|
View Poll Results: Should these particular alcoholics be confirmed? | |||
Yes, confirm them now. | 11 | 78.57% | |
Don't confirm them. Wait a few weeks and see if they can stay off the booze. | 2 | 14.29% | |
Don't confirm them. You might be able to re-baptize them later. | 0 | 0% | |
I have no clue how to handle this scenario. | 1 | 7.14% | |
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-21-2007, 12:55 AM | #1 |
Formerly known as MudPhudCoug
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Land of desolation
Posts: 2,548
|
To confirm or not to confirm, that is the question.
On my mission in Russia, we had all our baptisms in a "bath house" with a pool. Apparently these "bath houses" are used for orgies by day, and for baptisms when the Mormons pay the rent. But that's beside the point.
There was a family that I baptized on Sunday evening. Immediately after the baptism, they had a little something to drink to commemorate the 40th day since their neighbor died (I think that's when the soul is supposed to go to heaven in Russian culture or something). Later that same week, the dad got plastered and beaten to a bloody pulp. I didn't find out till they showed up in Church on Sunday, 2 minutes before the meeting, waiting to be confirmed. (The family claimed that they hadn't touched a drop of alcohol for 8 months prior to baptism.) Should these people have been confirmed as members of the Church? One question I had was this: if they aren't confirmed now, when will they be confirmed? What is proper procedure? If we don't confirm them as members of the Church, and they want to become members later--do we wait a few weeks for confirmation or re-baptize them later if they stay off the booze? We had an 18 year old branch president at the time, and he obviously wasn't much help. So I'm curious what you people think. Last edited by SoonerCoug; 08-21-2007 at 01:01 AM. |
Bookmarks |
|
|