some of the value of remembered baptism comes with reflection, and long after the ritual itself.
• I have asserted, as per Kohlberg, that eight-year-olds will typically understand baptism within a known-authority-figure and immediate- consequences framework. You haven't disputed this.
• I have asserted that the eight year old's understanding of an event like baptism can increase over time, and that therefore its value can increase.
• You evidence misunderstanding when you declare, "I disagree with your emphasis on the Church as defining the liminal event." Baptism as a ritual is a liminal event that is authorized by the Church. This is a statement of fact, that one can observe or ignore, but it is not a matter of agreement/disagreement.
• I mention the value of membership and beholdeness to the Church's authority because seeing one's identity as part of an institution--such as a Church--has implications for moral development, and particularly for children as beginning to see consequenses and responsibilities beyond their families, friends, and classrooms.
• I haven't asserted that "Church membership makes baptism a crossover event" in the sense you assume. When I'm talking about authority in this discussion, I don't specifically mean priesthood authority. I mean moral authority. There is the potential for developmental value in children agreeing to abide by insitutional moral authority--this is the value of membership agreed upon at the ritual of baptism that I am asserting. I am not advancing the idea that Christian baptism more generally is useless because such persons do not become Mormons. I have argued to the contrary, actually. My arguments have everything to do with Kohlberg's arguments about moral development.

I hope this clears things up. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just arguing for the value of looking at the entire issue differently. If you don't find something worthy in my perspective, or are simply puzzled, I'm OK with you moving on to another discussion at this point.