Do LDS bishops allow a man to baptize his kids...

[MikeWaters]

I think it's possible that both decisions the bishop made were inspired (to deny, then relent). Of course, the opposite could be true as well. But I've never met one of these "bad" bishops.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm actually not agreeing with the reaction that everyone seems to be having that this was the wrong call on your Bishop's part.

link?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

link?

It is the bishop's call and I suppose he made the call in the interests of the boy.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Again, to me that decision has zero to do with you non-seq and everything to do with your son. I'm not saying I know your Bishop did the right thing, but no one here has enough information to say he didn't.

I don't agree with this. The baptism is not some event isolated from a family's welfare. A bishop's concern for the FAMILY UNIT is appropriate.

I imagine that the Bishop at first thought "this would be a great opportunity for NS to come into full fellowship and thereby bless his family." The bishop makes an invitation. And then all hell breaks lose.

Thank God I'm not a bishop.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is the bishop's call and I suppose he made the call in the interests of the boy.

which call? the first or second?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

which call? the first or second?

Both.

I suppose the rationale, is, "Geeze, this guy doesn't meet the normal standards, so no."

Then secondly, "if I don't this little guy won't get baptized and won't be fellowshipped."

As you say, maybe both calls were correct. Ultimately whether to allow it is the bishop's call with no good answers.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

link?

Here ya go, Indy:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

sounds to me like he shouldn't have relented. then maybe you would be active now.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am surprised the Bishop allowed you to baptize your son and he should not have.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It sounded more as if you threw a tantrum and the bishop concerned for your son relented. But I believe the handbook does allow the Bishop to determine worthiness to baptize. If you go to another ward, you must garner approval from your bishop to baptize in another ward.

It is a privilege to baptize not some right. And somebody throwing a tantrum doesn't really show me that person deserves to exercise that privilege.

My son wanted me to baptize him, so I did what I had to do honor my son's wishes. I didn't care who baptized him; it's a gesture that was important to my son, not to me.

I'm interested that you characterize my disagreement as a tantrum. You're not exactly the type of person to pass up an opportunity to express your disagreement with others. Do you consider your constant bitching and moaning to be nothing more than tantrum throwing?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't agree with this. The baptism is not some event isolated from a family's welfare. A bishop's concern for the FAMILY UNIT is appropriate.

I imagine that the Bishop at first thought "this would be a great opportunity for NS to come into full fellowship and thereby bless his family." The bishop makes an invitation. And then all hell breaks lose.

Thank God I'm not a bishop.

I can buy that. I would incline toward erring in the direction of the 8 year old's interests if it were a close call, however. I think it is phenomenally hard to identify the interests of either the individuals or the family group. That is why a leader has to rely on any revelation he might get and do his best. But again, if I thought I could put my finger on the least harsh most merciful thing that would be the button I would be mostly likely to push. I would probably get walked all over.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Here ya go, Indy:

I thought you meant you agreed with the original decision to deny.